Skip to main content
ASTRO 2024 Main banner
Icon Legend
Presentation Icons
Event Add-on
Event Add-on
In Person Only
In Person Only
Off-site Event
Off-site Event
Location: Marriott Marquis
Location: Marriott Marquis
Back
Main Session View Poster

PQA 06 - PQA 06 Biology and Patient Reported Outcomes/QoL/Survivorship Poster Q&A

2887 - Financial Toxicities of Cancer Treatment for Patients Who Received Curative-Intent Radiation Therapy

Monday, September 30, 2024
5:00 PM – 6:00 PM ET
Location: Hall C

Screen: 5

E. A. Sutton1, M. M. Voss2, B. Brott3, D. K. Ebner4, D. M. Routman1, W. Breen1, A. Bush5, N. Y. Yu6, A. K. Bennett1, D. M. Trifiletti5, H. J. Gunn3, and M. R. Waddle1; 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 2Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, 3Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 4Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, 5Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, 6Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ

Purpose/Objective(s): Radiation Therapy (RT) is generally considered cost effective, but this and other cancer therapies can impact patient financial wellbeing. A multitude of patient, disease, and treatment variables may contribute to financial burden. We aim to define the patient-reported financial burden of cancer treatments over time for a large cohort of patients previously treated with RT at a single institution. Materials/

Methods: In this cross-sectional cohort study, we sent a survey assessing the financial impact of cancer treatment to 24,834 patients who received curative-intent RT for cancer at a single institution across 4 states between 2013-2022. The 23-item survey utilized modified COST-FACIT questions and qualitative questions to assess financial burden. Patient demographics, disease and treatment characteristics, and insurance details were collected and assessed with univariate ANOVAs as predictors of past financial status as measured by the modified COST-FACIT. If a predictor was significant, Tukey’s adjustment was used to conduct pairwise comparisons.

Results: A total of 2,376 patients (11% response) completed the survey and provided consent. Median age was 62 years, 57% were men, 96% were white, and 80% were married. The most common disease sites were GU (28%), Breast (26%) and H&N (9%). Most (47%) had commercial insurance while 33% had Medicare and 10% Medicare Advantage. A total of 42% reported their illness caused at least some financial hardship. Greater financial burden, as measured by decreasing COST-FACIT, was associated with female sex (p<0.001), non-white race (p<0.001), Hispanic ethnicity (p=0.009), lower level of education (p<0.001), use of Medicaid (p<0.001), and single status (p<0.001). Notably, RUCA code and distance from treatment facility were not associated with financial hardship. Patients with CNS or anorectal cancers reported the most financial burden, while GU patients reported the least. Peri-treatment hospitalizations and grade 2+ toxicities were associated with increased financial burden (p<0.001). Chemotherapy, surgery, RT, and immunotherapy were reported as one of the greatest contributors to financial difficulties by 28%, 25%, 25%, and 19% of patients who received them, respectively. For patients with recurrence, 41% reported this to be one of the greatest contributors. While 24% of patients reported not feeling at all in control of their financial situation during treatment, this significantly decreased to 9% at the time of survey (mean 5 years later) (p<0.001).

Conclusion: Many patients experience financial hardship due to their cancer diagnosis and treatment costs. Patient demographics, insurance, diagnosis, and toxicities of treatment were predictors of hardship. Most patients affected regained financial control after treatment. Effective methods to reduce the financial impact of cancer treatment for patients are needed.