{"title":"Screening for Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.04.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Despite the pervasiveness and adverse impacts of financial toxicity (FT) in cancer care, there are no definitive measures for FT screening that have been widely integrated into clinical practice. The aim of this review is to evaluate current methods of assessing FT among patients with cancer and confirm factors associated with higher risk of FT.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We included peer-reviewed studies that cross-sectionally, longitudinally, or prospectively measured the self-reported financial impact of patients undergoing cancer care in the United States.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Out of 1,085 identified studies, 51 met final inclusion criteria. Outcomes evaluated included FT measures or tools, time and setting of screening, FT prevalence, and sociodemographic or clinical patient-level associated factors. Our findings demonstrate that there is wide variability in FT screening practices including in the timing (diagnosis versus treatment versus survivorship), setting (clinic-based, online, telephone or mail), tools used (21 unique tools, 7 previously validated), and interpretations of screening results (varying FT score cutoffs defining high versus low FT). Younger age, lower income, lower education, non-White race, employment status change, advanced cancer stage, and systemic or radiation therapy were among factors associated with worse FT across the studies.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>FT screening remains heterogenous within the United States. With the ever-escalating cost of cancer care, and the strong association between FT and poor patient outcomes, universal and routine FT screening is imperative in cancer care. Further research and multifaceted interventions identifying best practices for FT screening are needed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S154614402400440X/pdfft?md5=ea99b3907dd4eb73e9ed83cf1452588b&pid=1-s2.0-S154614402400440X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S154614402400440X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
Despite the pervasiveness and adverse impacts of financial toxicity (FT) in cancer care, there are no definitive measures for FT screening that have been widely integrated into clinical practice. The aim of this review is to evaluate current methods of assessing FT among patients with cancer and confirm factors associated with higher risk of FT.
Methods
A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We included peer-reviewed studies that cross-sectionally, longitudinally, or prospectively measured the self-reported financial impact of patients undergoing cancer care in the United States.
Results
Out of 1,085 identified studies, 51 met final inclusion criteria. Outcomes evaluated included FT measures or tools, time and setting of screening, FT prevalence, and sociodemographic or clinical patient-level associated factors. Our findings demonstrate that there is wide variability in FT screening practices including in the timing (diagnosis versus treatment versus survivorship), setting (clinic-based, online, telephone or mail), tools used (21 unique tools, 7 previously validated), and interpretations of screening results (varying FT score cutoffs defining high versus low FT). Younger age, lower income, lower education, non-White race, employment status change, advanced cancer stage, and systemic or radiation therapy were among factors associated with worse FT across the studies.
Discussion
FT screening remains heterogenous within the United States. With the ever-escalating cost of cancer care, and the strong association between FT and poor patient outcomes, universal and routine FT screening is imperative in cancer care. Further research and multifaceted interventions identifying best practices for FT screening are needed.
目的尽管财务毒性(FT)在癌症治疗中普遍存在并造成了不良影响,但目前还没有明确的财务毒性筛查措施被广泛纳入临床实践。本综述旨在评估目前评估癌症患者财务毒性的方法,并确认与较高财务毒性风险相关的因素。我们纳入了经同行评审的研究,这些研究对美国癌症患者接受治疗时自我报告的财务影响进行了横向、纵向或前瞻性测量。评估的结果包括财务影响测量或工具、筛查的时间和环境、财务影响发生率以及社会人口学或临床患者层面的相关因素。我们的研究结果表明,FT 筛查方法存在很大差异,包括筛查时间(诊断、治疗和生存期)、筛查环境(诊所、在线、电话或邮件)、筛查工具(21 种独特的工具,7 种是以前验证过的)以及筛查结果的解释(定义高 FT 和低 FT 的不同 FT 分界线)。年轻、低收入、教育程度低、非白种人、就业状况变化、癌症晚期、系统性治疗或放射治疗等因素与各项研究中较低的 FT 值相关。随着癌症治疗费用的不断攀升,以及FT与患者不良预后之间的密切联系,在癌症治疗中普及常规FT筛查势在必行。我们需要进一步开展研究,并采取多方面的干预措施,以确定进行胃食管反流筛查的最佳方法。
期刊介绍:
The official journal of the American College of Radiology, JACR informs its readers of timely, pertinent, and important topics affecting the practice of diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, medical physicists, and radiation oncologists. In so doing, JACR improves their practices and helps optimize their role in the health care system. By providing a forum for informative, well-written articles on health policy, clinical practice, practice management, data science, and education, JACR engages readers in a dialogue that ultimately benefits patient care.