Financial toxicity in gynecologic cancer survivors and its impact on quality of life.

Abstract

53 Background: Financial toxicity (FT) is a critical concern for cancer survivors. There is limited data about the relationship between FT throughout the continuum of cancer care, demographics, disease factors, and quality of life (QoL) indicators in gynecologic cancer survivors. Methods: Gynecologic cancer survivors who received treatment from 2015 to 2019 at Loma Linda University Cancer Center were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. A modified version of the comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) survey was used to assess FT at baseline and after treatment. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) survey was used to assess QoL. Demographic data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Associations between disease factors and FT measured at baseline and after treatment were analyzed using univariable linear regression. Lower COST score coefficients indicate greater FT. Correlations between FT and QoL were evaluated using the Pearson correlation. Results: A total of 252 surveys were sent to gynecologic cancer survivors who met study criteria, of whom 28% responded. Amongst 70 patients included in this analysis, the median age was 64 (IQR 56, 70), 47% were white (n = 33), 20% were unemployed, 22% had a high school or lower level of education, and 50% had an annual income < $60,000. With respect to cancer subtype, 63% had uterine cancer (n = 44), 20% had cervical cancer (n = 14), and 17% had ovarian cancer (n = 12). The mean COST score at baseline and after treatment was 21.2 ± 9.2 and 12.9 ± 7.8, respectively. The following characteristics were associated with significantly greater FT at baseline: Hispanic ethnicity (-5.5; 95% CI: -1 to -10), Black race (-14.4; 95% CI: -3.4 to -25.4), household number > 4 (-6.9; 95% CI: -2.6 to -16.4), Medicare insurance (-6.5; 95% CI: -1.7 to -11.2), and Medicaid insurance (-11.2; 95% CI: -4.3 to -17.9) (p < 0.05). Patients who received combined modality surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation had significantly higher FT (-5.6; 95% CI: -1.3 to -9.8, p < 0.05) compared to those who received single-modality treatment. Likewise, patients with 5 or more treatment-related side effects had significantly higher FT (-6.3; 95% CI -1.13 to -11.4, p < 0.05) compared to those who reported no side effects. During treatment, 24% of patients turned down or skipped treatment, 38% quit their job, and 28% reported family members quit their job. Finally, COST scores measured after treatment correlated positively with physical and mental health (Pearson coefficient 0.57 and 0.56 respectively, p < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings support the need for assessing FT at baseline and throughout the continuum of cancer care to provide individualized assistance to patients facing financial strain. FT affects compliance to treatment which can adversely affect cancer-related outcomes and QoL. Additional policies are needed to address the increasing cost of cancer care.