Patient perceptions regarding the process of obtaining oral prostate cancer medications.

Abstract

120 Background: Various oral therapies exist and have improved outcomes for men with prostate cancer. These agents are expensive and put patients at risk for financial toxicity. Although assistance mechanisms exist to offset these costs, navigating through assistance can be complicated and places excess burdens on patients. We conducted a survey of men prescribed oral therapies for prostate cancer to assess financial toxicity and perceptions on the process of obtaining oral cancer medications for prostate cancer. Methods: Patients with prostate cancer who had been prescribed abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide or darolutamide at our institution in the six months prior to survey distribution were identified. Those with an email address were eligible for inclusion and sent a survey. Financial toxicity was assessed using the FACIT-COST score. Perceptions of the process of obtaining medication were assessed with a novel measure, which included questions regarding affordability, delays in care and ease of obtaining medications. We assessed bivariate associations between financial variables and financial toxicity measures. Results: Of 238 patients identified, 188 had a listed email address. Response rate was 28% of eligible patients (n = 53). Among respondents, 53% reported household income < $100,000 and 32% > $100,000, 15% declined to answer. A total of 41% utilized commercial insurance, 23% Medicare D, 28% an alternative Medicare program, 2% Medicaid and 4% had no prescription coverage. Monthly costs were between $100 and $1000 for 15% of patients and > $1000 for 6%. A total of 25% of patients considered their medication somewhat or very unaffordable; 13% were somewhat or not at all confident about affording their medication in the future; 6% reported delays in starting; 15% found the initial process of obtaining their medication somewhat or very stressful; 9% reported ongoing stress about affording their medications. Those with monthly cost > $100 were less likely to consider their medication affordable (p = 0.001). Those with commercial insurance were least likely to perceive delays in care (p = 0.024). Primary insurance type but no other variable was associated with difference in COST score with those who had commercial insurance reporting less financial toxicity than those with Medicare. Conclusions: The costs of oral prostate cancer medications are a concern for many men with prostate cancer. In a survey at our institution, many patients have high costs, despite the availability of financial assistance. In addition, many reported distress and uncertainty related to the process of obtaining their prostate cancer medications. Our survey was limited by small sample size and low response rate utilizing email as primary contact. We expect that many patients without access to email would be those at higher risk of financial toxicity. Further studies will aim to recruit patients directly in clinics.