Patient-Reported Financial Burden of Treatment for Colon or Rectal Cancer

Sheetal Kircher,Fenghai Duan,Na An,Ilanan F. Gareen,JoRean D. Sicks,Gelareh Sadigh,Jennifer M. Suga,Heather Kehn,Paul T. Mehan,Rajesh Bajaj,David S. Hanson,Samir M. Dalia,Jared D. Acoba,Demet Gokalp Yasar,Elyse R. Park,Lynne I. Wagner,Ruth C. Carlos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50844

2024-01-10

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance The longitudinal experience of patients is critical to the development of interventions to identify and reduce financial hardship. Objective To evaluate financial hardship over 12 months in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing curative-intent therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted between May 2018 and July 2020, with time points over 12 months. Participants included patients at National Cance Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites. Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, newly diagnosed stage I to III CRC, not started chemotherapy and/or radiation, treated with curative intent, and able to speak English. Data were analyzed from December 2022 through April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was financial hardship, measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), which assesses the psychological domain of financial hardship (range, 0-44; higher score indicates better financial well-being). Participants completed 30-minute surveys (online or paper) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Results A total of 450 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years; 240 [53.3%] male) completed the baseline survey; 33 participants (7.3%) were Black and 379 participants (84.2%) were White, and 14 participants (3.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino and 424 participants (94.2%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. There were 192 participants (42.7%) with an annual household income of $60 000 or greater. There was an improvement in financial hardship from diagnosis to 12 months of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) points per month ( P < .001). Patients with better quality of life and greater self-efficacy had less financial toxicity. Each 1-unit increase in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (rapid version) score was associated with an increase of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) points in COST score ( P < .001); each 1-unit increase in self-efficacy associated with an increase of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0) points in COST score ( P = .006). Patients who lived in areas with lower neighborhood socioeconomic status had greater financial toxicity. Neighborhood deprivation index was associated with a decrease of 0.3 (95% CI, −0.5 to −0.1) points in COST score ( P = .009). Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that interventions for financial toxicity in cancer care should focus on counseling to improve self-efficacy and mitigate financial worry and screening for these interventions should include patients at higher risk of financial burden.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### The problems the paper attempts to solve

This paper aims to evaluate the changes in the economic burden of patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) and receiving radical treatment within 12 months. Specifically, the research objectives are:

1. **Evaluate the change trajectory of the economic burden**: Through a longitudinal research design, understand how the economic burden of patients changes from diagnosis to 12 months.
2. **Identify factors influencing the economic burden**: Explore how individual - level and socioeconomic factors influence the economic burden of patients, including age, gender, race, education level, income, employment status, insurance type, cancer stage and type, etc.
3. **Explore potential targets for intervention measures**: By analyzing data, find out factors that can be targeted for intervention to reduce the economic burden of patients.

### Research background

In recent years, although the increase in cancer treatment options has improved the treatment effects of many cancer types, it has also brought high economic costs. Especially for patients with early - stage colorectal cancer, the economic burden is an important issue. Previous studies have mainly focused on patients with advanced cancer or retrospective heterogeneous groups, lacking a systematic study of the economic burden of early - stage cancer patients. Therefore, this study fills this knowledge gap by prospectively recording in detail the changes in the economic burden of early - stage colorectal cancer patients within 12 months through a prospective cohort study.

### Main findings

- **Changes in the economic burden**: From diagnosis to 12 months, the economic burden of patients has improved, but the degree of improvement varies among individuals. Specifically, the average monthly improvement is 0.3 points (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3), P < 0.001.
- **Influencing factors**:
- **Quality of life**: For every 1 - unit increase in the FACT - G7 score (quality of life assessment tool), the COST score (economic burden assessment tool) increases by 0.7 points (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9), P < 0.001.
- **Self - efficacy**: For every 1 - unit increase in the self - efficacy score, the COST score increases by 0.6 points (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0), P = 0.006.
- **Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI)**: For every 1 - unit increase in NDI, the COST score decreases by 0.3 points (95% CI, - 0.5 to - 0.1), P = 0.009.
- **Other factors**: Higher income, education level, government insurance (compared with private insurance), employment status, etc. are also associated with a lower economic burden.

### Conclusions

These findings suggest that economic burden intervention measures for newly diagnosed cancer patients should focus on improving self - efficacy and reducing economic concerns. In addition, when screening these intervention measures, it should be ensured that patients with a higher risk of economic burden, such as those with low income, unemployed, government - insured or uninsured patients, are included.

### Formulas and variable explanations

- **COST score**: Ranges from 0 - 44, and the higher the score, the lighter the economic burden.
- **FACT - G7 score**: Ranges from 0 - 28, and the higher the score, the better the quality of life.
- **Self - efficacy score**: Ranges from 1 - 10, and the higher the score, the stronger the self - efficacy.
- **NDI**: Ranges from 0 - 100, and the higher the score, the higher the degree of neighborhood deprivation.

### References

- Kircher, S., Duan, F., An, N., Gareen, I. F., Sicks, J. R., Sadigh, G.,... & Carlos, R. C. (2024). Patient - reported financial burden of treatment for colon or rectal cancer. *JAMA Network Open*, 7(1), e2350844. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50844

Hope this information is helpful to you! If you have more questions or need further explanations, please feel free to let me know.