Penson, David F.

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.

Abstract Background Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling. Methods Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations. Results Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from “finances in general” was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7). Conclusions In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel’s discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.