Background
A growing proportion of cancer survivors experience financial toxicity. However, the psychological burden of cancer costs and associated mental health outcomes require further ...investigation. We assessed prevalence and predictors of self-reported financial worry and mental health outcomes among cancer survivors.
Patients and methods
Data from the 2013–2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for adults reporting a cancer diagnosis were used. Multivariable ordinal logistic regressions defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of reporting financial worry by relevant sociodemographic variables, and sample weight-adjusted prevalence of financial worry was estimated. The association between financial worry and psychological distress, as defined by the six-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale was also assessed.
Results
Among 13,361 survey participants (median age 67; 60.0% female), 9567 (71.6%) self-reported financial worry, including worries regarding costs of paying for children’s college education (62.7%), maintaining one’s standard of living (59.7%), and medical costs due to illness or accident (58.3%). Female sex, younger age, and Asian American race were associated with increased odds of financial worry (
P
< 0.05 for all). Of 13,218 participants with complete responses to K6 questions, 701 (5.3%) met the threshold for severe psychological distress. Participants endorsing financial worry were more likely to have psychological distress (6.6 vs. 1.2%, AOR 2.89, 95% CI 2.03–4.13,
P
< 0.001) with each additional worry conferring 23.9% increased likelihood of psychological distress.
Conclusions
A majority of cancer survivors reported financial worry, which was associated with greater odds of reporting psychological distress. Policies and guidelines are needed to identify and mitigate financial worries and psychologic distress among patients with cancer, with the goal of improving psychological well-being and overall cancer survivorship care.
To determine whether the distance between a prostate cancer patient's home and treatment facility was related to the choice of treatment received among those opting for surgery or radiation.
We ...identified 222,804 patients diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-, intermediate-, or high-risk N0M0 prostate cancer and treated with local therapy (surgery or radiation alone, with or without hormone therapy) using the National Cancer Database. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether the choice of radiation therapy vs radical prostatectomy varied by distance among patients living in rural and urban areas. Analyses were adjusted for geographic location within the United States, age, race, Charlson/Deyo comorbidity score, year of diagnosis, income quartile, education quartile, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen level, and T stage.
Patients living in urban or rural areas were less likely to receive radiation compared with surgery if they lived farther from the treatment facility. Among urban patients living ≤5 miles from the treatment facility, 53.3% received radiation, compared with 47.0%, 43.6%, and 33.8% of those living 5 to 10, 10 to 15, or >15 miles away, respectively (P<.001 in all cases). Similarly, rural patients were less likely to receive radiation the farther they lived from the treatment facility (≤25 miles: 62.3%; 25-50 miles: 55.5%; 50-75 miles: 38.4%; >75 miles: 23.8%; P<.05 in all cases). These trends were also present when each risk group was analyzed separately.
Patients with prostate cancer in both urban and rural settings were less likely to receive radiation therapy rather than surgery the farther away they lived from a treatment center. These findings raise the possibility that the geographic availability of radiation treatment centers may be an important determinant of whether patients are able to choose radiation rather than surgery for localized prostate cancer.
To define and validate a classification of favorable high-risk prostate cancer that could be used to personalize therapy, given that consensus guidelines recommend similar treatments for all ...radiation-managed patients with high-risk disease.
We studied 3618 patients with cT1-T3aN0M0 high-risk or unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radiation at a single institution between 1997 and 2013. Favorable high-risk was defined as T1c disease with either Gleason 4 + 4 = 8 and prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL or Gleason 6 and prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL. Competing risks regression was used to determine differences in the risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) after controlling for baseline factors and treatment. Our results were validated in a cohort of 13,275 patients using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database.
Patients with favorable high-risk disease had significantly better PCSM than other men with high-risk disease (adjusted hazard ratio AHR 0.42, 95% confidence interval CI 0.18-0.996, P=.049) and similar PCSM as men with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease (AHR 1.17, 95% CI 0.50-2.75, P=.710). We observed very similar results within the SEER-Medicare cohort (favorable high-risk vs other high-risk: AHR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11-0.41, P<.001; favorable high-risk vs unfavorable intermediate-risk: AHR 0.67, 95% CI 0.33-1.36, P=.268).
Patients with favorable high-risk prostate cancer have significantly better PCSM than other patients with high-risk disease and similar PCSM as those with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, who are typically treated with shorter-course androgen deprivation therapy. This new classification system may allow for personalization of treatment within high-risk disease, such as consideration of shorter-course androgen deprivation therapy for favorable high-risk disease.
Abstract Objectives Prostate cancer is a common diagnosis with several treatment options for the newly diagnosed patient, including radiation, surgery, active surveillance, and watchful waiting. ...Although tailoring of treatment to individual patient needs is an important goal, the recent passage of the Affordable Care Act has placed renewed interest in cost containment and cost-effectiveness. We sought to conduct a literature review of recent US-based studies to analyze the cost-effectiveness of initial local treatments for localized prostate cancer. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search through PubMed, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and manual cross-referencing of articles. We identified US-based studies with cost analyses starting in 2005 that studied the cost-effectiveness of initial local treatments for localized prostate cancer (surgery, radiation, or observation). Results There were eight studies that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most studies took the cost perspective of Medicare, and two studies also considered the societal cost in terms of lost patient time. Most studies also used a Markov model with inputs based on the available literature for the effectiveness and toxicity of the different treatment options. The radiation-focused studies tended to find brachytherapy (BT) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to be more cost-effective than intensity-modulated radiation therapy or proton beam therapy. These findings were primarily based on the lower cost of SBRT or BT with roughly equal efficacy and toxicity. The two studies focused on surgery found surgery to be more cost effective than intensity-modulated radiation therapy, at least for low-risk disease, and one study found BT to be more cost-effective than surgery, and watchful waiting to be the most cost-effective option overall. Conclusion Cost-effectiveness analysis is important because it helps patients, physicians, and policymakers make quantitatively-based decisions, which balance treatment efficacy, toxicity, and costs. Significant methodological heterogeneity in the studies we found limit the ability to compare their results directly, but most found that for favorable-risk prostate cancer, shorter or simpler treatments tended to be more cost-effective, including no treatment (watchful waiting) in one study.
