Hanvey, Grace Ann

1593 Background: “Financial toxicity” refers to the financial burden imposed by treatment costs on individuals with cancer, constituting a major barrier to achieving equitable cancer outcomes. Recent literature increasingly demonstrates the detrimental impacts of financial toxicity on quality of life (QOL) among individuals with cancer, including individuals who have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). This study evaluates associations among treatment cost burden and various aspects of QOL following HSCT. Methods: Seven hundred one HSCT recipients completed a survey examining their biopsychosocial health one year following transplant. The survey included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT), a multifactorial measure of QOL specific to this population. Treatment cost burden endorsement was measured on a 5-item Likert scale. Hierarchical regression models were developed to assess the incremental effects of demographic characteristics (i.e., Block 1), clinical predictors (Block 2), and cost burden (Block 3) on physical, emotional, social, functional, BMT-specific, general, and composite QOL outcomes. Results: Significant model improvement was observed with the addition of clinical factors ( ΔF(2,650) = 20.28, p < .001), and subsequently, treatment cost burden ( ΔF(1,649) = 110.29, p < .001). In the final model, higher cost burden was associated with poorer physical (β = -0.323, p < .001), emotional (β = -0.301, p < .001), social (β = -0.250, p < .001), functional (β = -0.317, p < .001), BMT-specific (β = -0.341, p < .001), general (β = -0.377, p < .001), and composite QOL (β = -0.381, p < .001). Poorer performance score was associated with each QOL indicator ( p < .001), with allogeneic transplant type associated with poorer functional (β = -0.001, p = .002), but higher emotional (β = 0.118, p = .002), wellbeing. Older age (β = 0.113, p = .003) and female sex predicted higher (β = 0.183, p < .001), while Hispanic ethnicity predicted poorer (β = -0.095, p = .010), social wellbeing. Female sex was associated with poorer QOL specific to BMT concerns (β = -0.118, p = .001). Conclusions: Higher treatment cost burden is associated with poorer overall QOL and its physical, emotional, social, functional, and BMT-specific components one year following HSCT, after controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. This reflects a critical barrier to equitable cancer care, suggesting that financial toxicity may perpetuate preexisting inequities in QOL, treatment, disease, and survival outcomes that disproportionately impact the underserved. Future research should prioritize 1) better understanding relationships among complex indicators of financial toxicity, QOL, and their underpinning mechanisms and 2) developing solutions to mitigate financial toxicity of HSCT and overall cancer care.

Abstract Extant literature reveals how patients of marginalized social identities, socioeconomic status (SES), and medical experiences – especially patients of color and older adults – are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). Emerging evidence increasingly indicates CCT underrepresentation among patients of lower SES or rural origin, sexual and gender minorities, and patients with comorbid disability. This review applies an intersectional perspective to characterizing CCT representativeness across race and ethnicity, age, sexual and gender identity, SES, and disability. Four databases were systematically queried for articles addressing CCT participation inequities across these marginalizing indicators, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. One hundred one articles were included in a qualitative evaluation of CCT representativeness within each target population in the context of their intersectional impacts on participation. Findings corroborate strong evidence of CCT underrepresentation among patients of color, older age, lower SES, rural origin, and comorbid disabling conditions while highlighting systemic limitations in data available to characterize representativeness. Results emphasize how observed inequities interactively manifest through the compounding effects of minoritized social identity, inequitable economic conditions, and marginalizing medical experiences. Recommendations are discussed to more accurately quantify CCT participation inequities across underserved cancer populations and understand their underpinning mechanisms.

