Sachs, Elizabeth

PURPOSE Approximately three quarters of patients with sarcoma report financial toxicity, defined as the psychosocial and economic burden of cancer care. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) is a screening questionnaire validated in patients with cancer. However, its use is not widespread in sarcoma care, likely in part due to its complexity. This study aimed to characterize financial toxicity in patients with sarcoma and evaluate whether shorter screening tools can identify high-risk patients. METHODS We conducted a survey and retrospective cohort study of patients treated for sarcoma at a large, academic sarcoma center in 2016-2024. Patients completed the COST questionnaire (11 graded questions, each scored on a five-point Likert scale from 0 to 4) and the shorter, four-question Worry about Affording Healthcare Scale (WAHS). We obtained clinical information from the electronic health record. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses to COST, Pearson's correlation coefficient to assess the association between WAHS and COST, and stepwise Spearman correlations to evaluate whether an abbreviated (1-4 question) version of COST correlated highly with total COST score. RESULTS Among 205 participants, the mean COST score was 20/44 (standard deviation = 6; lower scores indicate greater financial toxicity). Respondents worried most about job loss (mean COST: 0.99) and family finances (mean COST: 1.11). WAHS was weakly correlated with COST (r = 0.47, P < .01). A four-item abbreviated COST tool was strongly correlated with the total COST (ρ = 0.906, P < .0001) and demonstrated high sensitivity (96%) and moderate specificity (75%). CONCLUSION An abbreviated four-item COST tool could act as a clinically feasible, accurate screening tool after external validation. Routine financial toxicity screening could facilitate timely detection and referral to essential financial navigation resources.

ABSTRACT Objectives Sarcomas are rare, mesenchymal tumors that require multimodality treatment provided by multidisciplinary teams. This study seeks to better understand sarcoma patient narratives and quality of life in relation to the social determinants of health (SDoH). Methods Eligible patients who were diagnosed with sarcoma, treated by our institution's orthopedic oncology team, and identified with at least one social risk factor were contacted about participating in a semi‐structured interview. SDoH information collected included (1) Economic Stability, (2) Access to Health Care, (3) Neighborhood & Physical Environment, (4) Social & Community Context, and (5) Education Access and Quality. Interviews were then recorded, de‐identified, transcribed, and coded by reviewers. The validated Framework Method for qualitative research was used to summarize themes. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the percentage of participants that identified with each SDoH concern. Results 100% of patients ( N = 17) discussed how quality and access to healthcare affected their experience. 88.2% of participants expressed the importance of transportation. 29.4% of participants discussed how they thought their educational background affected their cancer care. Other common themes centered around social support, employment, financial security, and insurance. Conclusion Our research elicited ways in which SDoH affected the care experience of patients with sarcoma. The identified domains offer clinicians valuable information into non‐clinical factors, such as employment concerns or transportation issues, that may affect care for patients with sarcoma. Interdisciplinary care providers (social workers, psychologists, financial navigators) may also help promote open dialogues with patients about their social circumstances and actively facilitate connections to institutional resources or community support systems.