Objective
To determine whether patients with Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 prostate cancer have outcomes more similar to other patients with Gleason score 8 disease or to patients with Gleason score 9 ...disease.
Patients and Methods
The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database was used to study 40 533 men diagnosed with N0M0 Gleason score 8 or 9 prostate cancer from 2004 to 2011. Using Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 as the referent, Fine and Gray competing risks regression analyses modelled the association between Gleason score and prostate cancer‐specific mortality (PCSM).
Results
The 5‐year PCSM rates for patients with Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8, 3 + 5 = 8, 5 + 3 = 8, and 9 disease were 6.3%, 6.6%, 13.5%, and 13.9%, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients with Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 or 9 disease had up to a two‐fold increased risk of PCSM (adjusted hazard ratio AHR 1.89, 95% confidence interval CI 1.50–2.38, P < 0.001; and AHR 2.17, 95% CI 1.99–2.36, P < 0.001, respectively) compared with the referent group of patients (Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8). There was no difference in PCSM between patients with Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 vs 9 disease (P = 0.25).
Conclusions
Gleason score 8 disease represents a heterogeneous entity with PCSM outcomes distinguishable by the primary Gleason pattern. The PCSM of Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 and Gleason 4 + 4 = 8 disease are similar, but patients with Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 have a risk of PCSM that is twice as high as other patients with Gleason score 8 disease and should be considered to have a similar poor prognosis as patients with Gleason score 9 disease. Such patients should be allowed onto trials seeking the highest‐risk patients in which to test novel aggressive treatment strategies.
Although the association between higher hospital volume and improved outcomes has been well-documented in surgery, there is little data about whether this effect exists for radiation-treated ...patients. We investigated whether treatment at a radiation facility that treats a high volume of prostate cancer patients is associated with improved survival for men with high-risk prostate cancer.
We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identity patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2004 to 2006. The radiation case volume (RCV) of each hospital was based on its number of radiation-treated prostate cancer patients. We used propensity-score based analysis to compare the overall survival (OS) of high-risk prostate cancer patients in high versus low RCV hospitals. Primary endpoint is overall survival. Covariates adjusted for were tumor characteristics, sociodemographic factors, radiation type, and use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).
A total of 19,565 radiation-treated high-risk patients were identified. Median follow-up was 81.0 months (range: 1-108 months). When RCV was coded as a continuous variable, each increment of 100 radiation-managed patients was associated with improved OS (adjusted hazard ratio AHR: 0.97; 95% confidence interval CI: 0.95-0.98; P<.0001) after adjusting for known confounders. For illustrative purposes, when RCV was dichotomized at the 80th percentile (43 patients/year), high RCV was associated with improved OS (7-year overall survival 76% vs 74%, log-rank test P=.0005; AHR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.96, P=.0005). This association remained significant when RCV was dichotomized at 75th (37 patients/year), 90th (60 patients/year), and 95th (84 patients/year) percentiles but not the 50th (19 patients/year).
Our results suggest that treatment at centers with higher prostate cancer radiation case volume is associated with improved OS for radiation-treated men with high-risk prostate cancer.
Prospective evidence supports active surveillance/watchful waiting (AS/WW) as an efficacious management option for low-risk prostate cancer that avoids potential treatment toxicity. AS/WW schedules ...require regular follow-up and adherence, and it is unknown to what extent patient socioeconomic status (SES) may impact management decisions for AS/WW. We sought to determine whether AS/WW use in the United States differs according to patient SES.
Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Prostate with AS/WW Database, all adult men diagnosed with localized low-risk prostate cancer (clinical T1-T2a, Gleason 6, and prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL) and managed with either AS/WW, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy were identified between 2010 and 2015. SES tertile was measured by the validated Yost Index (low: 0-10,901; middle: 10,904-11,469; high: 11,470-11,827). AS/WW trends were defined across SES tertiles from 2010 to 2015. Logistic multivariable regression defined adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for receipt of AS/WW by SES tertile.
In 50,302 men, AS/WW use was higher with increasing SES tertile (24.6, 25.3, and 30.5% for low, middle, and high SES tertiles, respectively; P
<0.001). From 2010 to 2015, AS/WW use in the low, middle, and high SES tertiles increased from 11.2 to 37.3%, 14.1 to 45.8%, and 17.6 to 46.4%, respectively (P
<0.001). By 2015, likelihood of AS/WW became comparable among the middle vs. high SES tertiles (aOR 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-1.11, P = 0.55), but remained lower among the low vs. high SES tertile (aOR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.64-0.83, P < 0.001).
AS/WW use for low-risk prostate cancer in the US differs by SES. Despite increases in AS/WW across SES from 2010 to 2015, patients from low SES received significantly lower rates of AS/WW compared with higher SES groups. SES may therefore influence management decisions, where factors associated with low SES might act as a barrier to AS/WW, and may need to be addressed to reduce any disproportionate risk of unnecessary treatment to lower SES patients.
PDF
