Implementing an oncology financial navigation program is feasible, provides concrete assistance in navigating the cost of care, and mitigates anxiety about costs in a subset of patients. Future work will focus on measuring the program's impact on financial and clinical outcomes.

Background: Few studies have engaged patients and caregivers in interventions to alleviate financial hardship. We collaborated with Consumer Education and Training Services (CENTS), Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF), and Family Reach (FR) to assess the feasibility of enrolling patient–caregiver dyads in a program that provides financial counseling, insurance navigation, and assistance with medical and cost of living expenses. Methods: Patients with solid tumors aged ≥18 years and their primary caregiver received a financial education video, monthly contact with a CENTS counselor and PAF case manager for 6 months, and referral to FR for help with unpaid cost of living bills (eg, transportation or housing). Patient financial hardship and caregiver burden were measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity–Patient-Reported Outcomes (COST-PRO) and Caregiver Strain Index (CSI) measures, respectively, at baseline and follow-up. Results: Thirty patients (median age, 59.5 years; 40% commercially insured) and 18 caregivers (67% spouses) consented (78% dyad participation rate). Many participants faced cancer-related financial hardships prior to enrollment, such as work change or loss (45% of patients; 39% of caregivers) and debt (64% of patients); 39% of caregivers reported high levels of financial burden at enrollment. Subjects received $11,000 in assistance (mean, $772 per household); 66% of subjects with income ≤$50,000 received cost-of-living assistance. COST-PRO and CSI scores did not change significantly. Conclusions: Patient–caregiver dyads were willing to participate in a financial navigation program that addresses various financial issues, particularly cost of living expenses in lower income participants. Future work should address financial concerns at diagnosis and determine whether doing so improves patient and caregiver outcomes.

Background The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has engaged an External Stakeholder Advisory Group (ESAG) in the planning and implementation of the TrACER Study (S1415CD), a five-year pragmatic clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of a guideline-based colony stimulating factor standing order intervention. The trial is being conducted by SWOG through the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program in 45 clinics. The ESAG includes ten patient partners, two payers, two pharmacists, two guideline experts, four providers and one medical ethicist. This manuscript describes the ESAG’s role and impact on the trial. Methods During early trial development, the research team assembled the ESAG to inform plans for each phase of the trial. ESAG members provide feedback and engage in problem solving to improve trial implementation. Each year, members participate in one in-person meeting, web conferences and targeted email discussion. Additionally, they complete a survey that assesses their satisfaction with communication and collaboration. The research team collected and reviewed stakeholder input from 2014 to 2018 for impact on the trial. Results The ESAG has informed trial design, implementation and dissemination planning. The group advised the trial’s endpoints, regimen list and development of cohort and usual care arms. Based on ESAG input, the research team enhanced patient surveys and added pharmacy-related questions to the component application to assess order entry systems. ESAG patient partners collaborated with the research team to develop a patient brochure and study summary for clinic staff. In addition to identifying recruitment strategies and patient-oriented platforms for publicly sharing results, ESAG members participated as co-authors on this manuscript and a conference poster presentation highlighting stakeholder influence on the trial. The annual satisfaction survey results suggest that ESAG members were satisfied with the methods, frequency and target areas of their engagement in the trial during project years 1–3. Conclusions Diverse stakeholder engagement has been essential in optimizing the design, implementation and planned dissemination of the TrACER Study. The lessons described in the manuscript may assist others to effectively partner with stakeholders on clinical research.

Background Serum markers are used prior to pelvic imaging to improve specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of ovarian cancer multimodal screening strategies. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled pilot trial to estimate surgical PPV of a “2 of 3 tests positive” screening rule, and to compare use of HE4 as a 1st-line (Arm 1) vs. a 2nd-line (Arm 2) screen, in women at high and elevated risk for EOC at five study sites. Semi-annual screening was offered to 208 women aged 25-80 with deleterious BRCA germ-line mutations, and to 834 women aged 35-80 with pedigrees suggesting inherited susceptibility. Annual screening was offered to 130 women aged 45-80 (Risk Group 3) with epidemiologic and serum marker risk factors. Rising marker levels were identified using the parametric empirical Bayes algorithm. Results Both strategies yielded surgical PPV above 25%. Protocol-indicated surgery was performed in six women, identifying two ovarian malignancies and yielding a surgical PPV in both arms combined of 33% (95% CI: 4%-78%), 25% in Arm 1 and 50% in Arm 2. Surgical consultation was recommended for 37 women (26 in Arm 1, 11 in Arm 2). Based on 12 women with at least 2 of 3 tests positive (CA125, HE4 or imaging), an intent-to-treat analysis yielded PPV of 14% in Arm 1 and 20% in Arm 2. Conclusions Positive screens were more frequent when HE4 was included in the primary screen. Impact. HE4 may be useful as a confirmatory screen when rising CA125 is used alone as a primary screen.