Dusetzina, Stacie B.

11059 Background: Payments from the drug industry to oncologists are common and influence physicians’ prescribing decisions. However, whether payments affect the likelihood that patients receive optimal cancer treatment has not been assessed. Methods: This was a population-based cohort study. We used fee-for-service Medicare claims to identify patients with incident cancer diagnosis (new cancer diagnosis code after >= 1 year with no cancer diagnosis codes) from 2014-2020. We used National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines to identify treatment scenarios (e.g., metastatic melanoma, stage III colon adjuvant therapy) with variation in the clinical benefit among recommended treatment options. The patient cohort corresponding to each scenario was identified using claims. We used NCCN Guidelines to identify the “optimal” treatment for each scenario (defined as the designated “preferred” treatment, with NCCN Evidence Blocks scores used for tiebreaks) at each time point across the study period. The primary outcome was whether a patient received the treatment that was, as of their diagnosis date, the optimal treatment for their cancer (vs. any non-optimal treatment). The primary exposure[s] were whether a patient’s medical oncologist received personal (“general”) payments (source: linked Open Payments data) related to 1) optimal treatment or 2) any non-optimal treatment, during the year prior to the patient’s cancer diagnosis. We fit Poisson-family generalized estimating equations, with physician-level clustering and adjustment for scenario, year, and patient characteristics, to estimate the relative risk (RR) of optimal treatment. Results: There were 14 clinical scenarios comprising 15,835 patients. There were 3,429 (21.7%) patients whose oncologist received payment for the optimal treatment, 4,891 (30.9%) for non-optimal payments, and 1,993 (12.6%) to both payment types. Oncologist receipt of payment for optimal treatment was associated with a greater likelihood (RR=1.07, 95%CI:1.01-1.13), and payment for non-optimal treatment was associated with lower likelihood (RR= 0.94, 95%CI:0.89-0.98) of patients receiving optimal treatment. Associations became stronger as payment dollar value increased; for optimal payments ≥$10,000, RR=1.26 (95%CI:1.02-1.57), and for non-optimal payments ≥$10,000, RR=0.70 (95%CI: 0.49-1.00). An estimated 41.6% of unexposed patients received optimal treatment; versus 52.6%, 29.3%, and 33.8% among patients exposed to ≥$10,000 of payments for optimal treatment only, ≥$10,000 non-optimal payments only, and ≥$10,000 of both payment types, respectively. Conclusions: Industry payments related to the optimal cancer treatment were associated with increased use of the optimal treatment. However, payments related to non-optimal treatments were more common and were associated with decreased use of optimal treatment.

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 .

125 Background: Assessments of financial toxicity among patients with metastatic prostate cancer are lacking. We sought to describe the prevalence and severity of financial toxicity, identify coping mechanisms, and assess characteristics that may be protective of financial toxicity among such patients at our institution. Methods: All patients evaluated in the advanced prostate cancer clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, were approached to complete a survey between February and May 2022. The survey consisted of three parts: 1) demographic, cancer, and treatment characteristics; 2) a coping mechanism questionnaire; and 3) The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST-FACIT) questionnaire. COST-FACIT scores range from 0-44, with lower scores signifying higher financial toxicity. Patients were defined as having either high (COST-FACIT score >24) or low (COST-FACIT score ≤24) financial toxicity. Coping mechanisms were compared between patients with low and high financial toxicity using Fisher’s exact test. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate patient characteristics associated with high COST-FACIT scores. Results: Of the 786 patients approached, 417 (53.1%) completed the survey and 281 met inclusion criteria. The median COST-FACIT score was 30 (IQR 24-36). On multivariable analysis, characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity included older age, (estimate:0.36, 95%CI 0.21-0.52), applying for patient assistance programs (estimate:4.42, 95%CI 1.72-7.11), and an annual income of at least $100,000 (estimate:7.81, 95%CI 0.97,14.66). Patients with high financial toxicity were more likely to decrease spending on basic goods (34.6% vs. 2.5%, p<0.001) and leisure activities (61.5% vs. 16.9%, p>0.001), as well as use savings (61.5% vs. 16.9%, p<0.001) to pay for their treatment. However, few patients stopped or partially filled their prostate cancer treatments due to cost. Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study of patients with metastatic prostate cancer, older age, higher income, and applying for patient assistance programs were associated with lower financial toxicity. Greater self-reported financial toxicity was associated with decreased spending on basic goods, leisure activities, and tapping into savings. On rare occasion they delayed or skipped treatment. These findings are important to inform treatment shared decision-making and supportive interventions to mitigate financial toxicity in metastatic prostate cancer.

6602 Background: Treatment advances have greatly improved survival and quality of life among blood cancer patients, yet significant financial costs are a growing concern. Methods: We conducted an observational, prospective survey in 2019-2020 to estimate the self-reported prevalence of financial difficulty among multiple myeloma (MM) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients and identify sociodemographic correlates of financial difficulty. Patients with an MM or CLL diagnosis >/= 18 years of age were recruited from NCI NCORP sites of care. Financial difficulty was measured in a previously validated single question from the EORTC QLQ C30 and a composite measure of five questions from the EORTC QLQ C30. Results: 521 MM and CLL patients were registered to the study, 416 patients were administered all or part of the patient survey, for an overall response rate of 79.8%. 16.8% of respondents reported experiencing financial difficulty in response to the single item question and 58.6% reported experiencing financial difficulty in response to the composite measure. Respondents reporting financial difficulty to both measures had reported household incomes of less than $60,000, identified their highest education levels as a high school diploma or GED, had more than one medical comorbidity and used an expensive oral chemotherapeutic agent to treat their blood cancer. Conclusions: Blood cancer patients treated at NCI NCORP sites are experiencing financial difficulties. Results of this study aim to inform physician, site of care and policy efforts to improve access among cancer patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03870633. [Table: see text]

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.