Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
229
result(s) for
"Liang, Margaret"
Sort by:
Evaluating meaningful levels of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancers
ObjectiveThe Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) is a validated instrument measuring the economic burden experienced by patients with cancer. We evaluated the frequency of financial toxicity at different COST levels and stratified risk factors and associations with cost-coping strategies by financial toxicity severity.MethodsWe analyzed previously collected survey data of gynecologic oncology patients from two tertiary care institutions. Both surveys included the COST tool and questions assessing economic and behavioral cost-coping strategies. We adapted a proposed grading scale to define three groups: no/mild, moderate, and severe financial toxicity and used χ2, Fisher’s exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare groups. We used Poisson regression to calculate crude and adjusted risk ratios for cost-coping strategies, comparing patients with moderate or severe to no/mild financial toxicity.ResultsAmong 308 patients, 14.9% had severe, 32.1% had moderate, and 52.9% had no/mild financial toxicity. Younger age, non-white race, lower education, unemployment, lower income, use of systemic therapy, and shorter time since diagnosis were associated with worse financial toxicity (all p<0.05). Respondents with moderate or severe financial toxicity were significantly more likely to use economic cost-coping strategies such as changing spending habits (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 2.7, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.0 moderate; aRR 3.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.4 severe) and borrowing money (aRR 5.5, 95% CI 1.8 to 16.5 moderate; aRR 12.7, 95% CI 4.3 to 37.1 severe). Those with severe financial toxicity also had a significantly higher risk of behavioral cost-coping through medication non-compliance (aRR 4.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 18.1).ConclusionsAmong a geographically diverse cohort of gynecologic oncology patients, nearly half reported financial toxicity (COST <26), which was associated with economic cost-coping strategies. In those 14.9% of patients reporting severe financial toxicity (COST <14) there was also an increased risk of medication non-compliance, which may lead to worse health outcomes in this group.
Journal Article
Navigating financial toxicity in patients with cancer: A multidisciplinary management approach
Approximately one-half of individuals with cancer face personal economic burdens associated with the disease and its treatment, a problem known as financial toxicity (FT). FT more frequently affects socioeconomically vulnerable individuals and leads to subsequent adverse economic and health outcomes. Whereas multilevel systemic factors at the policy, payer, and provider levels drive FT, there are also accompanying intervenable patient-level factors that exacerbate FT in the setting of clinical care delivery. The primary strategy to intervene on FT at the patient level is financial navigation. Financial navigation uses comprehensive assessment of patients' risk factors for FT, guidance toward support resources, and referrals to assist patient financial needs during cancer care. Social workers or nurse navigators most frequently lead financial navigation. Oncologists and clinical provider teams are multidisciplinary partners who can support optimal FT management in the context of their clinical roles. Oncologists and clinical provider teams can proactively assess patient concerns about the financial hardship and employment effects of disease and treatment. They can respond by streamlining clinical treatment and care delivery planning and incorporating FT concerns into comprehensive goals of care discussions and coordinated symptom and psychosocial care. By understanding how age and life stage, socioeconomic, and cultural factors modify FT trajectory, oncologists and multidisciplinary health care teams can be engaged and informative in patient-centered, tailored FT management. The case presentations in this report provide a practical context to summarize authors' recommendations for patient-level FT management, supported by a review of key supporting evidence and a discussion of challenges to mitigating FT in oncology care.
Journal Article
Cost Sharing for Oral Lenvatinib Among Commercially Insured Patients
To use a nationwide pharmaceutical claims database to evaluate cost-sharing trends for commercially insured patients with cancer who were prescribed lenvatinib (Lenvima).
IBM MarketScan databases were used to evaluate lenvatinib costs for patients with employer-based commercial insurance, and for patients 65 years and older, Medicare claims for fee-for-service plans.
Patients were included if they had least 1 outpatient pharmaceutical claim for lenvatinib paid on a noncapitated basis from 2015 to 2019. Median and IQR costs were estimated and inflation adjusted to 2019 US$ for 30-day supplies and reported as total, insurance liability, coordination of benefits, and out-of-pocket costs.
A total of 685 patients had at least 1 pharmaceutical claim for lenvatinib, which included patients with thyroid (n = 251; 36.6%), renal cell (n = 202; 29.5%), hepatocellular (n = 160; 23.4%), and endometrial (n = 48; 7.0%) cancer. The median (IQR) number of prescriptions per patient was 3 (2-7), and the median (IQR) total days of supply was 90 (45-210) days. The median (IQR) 30-day cost of lenvatinib was $17,253 ($15,597-$18,120). Median (IQR) 30-day insurance liability was $16,847 ($15,000-$17,981). Median (IQR) 30-day coordination of benefits was $0 ($0-$0). Median (IQR) 30-day patient out-of-pocket cost was $32 ($0-$100). However, the maximum 30-day out-of-pocket cost in our patient cohort was $12,538.
