Faculty Bibliography

Financial toxicity describes the adverse impact patients experience from the monetary and time costs of cancer care. The financial burden patients experience comes from substantially increased out-of-pocket spending that often occurs concurrent with reduced income due to sick leave from work. Financial toxicity is common affecting approximately half of patients with a gynecological cancer depending on the validated instrument used for measurement. Financial toxicity is experienced by patients in three domains: economic hardship affecting patients' material conditions (i.e., medical debt), psychological response (i.e., distress), and health-related coping behaviors that patients adopt (i.e., foregoing care due to costs). Higher financial toxicity among cancer patients has been associated with decreased quality of life, impaired adherence to recommended care, and worse overall survival. In this review, we describe the current literature on financial toxicity, including how it can be assessed with validated tools, the downstream impact on patients, risk factors, and employment concerns of survivors. Whenever possible, we highlight data from research featuring patients with gynecologic cancer specifically. We also review studies with interventions aimed to mitigate financial toxicity and offer the reader real world examples of interventions currently being used. Lastly, we provide an overview of health policy developments relevant to financial toxicity and advocate for innovation in the development and implementation of strategies to decrease the financial toxicity patients experience following a diagnosis of gynecologic cancer.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Financial toxicity of cancer treatment is well described in the literature, including characterizations of its risk factors, manifestations, and consequences. There is, however, limited research on interventions, particularly those at the hospital level, to address the issue. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:From March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2022, a multidisciplinary team conducted a three-cycle Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) process to develop, test, and implement an electronic medical record (EMR) order set to directly refer patients to a hospital-based financial assistance program. The cycles included an assessment of the efficacy of our current practice in connecting patients experiencing financial hardship with assistance, the development and piloting of the EMR referral order, and the broad implementation of the order set across our institution. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:In PDSA cycle 1, we found that approximately 25% of patients at our institution experienced some form of financial hardship, but most patients were not connected to available resources because of our referral mechanism. In PDSA cycle 2, the pilot referral order set was deemed feasible and received positive feedback. Over the 12-month study period (March 1, 2021-February 28, 2022) of PDSA cycle 3, 718 orders were placed for 670 unique patients across interdisciplinary providers from 55 treatment areas. These referrals resulted in at least $850,000 in US dollars (USD) in financial aid in 38 patients (mean = $22,368 USD). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The findings from our three-cycle PDSA quality improvement project demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of interdisciplinary efforts to develop a hospital-level financial toxicity intervention. A simple referral mechanism can empower providers to connect patients in need with available resources.

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.

This investigator-designed survey study evaluates oncologists’ attitudes about cancer treatment affordability for patients and acceptability of physician-based solutions.

BACKGROUND:In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the financial burden of severe illness, including associations with higher rates of nonemployment, uninsurance, and catastrophic out-of-pocket health spending. Patients with gynecologic cancer often require expensive and prolonged treatments, potentially disrupting employment and insurance coverage access, and putting patients and their families at risk for catastrophic health expenditures. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to describe the prevalence of insurance churn, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures among nonelderly patients with gynecologic cancer in the United States, to compare within subgroups and to other populations and assess for changes associated with the Affordable Care Act. STUDY DESIGN:We identified respondents aged 18 to 64 years from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006 to 2017, who reported care related to gynecologic cancer in a given year, and a propensity-matched cohort of patients without cancer and patients with cancers of other sites, as comparison groups. We applied survey weights to extrapolate to the US population, and we described patterns of insurance churn (any uninsurance or insurance loss or change), catastrophic health expenditures (>10% annual family income), and nonemployment. Characteristics and outcomes between groups were compared with the adjusted Wald test. RESULTS:We identified 683 respondents reporting care related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis from 2006 to 2017, representing an estimated annual population of 532,400 patients (95% confidence interval, 462,000-502,700). More than 64% of patients reported at least 1 of 3 primary negative outcomes of any uninsurance, part-year nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, with 22.4% reporting at least 2 of 3 outcomes. Catastrophic health spending was uncommon without nonemployment or uninsurance reported during that year (1.2% of the population). Compared with patients with other cancers, patients with gynecologic cancer were younger and more likely with low education and low family income (≤250% federal poverty level). They reported higher annual risks of insurance loss (8.8% vs 4.8%; P=.03), any uninsurance (22.6% vs 14.0%; P=.002), and part-year nonemployment (55.3% vs 44.6%; P=.005) but similar risks of catastrophic spending (12.6% vs 12.2%; P=.84). Patients with gynecologic cancer from low-income families faced a higher risk of catastrophic expenditures than those of higher icomes (24.4% vs 2.9%; P<.001). Among the patients from low-income families, Medicaid coverage was associated with a lower risk of catastrophic spending than private insurance. After the Affordable Care Act implementation, we observed reductions in the risk of uninsurance, but there was no significant change in the risk of catastrophic spending among patients with gynecologic cancer. CONCLUSION:Patients with gynecologic cancer faced high risks of uninsurance, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among patients from low-income families. Catastrophic spending was uncommon in the absence of either nonemployment or uninsurance in a given year.

OBJECTIVES:We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of the oral androgen receptor antagonist enzalutamide in patients with previously treated, recurrent, AR-positive (AR+) ovarian cancer. METHODS:) and overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1 criteria. RESULTS:rate (as binary) was 22% (90% CI: 15.1-100%). The 6-month PFS rate (as time to event) was 19.8% for HGS patients (90% CI: 12.7-100%) and 38.5% (90% CI: 21.7%-100%) for LGS patients. Grade 3 toxicities occurred in 6 patients (one toxicity (Grade 3 rash) was considered a dose-limiting toxicity). One patient died of cardiac arrest after 42 days on treatment of a cardiac arrest not attributed to study drug. CONCLUSIONS:rate of 22% (n = 13); however, the overall response rate was low. Enzalutamide was well tolerated and may be a potential treatment option in select patients.