Williams, Colt

ABSTRACTOf the many burdens cancer patients face, the impact on personal finances is often invisible to clinicians. Financial toxicity refers to the negative impact on patients’ and families’ quality of life due to a combination of high out‐of‐pocket costs of medical treatment, diminished savings, and psychological distress as a result of diminished finances. Financial toxicity in cancer care has been more closely examined in the standard‐of‐care setting. Financial toxicity in the early phase clinical trial setting, and the ethical implications of making patients pay out of pocket to access experimental interventions that may not have therapeutic benefit, have yet to be explored. This article seeks to highlight hidden costs of clinical trial participation in the U.S., and to illustrate how patients are susceptible to financial toxicity from nonmedical direct costs and indirect costs even though a trial intervention itself is not charged to the patient. We argue that not informing prospective participants of the potential costs of trial participation threatens their autonomy and interferes with researchers’ prima facie duties to beneficence and nonmaleficence.

Introduction: Medical trainees experience a high degree of stress that predisposes them to burnout. This pilot study tested a scalable approach to deliver a validated resilience program (Stress Management and Resiliency Training (SMART)) among Hematology/Oncology fellows at an academic medical center. Methods: This was a mixed-methods, prospective, single-arm clinical trial involving Hematology/Oncology fellows at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, USA. Four one-hour training sessions were conducted virtually with 26 fellows. Stress, burnout, and emotional resilience were measured at baseline, three months, and six months post-intervention using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-HSS), and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC2). Changes in mean scores were assessed using paired t-tests. Feasibility and acceptability data were obtained during a virtual focus group. Results: Statistically significant improvements in mean stress (p = 0.004) and professional achievement (p < 0.001) were seen at three months post-intervention. At six months post-intervention, mean stress (p < 0.001) and professional achievement (p = 0.032) continued to improve, while improvements in emotional exhaustion (p = 0.001) and depersonalization (p < 0.001) also became significant. Focus group participants found the program beneficial and reported improved stress and work performance as a result of participation. Conclusion: Virtual implementation of the SMART program is feasible and resulted in improvements in stress and burnout. Focus group participants found the training beneficial, reporting lower stress and improved work performance.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

11016 Background: Stress Management and Resiliency Training (SMART) is a validated resilience training program designed to reduce stress, improve emotional resilience, and decrease burnout. The prevalence of burnout among practicing oncologists is as high as 40%, but unknown among oncology trainees. We implemented a virtual format of the SMART program to the Hematology/Oncology fellowship at Mayo Clinic to assess the feasibility of such a delivery, measure baseline rates of burnout in this group, and to investigate if a virtual method of delivery is as effective as in-person delivery as described in the literature. Methods: The SMART project was a mixed-methods, prospective, single arm clinical trial. Hematology/Oncology Fellows at Mayo Clinic were invited to participate. Four one-hour training sessions were conducted virtually. Fellows were given access to SMART online video modules and a book which supported the content covered during virtual training, a companion resilience mobile app, and a paperback mindfulness journal. Stress, burnout, and emotional resilience were measured at baseline and three months post-intervention using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC2). Changes in mean scores on the PSS, MBI, and CD-RISC2 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Program feedback and feasibility data were obtained during a virtual focus group. Audio transcripts from the focus group were codified for thematic analysis and verified by intercoder triangulation. A 6-month assessment will be due in March 2022. Results: 26 of 50 fellows invited participated in our study. At baseline, 24% of participants had measurable burnout and 92% had moderate to high stress. At 3-months, the number of participants with moderate to high stress decreased to 71%, while rates of burnout remained unchanged. The PSS demonstrated a decrease in mean stress (-10.9%, p = 0.005), while the MBI demonstrated decreased emotional exhaustion (MBI-EE -6.01%, p = 0.04), an improved sense of personal achievement (MBI-PA 28.1%, p < 0.001), but slightly worse feelings of depersonalization (MBI-DP 16.46%, p = 0.05). The CD-RISC2 suggested no change in global emotional resilience (-0.71%, p = 0.82). Thematic analysis of the focus group data revealed that participants overwhelmingly found the program beneficial (83% of all responses), 20% indicated improved stress, and 15% indicated improved work performance. Conclusions: Oncology fellows in this study had lower rates of burnout compared to practicing oncologists. Virtual implementation of the SMART program is feasible and resulted in improvements in stress and prevented worsened burnout. Outcomes were comparable to previously published studies conducted in-person. Focus group participants found the training beneficial, reported lower stress, and improved work performance.