In this cohort, insurance was liable for the majority of total lenvatinib drug costs, and 75% of patients paid $100 or less per month out of pocket. This information can be used by care teams to counsel insured patients. Health systems and drug manufacturers must identify patients with high out-of-pocket costs and provide convenient access to financial assistance programs so that patients are not forced to forgo the benefits of these drugs due to financial barriers. Value-based payment models and drug pricing reform are also needed to address underlying drivers of high drug costs.
Journal Article
Health-care access dimensions and ovarian cancer survival: SEER-Medicare analysis of the ORCHiD study
Abstract
Background
Racial and ethnic disparities in ovarian cancer (OC) survival are well-documented. However, few studies have investigated how health-care access (HCA) contributes to these disparities.
Methods
To evaluate the influence of HCA on OC mortality, we analyzed 2008-2015 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between HCA dimensions (affordability, availability, accessibility) and OC-specific and all-cause mortality, adjusting for patient characteristics and treatment receipt.
Results
The study cohort included 7590 OC patients: 454 (6.0%) Hispanic, 501 (6.6%) Non-Hispanic (NH) Black, and 6635 (87.4%) NH White. Higher affordability (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.94), availability (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.92 to 0.99), and accessibility scores (HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.99) were associated with lower risk of OC mortality after adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. Racial disparities were observed after additional adjustment for these HCA dimensions: NH Black patients experienced a 26% higher risk of OC mortality compared with NH White patients (HR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.43) and a 45% higher risk among patients who survived at least 12 months (HR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.81).
Conclusions
HCA dimensions are statistically significantly associated with mortality after OC and explain some, but not all, of the observed racial disparity in survival of patients with OC. Although equalizing access to quality health care remains critical, research on other HCA dimensions is needed to determine additional factors contributing to disparate OC outcomes by race and ethnicity and advance the field toward health equity.
Journal Article
Ovarian Cancer Epidemiology, Healthcare Access and Disparities (ORCHiD): methodology for a population-based study of black, Hispanic and white patients with ovarian cancer
IntroductionLess than 40% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC) in the USA receive stage-appropriate guideline-adherent surgery and chemotherapy. Black patients with cancer report greater depression, pain and fatigue than white patients. Lack of access to healthcare likely contributes to low treatment rates and racial differences in outcomes. The Ovarian Cancer Epidemiology, Healthcare Access and Disparities study aims to characterise healthcare access (HCA) across five specific dimensions—Availability, Affordability, Accessibility, Accommodation and Acceptability—among black, Hispanic and white patients with OC, evaluate the impact of HCA on quality of treatment, supportive care and survival, and explore biological mechanisms that may contribute to OC disparities.Methods and analysisWe will use the Surveillance Epidemiology and Ends Results dataset linked with Medicare claims data from 9744 patients with OC ages 65 years and older. We will recruit 1641 patients with OC (413 black, 299 Hispanic and 929 white) from cancer registries in nine US states. We will examine HCA dimensions in relation to three main outcomes: (1) receipt of quality, guideline adherent initial treatment and supportive care, (2) quality of life based on patient-reported outcomes and (3) survival. We will obtain saliva and vaginal microbiome samples to examine prognostic biomarkers. We will use hierarchical regression models to estimate the impact of HCA dimensions across patient, neighbourhood, provider and hospital levels, with random effects to account for clustering. Multilevel structural equation models will estimate the total, direct and indirect effects of race on treatment mediated through HCA dimensions.Ethics and disseminationResult dissemination will occur through presentations at national meetings and in collaboration with collaborators, community partners and colleagues across othercancer centres. We will disclose findings to key stakeholders, including scientists, providers and community members. This study has been approved by the Duke Institutional Review Board (Pro00101872). Safety considerations include protection of patient privacy. All disseminated data will be deidentified and summarised.
