Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Cancer-related financial hardship can negatively impact financial well-being and may prevent adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors (ages 15-39) from gaining financial independence. This analysis explored the financial experiences following diagnosis with cancer among AYA survivors. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous survey of a national sample of AYAs recruited online. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) and InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale (IFDFW) assessed financial hardship (cancer-related and general, respectively), and respondents reported related financial consequences and financial coping behaviors (both medical and non-medical). RESULTS:Two hundred sixty-seven AYA survivors completed the survey (mean 8.3 years from diagnosis). Financial hardship was high: mean COST score was 13.7 (moderate-to-severe financial toxicity); mean IFDFW score was 4.3 (high financial stress). Financial consequences included post-cancer credit score decrease (44%), debt collection contact (39%), spending more than 10% of income on medical expenses (39%), and lacking money for basic necessities (23%). Financial coping behaviors included taking money from savings (55%), taking on credit card debt (45%), putting off major purchases (45%), and borrowing money (42%). In logistic regression models, general financial distress was associated with increased odds of experiencing financial consequences and engaging in both medical- and non-medical-related financial coping behaviors. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:AYA survivors face long-term financial hardship after cancer treatment, which impacts multiple domains, including their use of healthcare and their personal finances. Interventions are needed to provide AYAs with tools to navigate financial aspects of the healthcare system; connect them with resources; and create systems-level solutions to address healthcare affordability. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS/CONCLUSIONS:Survivorship care providers, particularly those who interact with AYA survivors, must be attuned to the unique risk for financial hardships facing this population and make efforts to increase access available interventions.

OBJECTIVE:In 2018, evidence-based surgical guidelines were introduced to identify appropriate patients with low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer for ovarian conservation. We sought to identify trends and demographic shifts associated with guideline implementation. METHODS:We identified women treated for endometrioid endometrial cancer at our institution from January 2010 to June 2021. Eligibility criteria included age ≤50 years, normal-appearing ovaries on preoperative imaging, no family history of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome, and no hormone receptor-positive malignancy. Trends in ovarian conservation were examined with the Cochran-Armitage trend test or in a logistic regression model. Associations between ovarian conservation and clinicodemographic factors before and after guideline implementation were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS:Of 420 women ≤50 years of age undergoing surgery for endometrioid endometrial cancer, 355 (85%) met the criteria for ovarian conservation-267 (75%) before and 88 (25%) after guideline implementation. Median patient age was 45 years (range 25-50); 62% were non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic White, 8% non-Hispanic Black, 0% Hispanic Black, and 20% Asian. Patients were significantly more likely to choose ovarian conservation after (48%) compared with before guideline implementation (21%) (p<0.001). Pre-guidelines, non-Hispanic White women were less likely to elect for ovarian conservation (12%) compared with non-Hispanic Black, Asian, or Hispanic White women (28%) (p=0.002). Similarly, older women were less likely to elect for ovarian conservation compared with younger women (p<0.001). There were no differences by obesity (p=0.68), marital status (p=0.86), or insurance (p=0.89). Post-guidelines, there were no differences in ovarian conservation between non-Hispanic White women (36%) and non-Hispanic Black, Asian, or Hispanic White women (50%) (p=0.56). Older women were still less likely to elect for ovarian conservationcompared with younger women (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:After guideline implementation, ovarian conservation increased and uptake disparities across demographic groups decreased.

IMPORTANCE:The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruptions in delivery of cancer treatments; factors associated with treatment delay among patients with cancer who contract COVID-19 need further characterization. OBJECTIVE:To assess the associations of patient factors, social determinants of health, severity of COVID-19, and timing of COVID-19 diagnosis with the risk of treatment delay. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This prospective cohort study was conducted from March 2020 through July 2021 at 60 academic and community medical practices in the United States. Participants included patients with any cancer diagnosis who were scheduled for treatment and contracted COVID-19. Data were analyzed in February 2022. EXPOSURE:Positive test result for SARS-CoV-2. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The main outcomes were treatment delay, defined as more than 14 days between the date originally planned for treatment and the date of initiation of therapy, or discontinuation of therapy. Multivariable analyses were used to assess outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 3028 patients (1470 patients [49%] aged ≥65 years; 1741 [58%] women) were included in the registry. With 962 of 2103 patients (46%) experiencing anticancer drug delay or discontinuation, delays were higher among Black patients compared with White patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.87; 95% CI, 1.40-2.51), Hispanic or Latino patients compared with non-Hispanic or Latino patients (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.34-2.72), patients with 2 or more comorbidities compared with patients with 0 to 1 (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.53), patients with metastatic disease rather than locoregional disease (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29-2.05), and patients who experienced COVID-19 complications compared with those who did not (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.24-1.86). Residing in an area with a higher proportion of residents reporting Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95) and contracting COVID-19 later in the pandemic, compared with those who were infected in March to June 2020, (eg, January to March 2021: OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53) were associated with lower likelihood of drug therapy delay. A total of 95 of 202 patients (47%) experienced delay or discontinuation of radiation treatment, with having 2 or more comorbidities associated with delay (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.20-6.20). Higher local-area median household income was associated with lower likelihood of radiation treatment delay (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.94). There were 89 of 125 patients (71%) who experienced surgical treatment delay, and delays were higher among patients in the South compared with those in the Midwest (OR, 9.66; 95% CI, 2.14-52.3). Interestingly, patients with 2 or more comorbidities, compared with those with 0 to 1, experienced lower likelihoods of surgical treatment delay (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07-0.88). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Our findings suggest that individual patient factors, social determinants of health, and COVID-19 severity and diagnosis date were associated with exacerbated health disparities during the pandemic in regards to cancer treatment delay.

