Sara Bouberhan1, Meghan Shea1, Alice Kennedy2, Adrienne Erlinger2, Hannah Stack-Dunnbier2, Mary K Buss1, Laureen Moss3, Kathleen Nolan2, Christopher Awtrey4, John L Dalrymple4, Leslie Garrett4, Fong W Liu4, Michele R Hacker5, Katharine M Esselen6. 1. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, United States of America; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, United States of America. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02115. 3. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, United States of America. 4. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, United States of America; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02115. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, United States of America; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02115; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America. 6. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, United States of America; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02115. Electronic address: kesselen@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Financial toxicity is increasingly recognized as an adverse outcome of cancer treatment. Our objective was to measure financial toxicity among gynecologic oncology patients and its association with demographic and disease-related characteristics; self-reported overall health; and cost-coping strategies. METHODS: Follow-up patients at a gynecologic oncology practice completed a survey including the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and a self-reported overall health assessment, the EQ-VAS. We abstracted disease and treatment characteristics from medical records. We dichotomized COST scores into low and high financial toxicity and assessed the correlation (r) between COST scores and self-reported health. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of demographic and disease-related characteristics with high financial toxicity, as well as the associations between high financial toxicity and cost-coping strategies. RESULTS: Among 240 respondents, median COST score was 29. Greater financial toxicity was correlated with worse self-reported health (r = 0.47; p < 0.001). In the crude analysis, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, unemployment, cervical cancer and treatment with chemotherapy were associated with high financial toxicity. In the multivariable analysis, only government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, and treatment with chemotherapy were significantly associated with high financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with all cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care (RR: 7.3; 95% CI: 2.8-19.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among highly-insured gynecologic oncology patients, many respondents reported high levels of financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with worse self-reported overall health and cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care.
OBJECTIVES:Financial toxicity is increasingly recognized as an adverse outcome of cancer treatment. Our objective was to measure financial toxicity among gynecologic oncology patients and its association with demographic and disease-related characteristics; self-reported overall health; and cost-coping strategies. METHODS: Follow-up patients at a gynecologic oncology practice completed a survey including the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and a self-reported overall health assessment, the EQ-VAS. We abstracted disease and treatment characteristics from medical records. We dichotomized COST scores into low and high financial toxicity and assessed the correlation (r) between COST scores and self-reported health. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of demographic and disease-related characteristics with high financial toxicity, as well as the associations between high financial toxicity and cost-coping strategies. RESULTS: Among 240 respondents, median COST score was 29. Greater financial toxicity was correlated with worse self-reported health (r = 0.47; p < 0.001). In the crude analysis, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, unemployment, cervical cancer and treatment with chemotherapy were associated with high financial toxicity. In the multivariable analysis, only government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, and treatment with chemotherapy were significantly associated with high financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with all cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care (RR: 7.3; 95% CI: 2.8-19.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among highly-insured gynecologic oncology patients, many respondents reported high levels of financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with worse self-reported overall health and cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Kathleen M Fenn; Suzanne B Evans; Ruth McCorkle; Michael P DiGiovanna; Lajos Pusztai; Tara Sanft; Erin W Hofstatter; Brigid K Killelea; M Tish Knobf; Donald R Lannin; Maysa Abu-Khalaf; Nina R Horowitz; Anees B Chagpar Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Scott F Huntington; Brendan M Weiss; Dan T Vogl; Adam D Cohen; Alfred L Garfall; Patricia A Mangan; Jalpa A Doshi; Edward A Stadtmauer Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 18.959
Authors: S Yousuf Zafar; Rebecca B McNeil; Catherine M Thomas; Christopher S Lathan; John Z Ayanian; Dawn Provenzale Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 3.840
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: Anna Louise Beavis; Awa Sanneh; Rebecca L Stone; Margaret Vitale; Kimberly Levinson; Anne F Rositch; Amanda Nickles Fader; Kristin Topel; Ashley Abing; Stephanie L Wethington Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-05-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Emeline M Aviki; Bridgette Thom; Kenya Braxton; Andrew J Chi; Beryl Manning-Geist; Fumiko Chino; Carol L Brown; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Francesca M Gany Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Ross F Harrison; Shuangshuang Fu; Charlotte C Sun; Hui Zhao; Karen H Lu; Sharon H Giordano; Larissa A Meyer Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Margaret I Liang; Sarah S Summerlin; Christina T Blanchard; Teresa K L Boitano; Warner K Huh; Smita Bhatia; Maria Pisu Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-02-17