Journal Article
Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing: Perspectives of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients and Gynecologic Oncology Healthcare Providers
Multi-gene panel testing has expanded the genetic information available to cancer patients. The objective was to assess provider behaviors and attitudes and patient knowledge and attitudes towards genetic counseling and testing. An online survey was distributed to Society of Gynecologic Oncology members and a written questionnaire was administered to patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer at a tertiary care referral center. Most of the 233 (18% response rate) provider respondents were gynecologic oncologists. Access to a genetic counselor was reported by 87% of providers and 55% deferred all testing to genetic counselors. Of 53 ovarian cancer patient respondents, two-thirds had previously seen a genetic counselor or undergone testing. Patients’ attitudes about genetic counseling and/or testing were favorable with respect to themselves (70–81%) and their family members (94%). Less than 25% of patients indicated worrying about health care discrimination, lack of privacy, or high cost. Seventy-seven percent of patients demonstrated a desire to obtain genetic information even if the results were not currently actionable, and 20% of providers stated they test for only those genes with guideline-supported actionable results. Provider practice differences were identified in screening and prevention strategies for patients with deleterious non-
BRCA
mutations and variants of uncertain significance. The variation in clinical interpretation of results associated with poorly defined cancer risks signals a need for more comprehensive training and guidelines to ensure access to evidence-based care.
Journal Article
Clinical outcomes in ovarian cancer patients receiving three versus more cycles of chemotherapy after neoadjuvant treatment and interval cytoreductive surgery
OBJECTIVESTo compare clinical outcomes for stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery followed by up to three versus more cycles of post-operative chemotherapy.
METHODSWe conducted a multi-institution retrospective cohort study of patients treated from January 2005 to February 2016 with neoadjuvant platinum-based therapy followed by interval surgery and post-operative chemotherapy. The following were exclusion criteriamore than four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, bevacizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-platinum therapy, prior chemotherapy, and elevated CA125 values after three post-operative chemotherapy cycles. Progression-free and overall survival and toxicity profiles were compared between groups receiving up to three cycles versus more that three cycles post-operatively.
RESULTSA total of 100 patients met inclusion criteria41 received up to three cycles and 59 received more than three cycles. The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index, performance status, tumor histology, optimal cytoreduction rates, and median number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles. Median progression-free survival was 14 vs 16.6 months in those receiving up to three cycles versus more than three cycles, respectively (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.68, p=0.97). Similarly, median overall survival was not different at 47.1 vs 69.4 months, respectively (HR 1.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.42, p=0.10). There were no differences in grade 2 or higher chemotherapy-related toxicities.
CONCLUSIONSExtending post-operative chemotherapy beyond three cycles in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery with normalization of CA125 levels was not associated with improved survival or greater toxicity. Future study in a larger cohort is warranted to define optimal length of cytotoxic treatment.
Journal Article
O012/#352 Atezolizumab and bevacizumab in recurrent endometrial cancer: a phase II, multi institutional trial
ObjectivesClinical data across several solid tumors, including EC, suggests synergy between immune checkpoint inhibition and anti-angiogenic agents. This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Atezolizumab (A) and Bevacizumab (Bev) in recurrent EC.MethodsThis multicenter, single arm trial (NCT03526432) enrolled patients with recurrent EC (1–2 priors) to receive A 1,200 mg and Bev 15 mg/kg day 1 every 21 days. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR).ResultsThere were 57 response evaluable patients who received both drugs for the first two cycles. Median age was 65 (25–91) years and race included 22.8% Black and 2% American Indian. 61% had endometrioid tumors, 18% UPSC or carcinosarcoma each and 4% clear cell. 87% were mismatch repair proficient (MMRp) and 13% MMRd. 15% had prior pelvic radiation. Adverse events and clinical activity in table 1. Translational data including blood immune cell population analysis by CyTOF will be presented with the clinical data.Abstract O012/#352 Table 1Total Number of Subjects 57 Adverse events n (%) Grade 3 due to atezolizumab 4 (7%) Grade 3 due to bevacizumab 12 (22%) Grade 4 0 Dose interruption 45 (79%) Dose reduction 2 (4%) Discontinued due to toxicity 9 (16%) Clinical Activity ORR for all 30% (95% CI 18–43) ORR for MMRp 33% (95% CI 20–48) Median DOR (months) 15 (95% CI 2.9–34) Median PFS (months) 7.87 (95% CI 5.5–11.7) ConclusionsThe ORR for A and Bev approximates that seen with Len/Pem with far fewer side effects. An ongoing trial within the Alliance contains this similar arm and if confirmatory would support this combination as a treatment option.
Journal Article
Economic diplomacy
Singapore, a small Southeast Asian country with limited resources, transformed itself from a trading post to a successful, cosmopolitan nation with one of the most impressive growth rates in the world. Less well known, however, has been its role in regional and global trade negotiations. This book is a collection of sixteen essays written by a group of diplomats, policy-makers, and professors who became involved in international economic affairs, notably in GATT/WTO, regional and bilateral free trade negotiations. Here, they reveal their thoughts about the world economy and trading system, reflect on their experiences, and explain how they promoted national interests while advancing the global trade agenda. This book will appeal not only to professional diplomats, but to anyone interested in how international economic diplomacy works and Singapore's role and perspective as an open trading nation.
eBook