Cohen, Jonathon B.

Background: Financial toxicity (FT), or the negative impact of medical expenses experienced by patients, is a known adverse effect of cancer treatment that result in worse health outcomes for patients. However, there is limited literature investigating FT in lymphoma with even less data on predictors such as age, gender, and socioeconomic factors. As lymphoma treatment options expand, it is vital to understand the impact of these treatments on patients' financial well-being. We investigate FT through patient reported outcomes from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO), a large multi-institution prospective cohort study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed NHL were enrolled into the LEO cohort from 2015-2020. Clinical, pathology and treatment data were abstracted from medical records, and participants were offered self-administered surveys at enrollment and selected follow-up time points. Participants were included if they completed at least four of six survey questions on FT adapted from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) within the first year after diagnosis. Questions focused on either material hardship (unable to cover costs; file for bankruptcy; borrow money; work extra job or hours) or psychological stress (worried about paying large medical bills). We evaluated FT as answering positively to any question (any vs none). Associations with FT were evaluated using chi-squared tests. All analyses were performed using R (v4.2.2). Results: 3202 patients completed at least four survey questions relating to FT. Mean age at diagnosis was 62 years (18-94), 56% were male, and majority identified as white (90%). Characteristics associated with FT are reported (p<0.001). FT was more likely in younger patients: 18-25 years (64%, 30/47), 26-44 years (73%, 299/313), and 45-64 years (58%, 799/1375) as compared to those 65-79 years (36%, 459/1272) and ≥80 years (35%, 69/195). FT was highest in patients without a high school diploma (54%, 45/84), followed by patients with a high school diploma (52%, 209/402), and an associate's degree (57%, 358/627). It was lowest in patients with a bachelor's (45%, 224/296) or post-graduate degree (39.6%, 216/545). Higher FT was seen in those receiving disability income (65%, 47/72); whereas less FT was seen in retired patients (36%, 299/828). FT rates inversely correlated with income: 65% for income < $21,000 (184/283), 61% for $21,000- $39,999 (224/370) and 60% for $40,000-$65,999 (293/491). Lower FT noted for income range of $66,000-$106,000 (47%, 323/681) or > $106,000 (37%, 324/872). Patients separated from a partner (82.9%, 19/23) had the highest FT, followed by patients living with a partner (64%, 48/75), divorced (56%, 103/184), and never married (53.4%, 79/148). Patients who were married (47%, 793/1672) or widowed (41%, 60/146) reported the lowest FT. Higher FT was reported in DLBCL (55%, 631/1146), MCL (55%, 172/315), and TCL (53%, 119/226) when compared to FL (44%, 327/746), MZL (44%, 137/316), and other NHL (44%, 200/453). This is likely related to treatment as more FT was seen in patients who received an anthracycline and/or alkylator containing therapy (54%, 1066/1963) versus non-systemic (43%, 120/278) and observation (35%, 168/483). In multivariable analyses, FT strongly correlated with age at diagnosis, household income, and treatment type. The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals for the most significant category within each variable are as follows: age per 1 year (0.96, [0.95-0.97]), income > $106,000 vs < $21,000 (0.28, [0.21-0.38]), and observation vs anthracycline and/or alkylator (0.56, [0.44-0.71]). Conclusion: Nearly 50% of patients with lymphoma experience FT, seen as material hardship and psychological stress, within the first year of diagnosis. Patients with a younger age (18-44), less education, and lower household income reported higher levels of FT; whereas those who were retired or married/widowed reported lower FT. Lymphoma subtypes that require more anthracycline and/or alkylator containing therapy imposed higher FT. Understanding these risk factors can help clinicians identify patients who may benefit from additional resources during lymphoma management.

Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL) are incurable and disproportionately affect adults age >65 in whom frailty and functional impairment can impact disease management. The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) is a 13-item screening tool that incorporates age, self-rated health, physical function limitations, and functional disabilities to identify vulnerable older community-dwelling adults. Adults with a VES-13 score of >3 have a fourfold increased risk of death or functional decline over 2 years as compared to adults with a score <3 (Saliba et al, JAGS 2001). Our team previously showed that VES-13 >3 was associated with a higher risk of 1-year mortality in NHL (OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.15-4.96, Fama et al, ASH 2019), including in adults age <65. In this study, we determined whether VES-13 scores >3 were associated with quality of life (QOL) changes in adults with iNHL across the age spectrum. Methods: We used the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study to identify adults enrolled from 2015-2020 with grade 1-3A follicular and marginal zone lymphoma (FL, MZL) who completed the VES-13 at enrollment and QOL surveys at enrollment and follow-up. The LEO Cohort Study enrolls participants within 6 months of diagnosis and collects information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and patient-reported functional assessment. For this analysis we included QOL measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1 and 2 post-enrollment. The FACT-G total score was the sum of 4 subscales (range): physical (PWB, 0-28), social/family (SFWB, 0-28), emotional (EWB, 0-24), and functional (FWB, 0-28) well-being. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better overall QOL. VES-13 scores ranged from 0 (lowest risk for death or decline) to 10+ (highest risk). Generalized linear mixed models evaluated changes in QOL from baseline based on VES-13 score >3 (vulnerable) vs <3 (non-vulnerable), within groups by age at enrollment >65 and <65. Results: Our study included 1,186 participants: 42% age >65, 54% female, 84% non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic, 3.3% Black, and 1.4% Asian/Pacific Islander. Most (68%) were diagnosed with FL. FLIPI was high risk for 20%, and MALT-IPI was high risk for 23%. In the VES-13 <3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 86.5 (12.0), PWB 21.0 (3.5), SFWB 24.3 (4.3), EWB 18.8 (3.7), and FWB 22.3 (4.9). In the VES-13 >3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 70.4 (16.5), PWB 15.4 (5.6), SFWB 22.3 (5.5), EWB 17.5 (4.5), and FWB 15.3 (6.4); all significantly lower than the VES-13 >3 group (all p<0.01). In adults <65, 63 (9%) had a VES-13 >3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline in PWB at years 1 and 2 when compared to VES-13 <3 (changes in baseline PWB were 2.1, 2.9 for VES-13 >3 vs 0.2, 0.1 for VES-13 <3, all p<0.05). Similarly, we observed improvement in FWB from baseline at years 1 and 2 in the VES-13 >3 vs <3 group (2.4, 2.9 vs 0.4, -0.1, respectively all p<0.05). The VES-13 >3 group had a decline in their EWB at 1 year vs the VES <3 group (-0.5 vs 1.2, respectively, p=0.003). At year 2, total FACT-G improved from baseline in the VES-13 >3 group (5.6 for VES-13 >3 vs -0.5 for VES-13 <3, p=0.002). SFWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. In adults >65, 83 (17%) had a VES-13 >3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline PWB (1.3, 1.5 for VES-13 >3 vs. 0.1, -0.1 for VES-13 <3), FWB (3.3, 2.2 for VES-13 >3 vs. 0.5, 0.1 for VES-13 <3), and total FACT-G score (5.2, 3.4 for VES-13 >3 vs. 1.0, -0.4 for VES-13 <3) when compared to VES-13 <3 at years 1 and 2 (all p<0.05). SFWB and EWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. While there was improvement from baseline PWB and FWB in the VES-13 >3 group, QOL scores across all subscales remained below the VES-13 <3 group in the study period for both age groups. Statistical significance was maintained in models adjusted for baseline characteristics, including initial treatment strategy (observation, systemic, vs local) for both age groups. Conclusion: Although the vulnerable group reported worse QOL throughout the study period compared to the non-vulnerable group, survivors in the vulnerable group saw greater improvement in their physical and functional well-being at 1- and 2-years post-diagnosis. Additional analyses are underway to identify drivers of improvement in physical and functional well-being in vulnerable adults diagnosed with iNHL.

Background: Due to recent advances, patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) have multiple treatment options with high response rates and durability. However, there is a gap in understanding how patient preferences influence treatment selection. To close this gap, we conducted a qualitative study using focus groups of adults with FL to understand their knowledge of treatment options, priorities, and decision-making process. We designed this study to inform the content of a planned discrete choice experiment in a larger population of patients with FL to better understand patient preferences and trade-offs around treatment delivery, side effects, outcomes, and quality of life. Methods: We conducted focus groups lasting 60-90 minutes, each with 3-5 participants recruited from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study. The LEO Cohort Study is a multi-institutional prospective cohort study of newly diagnosed adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma from July 2015 to present. Each focus group was co-led by two investigators (U.D. and M.T.) and conducted using Zoom video technology. Participants were asked to comment on their understanding about FL and available treatments, their ideal treatment, their decision-making process about prior therapies, and quality of life and side effects associated with treatment. We performed exploratory content analysis of participant understanding of FL and their treatment preferences. We will continue to conduct focus groups until we reach thematic saturation, which we anticipate will occur with one additional focus group. Themes from all focus groups were identified and agreed upon by both investigators (U.D. and M.T.) and were verified by additional investigators (J.D., M.L, M.H., B.K.L, C.C., M.M.). Results: To date, we conducted five focus groups with a total of N=21 participants (median age 60 [range 41-88], 66.7% female, 71.4% non-Hispanic White, 14.3% Hispanic, 9.5% Asian, 4.8% Black/Hispanic). We identified the following themes and representative quotes: 1) Holistic approach:Participants wanted their oncologists to view their care from a holistic perspective, discussing their individual priorities and options that would accommodate their fitness routine and ability to work. “[I wish] if doctors can consider not just the physical choices, but also the mental and emotional choices as well, the holistic person.” - Participant 13 “There's zero chance I can go back to working in the type of career where other people rely on me for things. I can't keep things straight.” - Participant 16 2) Ideal treatment:An ideal treatment would limit impact on fatigue, cognitive function, and have minimal toxicity to preserve quality of life and an active lifestyle. “I would say something that has minimal impact on daily life would be ideal and something that would make you feel better.” - Participant 6 3) Shared decision-making: Participants wanted to be better informed about available treatment options and often utilized second opinions to inform their decisions. “It helped to get the second opinion versus not. It would've been a completely different set of events.” - Participant 17 4) Treatment burden:Financial impact and effort required by patients to receive care (e.g., travel, number of office visits, and duration of therapy) were key factors in patient decision-making. “Part of my quality of life went down because I had to fight with my insurance company consistently, and we pay a lot of money.” - Participant 11 “Really explain the time options and calendarize the treatment and be more specific about the amount of time that you're going to spend at the hospital and the process.” - Participant 20 5) Representation: Minority participants raised concerns about not knowing if the available treatment data pertained to them. “[My end-goal would be] having an understanding of how the treatment is going to be for minority people. Many times the treatments are tested, they are not tested for minorities.” - Participant 21 Conclusions: The patient perspective is critical for treatment decision-making and education. People living with FL expressed a desire for a holistic and individualized approach to treatment decision-making that incorporated their lifestyle, minimized side effects, and limited overall treatment burden. These focus groups identified emerging themes that warrant further investigation for survivors with FL.