Validation of a Single Item Measure for Financial Toxicity Screening in Patients With Breast Cancer.

IF 4.6 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
JCO oncology practice Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1200/OP-24-00753
Laila A Gharzai, Leila J Mady, Maria Armache, Zequn Sun, Reshma Jagsi, David Cella, J Devin Peipert, Gelareh Sadigh, Richard W Hass
{"title":"Validation of a Single Item Measure for Financial Toxicity Screening in Patients With Breast Cancer.","authors":"Laila A Gharzai, Leila J Mady, Maria Armache, Zequn Sun, Reshma Jagsi, David Cella, J Devin Peipert, Gelareh Sadigh, Richard W Hass","doi":"10.1200/OP-24-00753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Financial toxicity (FT) has been linked to higher symptom burden and poorer clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Despite the availability of validated tools to measure FT, a simple screen remains an unmet need. We evaluated item 12 (\"My illness has been a financial hardship to my family and me\") of the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure as a single-item FT screening measure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this secondary analysis, 711 patients with cancer (690 with breast cancer) were recruited via a web-based survey from a philanthropic organization. COST items 1-11 were scored according to Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy scoring guidelines, with lower scores indicating worse FT. Analyses focused on establishing a correlation, examining item properties, and sensitivity/specificity of item 12 relative to the total COST score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Item 12 had a correlation of <i>r</i> = 0.53 with the COST-11 score, and an increase of one point on item 12 is associated with a decrease of approximately three total points on the full scale (<i>b</i>, 3.35; <i>P</i> < .001; adjusted <i>R</i><sup>2</sup>, 0.28). Item analysis with the graded-response item in response theory modeling showed very good discrimination (<i>a</i>, 2.096) for item 12, indicating that it can reliably distinguish between low and high FT in patients. Sensitivity ranged between 75.6% and 95.7% on all item 12 thresholds to screen positive for FT using two COST cutoffs as criteria. Maximizing both sensitivity and specificity was to be found for higher item 12 scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To our knowledge, this is the first validation of a single-item screening measure for FT. Overall, these results illustrate that item 12 from the COST measure is a good candidate for a single-item screener. Clinicians can choose among item 12 screening thresholds depending on their tolerance for low specificity.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"1134-1141"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-24-00753","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Financial toxicity (FT) has been linked to higher symptom burden and poorer clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Despite the availability of validated tools to measure FT, a simple screen remains an unmet need. We evaluated item 12 ("My illness has been a financial hardship to my family and me") of the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure as a single-item FT screening measure.

Methods: In this secondary analysis, 711 patients with cancer (690 with breast cancer) were recruited via a web-based survey from a philanthropic organization. COST items 1-11 were scored according to Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy scoring guidelines, with lower scores indicating worse FT. Analyses focused on establishing a correlation, examining item properties, and sensitivity/specificity of item 12 relative to the total COST score.

Results: Item 12 had a correlation of r = 0.53 with the COST-11 score, and an increase of one point on item 12 is associated with a decrease of approximately three total points on the full scale (b, 3.35; P < .001; adjusted R2, 0.28). Item analysis with the graded-response item in response theory modeling showed very good discrimination (a, 2.096) for item 12, indicating that it can reliably distinguish between low and high FT in patients. Sensitivity ranged between 75.6% and 95.7% on all item 12 thresholds to screen positive for FT using two COST cutoffs as criteria. Maximizing both sensitivity and specificity was to be found for higher item 12 scores.

Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first validation of a single-item screening measure for FT. Overall, these results illustrate that item 12 from the COST measure is a good candidate for a single-item screener. Clinicians can choose among item 12 screening thresholds depending on their tolerance for low specificity.

乳腺癌患者财务毒性筛查单项措施的验证。
目的:金融毒性(FT)与癌症患者较高的症状负担和较差的临床结果有关。尽管有可用的有效工具来测量FT,但简单的筛管仍然是一个未满足的需求。我们将财务毒性综合评分(COST)措施的第12项(“我的疾病给我和我的家人带来了经济困难”)作为单项FT筛选措施进行评估。方法:在这一次要分析中,通过慈善组织的网络调查招募了711名癌症患者(690名乳腺癌患者)。根据慢性疾病治疗功能评估评分指南对成本项目1-11进行评分,得分越低表明FT越差。分析的重点是建立相关性,检查项目属性,以及项目12相对于总成本得分的敏感性/特异性。结果:第12项与成本-11得分的相关性为r = 0.53,第12项每增加1分,就会减少约3分(b, 3.35;P < .001;调整R2, 0.28)。用反应理论建模中的分级反应项目进行项目分析,对项目12有很好的判别性(a, 2.096),说明该项目能够可靠地区分患者的低FT和高FT。使用两个COST截止值作为标准,在所有项目12阈值上筛选FT阳性的灵敏度范围为75.6%至95.7%。第12项得分越高,敏感性和特异性越高。结论:据我们所知,这是FT单项筛选措施的首次验证。总体而言,这些结果表明,成本措施中的项目12是单项筛选的良好候选。临床医生可以根据其对低特异性的耐受性在项目12筛选阈值中进行选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信