The ripple effect: Cancer‐related financial toxicity for family members and caregivers

"Financial toxicity" has now become a familiar term used in the discussion of cancer drugs, and it is gaining traction in the literature given the high price of newer classes of therapies. However, as a phenomenon in the contemporary treatment and care of people with cancer, financial toxicity is not fully understood, with the discussion on mitigation mainly geared toward interventions at the health system level. Although important, health policy prescriptions take time before their intended results manifest, if they are implemented at all. They require corresponding strategies at the individual patient level. In this review, the authors discuss the nature of financial toxicity, defined as the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress of patients with cancer, as a result of treatments using innovative drugs and concomitant health services. They discuss coping with financial toxicity by patients and how maladaptive coping leads to poor health and nonhealth outcomes. They cover management strategies for oncologists, including having the difficult and urgent conversation about the cost and value of cancer treatment, availability of and access to resources, and assessment of financial toxicity as part of supportive care in the provision of comprehensive cancer care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:153-165. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND Cancer and its treatment lead to increased financial distress for patients. To the authors' knowledge, to date, no standardized patient‐reported outcome measure has been validated to assess this distress. METHODS Patients with AJCC Stage IV solid tumors receiving chemotherapy for at least 2 months were recruited. Financial toxicity was measured by the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) measure. The authors collected data regarding patient characteristics, clinical trial participation, health care use, willingness to discuss costs, psychological distress (Brief Profile of Mood States [POMS]), and health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General (FACT‐G) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL questionnaires. Test‐retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity of the COST measure were assessed using standard‐scale construction techniques. Associations between the resulting factors and other variables were assessed using multivariable analyses. RESULTS A total of 375 patients with advanced cancer were approached, 233 of whom (62.1%) agreed to participate. The COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency and test‐retest reliability. Factor analyses revealed a coherent, single, latent variable (financial toxicity). COST values were found to be correlated with income (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.28; P<.001), psychosocial distress (r = ‐0.26; P<.001), and HRQOL, as measured by the FACT‐G (r = 0.42; P<.001) and by the EORTC QOL instruments (r = 0.33; P<.001). Independent factors found to be associated with financial toxicity were race (P = .04), employment status (P<.001), income (P = .003), number of inpatient admissions (P = .01), and psychological distress (P = .003). Willingness to discuss costs was not found to be associated with the degree of financial distress (P = .49). CONCLUSIONS The COST measure demonstrated reliability and validity in measuring financial toxicity. Its correlation with HRQOL indicates that financial toxicity is a clinically relevant patient‐centered outcome. Cancer 2017;123:476–484. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

To adequately help family caregivers (FCs) of cancer patients, clinicians need to understand the complexity of the problems and responsibilities associated with cancer patients illness that FCs experience. This systematic review identified the types of problems and burdens that FCs of cancer patients experience during the patient's illness. We also analyzed the language caregivers use to communicate their problems and responsibilities related to caregiving for the cancer patient. Of 2845 titles identified, 192 articles met the inclusion criteria and are included in this review. Of these, 164 were research-based. In addition to FC responsibilities and the impact of being a caregiver on daily life, a number of other physical, social, and emotional problems related to caregiving for these FCs were identified. A substantial evidence base supports the conclusion that FCs experience many difficult problems and increased responsibilities during and after the patient is undergoing treatment and rehabilitation for cancer. The insights gained from this review will help researchers and clinicians to understand the complexity of problems and responsibilities FCs experience. This understanding may encourage them to include support for FCs as part of total or holistic patient care. However, more research is needed to better understand the variations in caregiving experiences over time; how the caregiving perspective is influenced by different cultural, ethnic, or socioeconomic backgrounds as well as gender and age; and how problems and responsibilities related to caregiving interfere with daily life. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.