Dataset Information

Financial toxicity in patients with gynecologic malignancies: a cross sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate financial toxicity and assess its risk factors among patients with gynecologic cancers.

Methods

This is a cross sectional study that included 2 survey tools, as well as patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment regimen. Financial toxicity is measured by validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool. Participants were also asked to complete a 55-question-survey on attitudes and perspectives surrounding cost of care. Descriptive statistics was used to report patient demographics. Spearman's rank correlation was calculated to assess the relation between financial toxicity and patient/disease related variables. Graphpad Prism Software Version 8.0 was used for analyses.

Results

A total of 50 patients with various gynecologic malignancies were enrolled. Median COST score was 20.5 (range, 1-33). Sixty-five percent of the patients reported being in debt due to their cancer care and 4% filed bankruptcy. Correlation analysis showed that COST score was correlated with age (r=-0.3, p=0.028), malignancy type (r=0.3, p=0.039) and income (r=0.3, p=0.047). Ovarian cancer patients had significantly less financial toxicity (median COST score=23) when compared to patients with other gynecologic malignancies (median COST score=17, p=0.043). When scores were dichotomized into low (score ≥22) and high toxicity (score <22), 58% (29/50) of the patients were noted to have high financial toxicity. Enrollment to a clinical trial did not significantly alleviate financial burden.

Conclusion

Financial toxicity is a significant burden even among highly insured gynecologic oncology patients. Age, malignancy type and income were correlated with high financial burden.

SUBMITTER: Zeybek B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8550931 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesFinancial 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.MethodsFollow-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.ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionsAmong 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.

Project description:Objective To examine the association between the presence of individual principal investigators' financial ties to the manufacturer of the study drug and the trial's outcomes after accounting for source of research funding.Design Cross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Setting Studies published in "core clinical" journals, as identified by Medline, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013.Participants Random sample of RCTs focused on drug efficacy.Main outcome measure Association between financial ties of principal investigators and study outcome.Results A total of 190 papers describing 195 studies met inclusion criteria. Financial ties between principal investigators and the pharmaceutical industry were present in 132 (67.7%) studies. Of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties and 166 (42%) did not. Of all principal investigators, 156 (39%) reported advisor/consultancy payments, 81 (20%) reported speakers' fees, 81 (20%) reported unspecified financial ties, 52 (13%) reported honorariums, 52 (13%) reported employee relationships, 52 (13%) reported travel fees, 41 (10%) reported stock ownership, and 20 (5%) reported having a patent related to the study drug. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% (103/136) among positive studies and 49% (29/59) among negative studies. In unadjusted analyses, the presence of a financial tie was associated with a positive study outcome (odds ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.1). In the primary multivariate analysis, a financial tie was significantly associated with positive RCT outcome after adjustment for the study funding source (odds ratio 3.57 (1.7 to 7.7). The secondary analysis controlled for additional RCT characteristics such as study phase, sample size, country of first authors, specialty, trial registration, study design, type of analysis, comparator, and outcome measure. These characteristics did not appreciably affect the relation between financial ties and study outcomes (odds ratio 3.37, 1.4 to 7.9).Conclusions Financial ties of principal investigators were independently associated with positive clinical trial results. These findings may be suggestive of bias in the evidence base.