Dusetzina, Stacie

Objectives To estimate the proportion and correlates of self-reported financial difficulty among patients with multiple myeloma (MM) or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). Setting Sixty-six US community and minority oncology practices affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Programme (NCORP). Participants A total of 521 patients (=18 years) with MM or CLL consented and 416 responded to a survey (completion rate=79.8%). Respondents had a MM diagnosis (74.0%), an associate degree or higher (53.4%), were White (89.2%), insured (100%) and treated with clinician-administered drugs (68.0%). Study design Observational, theoretical model and protocol-based patient survey administered between May 2019 and June 2020. Primary and secondary outcome measures Financial difficulty was assessed using a single-item measure, the EORTC QLQC30: Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties in the past year? and using an any-or-none composite measure of 22 items assessing financial difficulty, worries and the use of cost-coping strategies. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the association of financial difficulty with diagnosis, socioeconomic and treatment characteristics. Results About 16.8% reported experiencing financial difficulty using the single-item measure and 60.3% using the composite measure. Most frequently endorsed items in the composite measure were financial worry about having to pay large medical bills related to cancer and difficulty paying medical bills. Financial difficulty using the single-item measure was associated with having MM vs CLL (adjusted OR (aOR), 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.84; p=0.02), having insurance other than Medicare (aOR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.37 to 4.66; p=0.003), being non-White (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.72; p=0.04) and having a high school education or below (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.64; p=0.001). Financial difficulty using the composite measure was associated with having a high school education or below (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.94; p=0.03). Conclusions US patients with MM and CLL report financial difficulty, especially those with low socio-economic status. Interventions are needed to mitigate patients financial difficulty. Trial registration number NCT03870633 .

8031 Background: New orally administered anticancer treatments have launched in recent years, promising gains in survival and quality of life, but with high prices.Financial difficulties encountered over the course of cancer diagnosis and treatment is a growing concern. These difficulties include inability to pay for basic necessities, presence of medical debt, and high out of pocket burdens relative to income. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the proportion of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who experience financial difficulties in the past 12 months.Methods: Data collection entailed a comprehensive, theoretically grounded telephone survey and companion medical chart abstraction. Subjects included individuals with a current diagnosis of MM whose current or recent treatment included pharmaceutical-based care and who were not enrolled in a treatment-based trial. Practices eligible to recruit respondents included 44 NCORP affiliates of the Alliance. 14 geographically diverse NCORP affiliates participated between 11/2019 and 6/2020. The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of subjects who reported financial difficulty in the past 12 months, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 item #28. This proportion and 95% Wilson score confidence interval were estimated for all MM patients who responded to the financial difficulty question ((# reported financial difficulty)/(total # in that category who answered the question)). NCI Central IRB approved this study. Results: 393 subjects were recruited. 304 subjects completed the survey (77.4% response rate). Mean age was 67.5 years (SD 9.8), 143 (46.4%) were female, 24 (7.8%) self-reported race as ‘Black or African American’, 82 (26.6%) reported insured by government insurance Medicare only, 116 (38.2%) reported highest education as high school or below, and 94 (30.5%) reported high income. Mean time from diagnosis to survey enrollment was 3.6 years (SD 4.5). 292 (95.1%) were currently receiving treatment and 192 (62.5%) reported currently receiving a pre-defined ‘expensive’ oral pharmaceutical-based cancer treatment. 20.2% (95% CI:16.1%, 25.0%) reported financial difficulties. Conclusions: This is the first national study to systematically assess the prevalence of financial difficulties and its correlates among MM patients. Approximately 1 in 5 surveyed patients reported financial difficulties. Results of this study aim to inform efforts to improve financial navigation and resources for cancer patients.

Purpose Skeletal-related events (SREs) such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or the necessity for radiation or surgery to bone metastasis cause considerable morbidity, decrements in quality of life, and costs to the health care system. The results of a recent large randomized trial (Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology [CALGB/Alliance 70604]) showed that zoledronic acid (ZA) every 3 months was noninferior to monthly ZA in reducing the risks of SREs. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of monthly ZA, ZA every 3 months, and monthly denosumab in women with breast cancer and skeletal metastases. Methods Using a Markov model, costs per SRE avoided were calculated for the three treatments. Sensitivity analyses were performed where denosumab SRE probabilities were assumed to be 50%, 75%, and 90% lower than the ZA SRE probabilities. Quality-adjusted life-years were also calculated. The analysis was from the US payer perspective. Results The mean costs of the denosumab treatment strategy are nine-fold higher than generic ZA every 3 months. Quality-adjusted life-years were virtually identical in all the three treatment arms; hence, the optimal treatment would be ZA every 3 months because it was the least costly treatment. The sensitivity analyses showed that relative to ZA every 3 months, the incremental costs per mean SRE avoided for denosumab ranged from $162,918 to $347,655. Conclusion ZA every 3 months was more CE in reducing the risks of SRE than monthly denosumab. This analysis was one of the first to incorporate the costs of generic ZA and one of the first independent CE analyses not sponsored by either Novartis or Amgen, the makers of ZA and denosumab, respectively. ZA every 3 months is the more CE option and more reasonable alternative to monthly denosumab.