Marianne M Casilla-Lennon1, Seul Ki Choi2, Allison M Deal3, Jeannette T Bensen4, Gopal Narang5, Pauline Filippou5, Benjamin McCormick5, Raj Pruthi6, Eric Wallen6, Hung-Jui Tan6, Michael Woods6, Matthew Nielsen6, Angela Smith7. 1. School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: angela_smith@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Costly surveillance and treatment of bladder cancer can lead to financial toxicity, a treatment related financial burden. Our objective was to define the prevalence of financial toxicity among patients with bladder cancer and identify delays in care and its effect on health related quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients with bladder cancer in the University of North Carolina Health Registry/Cancer Survivorship Cohort. Financial toxicity was defined as agreement with having "to pay more for medical care than you can afford." Health related quality of life was measured using general and cancer specific validated questionnaires. Statistical analyses were performed using the Fisher exact test and the Student t-test. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients with bladder cancer were evaluated. Median age was 66.9 years, 75% of the patients were male and 89% were white. Of the participants 33 (24%) endorsed financial toxicity. Participants who were younger (p = 0.02), black (p = 0.01), reported less than a college degree (p = 0.01) and had noninvasive disease (p = 0.04) were more likely to report financial toxicity. On multivariable analysis only age was a significant predictor of financial toxicity. Patients who endorsed financial toxicity were more likely to report delaying care (39% vs 23%, p = 0.07) due to the inability to take time off work or afford general expenses. On general health related quality of life questionnaires patients with financial toxicity reported worse physical and mental health (p = 0.03 and <0.01, respectively), and lower cancer specific health related quality of life (p = 0.01), physical well-being (p = 0.01) and functional well-being (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Financial toxicity is a major concern among patients with bladder cancer. Younger patients were more likely to experience financial toxicity. Those who endorsed financial toxicity experienced delays in care and poorer health related quality of life, suggesting that treatment costs should have an important role in medical decision making.
PURPOSE: Costly surveillance and treatment of bladder cancer can lead to financial toxicity, a treatment related financial burden. Our objective was to define the prevalence of financial toxicity among patients with bladder cancer and identify delays in care and its effect on health related quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients with bladder cancer in the University of North Carolina Health Registry/Cancer Survivorship Cohort. Financial toxicity was defined as agreement with having "to pay more for medical care than you can afford." Health related quality of life was measured using general and cancer specific validated questionnaires. Statistical analyses were performed using the Fisher exact test and the Student t-test. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients with bladder cancer were evaluated. Median age was 66.9 years, 75% of the patients were male and 89% were white. Of the participants 33 (24%) endorsed financial toxicity. Participants who were younger (p = 0.02), black (p = 0.01), reported less than a college degree (p = 0.01) and had noninvasive disease (p = 0.04) were more likely to report financial toxicity. On multivariable analysis only age was a significant predictor of financial toxicity. Patients who endorsed financial toxicity were more likely to report delaying care (39% vs 23%, p = 0.07) due to the inability to take time off work or afford general expenses. On general health related quality of life questionnaires patients with financial toxicity reported worse physical and mental health (p = 0.03 and <0.01, respectively), and lower cancer specific health related quality of life (p = 0.01), physical well-being (p = 0.01) and functional well-being (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Financial toxicity is a major concern among patients with bladder cancer. Younger patients were more likely to experience financial toxicity. Those who endorsed financial toxicity experienced delays in care and poorer health related quality of life, suggesting that treatment costs should have an important role in medical decision making.
Authors: Jonas A de Souza; Bonnie J Yap; Fay J Hlubocky; Kristen Wroblewski; Mark J Ratain; David Cella; Christopher K Daugherty Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ahsan M Arozullah; Elizabeth A Calhoun; Michael Wolf; Denise K Finley; Karen A Fitzner; Elizabeth A Heckinger; Nicolle S Gorby; Glen T Schumock; Charles L Bennett Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2004 May-Jun
Authors: S Yousuf Zafar; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Deborah Schrag; Donald H Taylor; Amy M Goetzinger; Xiaoyin Zhong; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-02-26
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Emily C Dowling; Gery P Guy; Matthew P Banegas; Amy Davidoff; Xuesong Han; Katherine S Virgo; Timothy S McNeel; Neetu Chawla; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Erin E Kent; Chunyu Li; Juan L Rodriguez; Janet S de Moor; Zhiyuan Zheng; Ahmedin Jemal; Donatus U Ekwueme Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Aasthaa Bansal; Catherine R Fedorenko; David K Blough; Karen A Overstreet; Veena Shankaran; Polly Newcomb Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claire de Oliveira; Karen E Bremner; Andy Ni; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Audrey Laporte; Murray D Krahn Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Merel Kimman; Stephen Jan; Cheng Har Yip; Hasbullah Thabrany; Sanne A Peters; Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy; Mark Woodward Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Richard Huan Xu; Ling-Ling Wang; Ling-Ming Zhou; Eliza Lai-Yi Wong; Dong Wang Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Matthew D Galsky; Arjun V Balar; Peter C Black; Matthew T Campbell; Gail S Dykstra; Petros Grivas; Shilpa Gupta; Christoper J Hoimes; Lidia P Lopez; Joshua J Meeks; Elizabeth R Plimack; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Neal Shore; Gary D Steinberg; Ashish M Kamat Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 13.751