ObjectiveThe Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) is a validated instrument measuring the economic burden experienced by patients with cancer. We evaluated the frequency of financial toxicity at different COST levels and stratified risk factors and associations with cost-coping strategies by financial toxicity severity.MethodsWe analyzed previously collected survey data of gynecologic oncology patients from two tertiary care institutions. Both surveys included the COST tool and questions assessing economic and behavioral cost-coping strategies. We adapted a proposed grading scale to define three groups: no/mild, moderate, and severe financial toxicity and used χ2, Fisher’s exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare groups. We used Poisson regression to calculate crude and adjusted risk ratios for cost-coping strategies, comparing patients with moderate or severe to no/mild financial toxicity.ResultsAmong 308 patients, 14.9% had severe, 32.1% had moderate, and 52.9% had no/mild financial toxicity. Younger age, non-white race, lower education, unemployment, lower income, use of systemic therapy, and shorter time since diagnosis were associated with worse financial toxicity (all p<0.05). Respondents with moderate or severe financial toxicity were significantly more likely to use economic cost-coping strategies such as changing spending habits (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 2.7, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.0 moderate; aRR 3.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.4 severe) and borrowing money (aRR 5.5, 95% CI 1.8 to 16.5 moderate; aRR 12.7, 95% CI 4.3 to 37.1 severe). Those with severe financial toxicity also had a significantly higher risk of behavioral cost-coping through medication non-compliance (aRR 4.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 18.1).ConclusionsAmong a geographically diverse cohort of gynecologic oncology patients, nearly half reported financial toxicity (COST <26), which was associated with economic cost-coping strategies. In those 14.9% of patients reporting severe financial toxicity (COST <14) there was also an increased risk of medication non-compliance, which may lead to worse health outcomes in this group.

Objective-Our objective was to evaluate the three domains of financial hardship (psychological response, material conditions, and coping behaviors) among gynecologic cancer patients receiving treatment.Methods-We conducted a single-institution survey of gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy for primary or recurrent disease. Psychological response was measured using Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity, with score <26 indicating financial distress. We measured material conditions by patient-reported changes in employment or spending and coping behaviors by patient-reported medication non-adherence. We performed descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariate logistic regression.Results-Among 121 participants, the mean age was 59 years, 28% were African-American, 50% reported income <$40,000, 74% had private insurance, 20% had only public insurance, and 7% were uninsured. Sixty-five (54%) participants screened positive for financial distress. Age <65

PURPOSE: Our objective was to measure the trajectory of financial distress and to determine its relationship with quality of life (QOL) among patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal survey of patients with gynecologic cancer starting a new line of systemic therapy at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Financial distress was measured using a Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) < 26, and QOL was measured using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) with lower scores indicating worse responses. One-way repeated analysis of variances, generalized estimating equation models, and correlation coefficients were used to evaluate financial distress and QOL over time. RESULTS: There were 90 of 121 (74%) baseline participants with a 6-month follow-up. The average age was 60 years, 29% were African-American, 57% had an annual income < $40,000 in US dollars, and 6% were uninsured. At baseline, 54% of patients screened positive for financial distress, which was unchanged at 3 months (50%, P = .27) but decreased at 6 months (46%, P = .04) compared with baseline. There was no change in average COST (23.6, 25.1, 25.6; P = .33) or FACT-G (70.8, 71.0, 72.8; P = .68) over time. Less financial distress was moderately correlated with better QOL (r = 0.63, 0.61, 0.60) at each time point. The presence of financial distress was associated with a 16-point decrease in FACT-G QOL score over time. CONCLUSION: Upfront screening with COST identified 90% of patients who experienced financial distress, and COST did not change significantly over time. More severe financial distress was moderately correlated with worse QOL, and its presence was associated with a clinically meaningful 16-point decrease in QOL.

No abstract

The incidence of MACCE in women undergoing FPRS was 0.47%, with the highest risk among those with hypertension. Additional significant risk factors were coagulopathy, blood transfusion, congestive heart failure, electrolyte abnormalities, and neurologic disease.

No abstract

No abstract

101 Background: Tracking expenses may be useful to minimize financial distress in cancer patients. Our objective was to evaluate uptake and satisfaction with an out of pocket (OOP) cost tracker for gynecologic cancer patients on treatment. Methods: Within a longitudinal survey to assess financial burden among gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of systemic therapy at a tertiary-care cancer center, we provided worksheets for participants to track their OOP expenses voluntarily. We assessed patient usage and satisfaction at 3 and 6 months. Financial distress was measured using Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity < 26. Results: Among 121 participants with an average age of 59 years, 34 (28%) were African-American and 33 (27%) had a high school diploma or less. Half (55/110, 50%) of participants reported annual income < $40,000. Most participants had health insurance (113/121, 93%) and were unemployed (77/118, 65%). Forty-nine of 121 (40%) participants reported ever using the OOP cost tracker at 3 or 6 months. Those who used the cost tracker stated it was helpful to track costs (86%, 73%), easy to use (97%, 100%), and useful for budgeting (42%, 24%) at 3 and 6 months. Participants reported using the cost tracker at least weekly (33%, 19%), every 2 weeks (36%, 27%), or monthly (31%, 54%) at 3 and 6 months. Twelve participants returned their OOP cost trackers for review with a median use of 5.5 months (range 3-10). Average monthly patient-reported OOP costs (range) were: $41 ($0-$584) for direct non-medical costs (i.e., transportation, lodging), $15 ($0-$120) for outpatient services, $13 ($0-$150) for medications/supplies, and $9 ($0-$100) for hospital services. Use of the OOP cost tracker at 3 months was not associated with financial distress at baseline (p = 0.30) or at 3 months (p = 0.89). Qualitative analysis showed the OOP cost tracker reminded patients to save receipts and to track categories of cost they would not have otherwise considered. Conclusions: 40% of gynecologic cancer patients undergoing treatment used an OOP cost tracker worksheet and found it helpful and easy to use. Direct non-medical costs accounted for the highest average monthly patient-reported OOP cost.