OBJECTIVE:As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, identifying mechanisms to reduce unnecessary costs is critical. The objective of this study is to estimate the annual cost of wasted indocyanine green (ICG) used for sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS:Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database and Premier database, we determined the annual number of cases in which sentinel lymph node mapping with ICG would be used and the median cost of ICG to institutions and patients, respectively. We assumed that gynecologic oncologists use 2-4 mL (20-40%) of the currently available ICG vial kit (25 mg per 10 mL) per case. Estimated waste was then calculated using cost as a measure of institutional waste and charge as excess cost transferred to patients or payers. RESULTS:An estimated 45,864 cases of localized endometrial cancer were identified and eligible for sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping. The mean total cost associated with ICG was 99.20 and the mean charge was $483.64. The estimated excess annual cost to hospitals was $2,729,825 to $3,639,767. Similarly, using mean charge data, the annual cost of wasted drug for patients and payers was $13,308,999 to $17,745,332. CONCLUSIONS:The annual cost of wasted ICG due to its current manufactured vial size exceeds $2 million for hospitals and $13.3-$17.7 million for patients. We suggest ICG vials should be packaged in a 10 mg vial kit (2-4 mL sterile solution) to avoid drug waste and the financial impact to institutions and patients.

BACKGROUND:The cost of cancer care is high and rising. Evidence of increased patient cost burden is prevalent in the medical literature and has been defined as "financial toxicity," the financial hardship and financial concerns experienced by patients because of a disease and its related treatments. With targeted therapies and growing out-of-pocket costs, patient financial toxicity is a growing concern among patients with gynecologic cancer. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to determine the prevalence of financial toxicity and identify its risk factors in patients with gynecologic cancer treated at a large cancer center using objective data. STUDY DESIGN:Using institutional databases, we identified patients with gynecologic cancer treated from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients with a preinvasive disease were excluded. Financial toxicity was defined according to institutionally derived metrics as the presence of ≥1 of the following: ≥2 bills sent to collections, application or granting of a payment plan, settlement, bankruptcy, financial assistance program enrollment, or a finance-related social work visit. Clinical characteristics were gathered using a 2-year look-back from the time of the first financial toxicity event or a randomly selected treatment date for those not experiencing toxicity. Risk factors were assessed using chi-squared tests. All significant variables on univariate analysis were included in the logistic regression model. RESULTS:Of the 4655 patients included in the analysis, 1155 (25%) experienced financial toxicity. In the univariate analysis, cervical cancer (35%), stage 3 or 4 disease (24% and 30%, respectively), younger age (35% for age <30 years), nonpartnered marital status (31%), Black (45%) or Hispanic (37%) race and ethnicity, self-pay (48%) or commercial insurance (30%), clinical trial participation (31%), more imaging studies (39% for ≥9), ≥1 emergency department visit (36%), longer inpatient stays (36% for ≥20 days), and more outpatient clinician visits (41% for ≥20 visits) were significantly associated with financial toxicity (P<.01). In multivariate analysis, younger age, nonpartnered marital status, Black and Hispanic race and ethnicity, commercial insurance, more imaging studies, and more outpatient physician visits were significantly associated with financial toxicity. CONCLUSION:Financial toxicity is an increasing problem for patients with gynecologic cancer. Our analysis, using objective measures of financial toxicity, has suggested that demographic factors and healthcare utilization metrics may be used to proactively identify at-risk patients for financial toxicity.