e24125 Background: Gynecologic, gastrointestinal (GI), and thoracic cancers account for significant morbidity and mortality in the U.S. Women with these types of cancers frequently experience psychological distress, among other poor outcomes. Previous research has indicated that mindfulness-based interventions, such as yoga, can be effective in decreasing distress in cancer patients. Notably, this research has primarily been conducted in a breast cancer population with limited research assessing the feasibility, acceptability, and/or efficacy of this type of intervention in other prevalent and impactful cancers among women. The purpose of the present study was to assess the Feasibility and Acceptability of a yoga intervention for women with gynecologic, GI, or thoracic cancers. Methods: A total of 124 women diagnosed with a gynecologic, GI, or thoracic cancer in the prior year were recruited via outpatient oncology clinics to participate in a 10-week, group-based manualized yoga intervention entitled “Stilling the Waters of Uncertainty” (Author: E. Kacel) that is nearing the end of accrual. Participants completed an Acceptability evaluation following each yoga session with ratings on a 5-point Likert scale from “not at all” to “extremely.” Feasibility of the study was operationalized as percentage of eligible participants who (a) enrolled, (b) attended sessions, and (c) completed post-intervention assessment. Acceptability was operationalized as the percentage of participants with average session ratings of “very” or “extremely” for intervention usefulness, enjoyableness, safety, clarity, relevance, and likelihood of continuing to practice skills. Criteria for operationalizing Feasibility and Acceptability for this study were defined a priori based on recommendations of Bowen and colleagues (2009). A minimum of 80% for each measure of feasibility and acceptability was set as the a priori threshold of success in each domain. Results: All measures of Feasibility were below the a priori benchmark of 80%: Of the 318 eligible patients approached for participation, (a) 124 patients (39.0%) enrolled; 49/124 (39.5%) attended at least 1 yoga session; 44/124 (35.4%) attended at least 8 sessions; and (c) 41/124 (33.1%) completed post-intervention assessment procedures. At least 80% of attendees rated the intervention as “very” or “extremely” useful, enjoyable, safe, and clear; 75.5% and 79.6% of attendees rated the intervention as “very” or “extremely” relevant and likely to be continued to be practiced. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that a yoga intervention for women with prevalent non-breast cancer types did not meet a priori criteria for feasibility. However, participants who attended at least 1 session rated the intervention as generally acceptable. Future research is needed to improve study/intervention feasibility in this population. Clinical trial information: NCT03385577.

12129 Background: Depression, anxiety, and fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) constitute prevalent psychological concerns necessitating further attention in developing supportive care interventions for women with gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and thoracic cancers. Recent evidence indicates that such concerns may be especially severe among underserved women of color and women affected by low-socioeconomic status (SES). The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the magnitude of changes in depression, anxiety, and FCR associated with a mindfulness-based yoga intervention among a diverse sample of women with these cancers. A second aim is to identify how changes in these concerns may differ across sociodemographic groups. Methods: Women with gynecologic ( n=86), gastrointestinal ( n=17), or thoracic ( n=20) cancers were enrolled in a group-based 10-week yoga intervention utilizing mindfulness meditation, relaxation, and gentle yoga. Prior to and following intervention, participants were administered assessments, including the Beck Depression Inventory – Second Edition (BDI-II) to measure depression, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) to assess anxiety, and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI) to evaluate aspects of FCR. Mixed-linear models evaluated change in outcomes from pre- to post-intervention, with conditional models assessing the effects of age, race/ethnicity, and SES on change. Analyses were conducted prior to trial completion due to approaching accrual period termination. Results: The sample demonstrated a mean age of 58.46 ( SD=10.82) and mean SES score of 3.98 ( SD=1.55) using a 1 to 7 composite scale. Twenty-six percent of participants were of racial and/or ethnic minority status ( n=32). Significant declines in total depressive symptoms, somatic depressive symptoms, state anxiety, and psychological distress due to FCR were observed across the sample. Higher SES was associated with significantly greater reductions in total depressive symptoms and affective depressive symptoms, specifically. Women of color experienced significantly greater declines in somatic symptoms compared to non-Hispanic White women. Conclusions: This mindfulness-based yoga intervention was associated with significant reductions in depressive symptoms, state anxiety, and psychological distress related to FCR among women with gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and thoracic cancers. Higher SES and underserved race/ethnicity status moderated some of these effects. Future research should explore the efficacy of this intervention among diverse women in a randomized clinical trial context. Clinical trial information: NCT03385577.