Explore the vast range of titles available.

To explore the utility of brief financial screening items to facilitate the implementation of routine financial toxicity screening. 50 women with breast cancer completed a one-time survey that included the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST): A FACIT Measure of Financial Toxicity, a visual analog scale, and a brief sociodemographic questionnaire. Survey responses were examined to assess the psychometric properties of individual COST items and the visual analog scale by calculating Cronbach's alpha and Pearson's correlation coefficients. The mean COST was 21.4, and 27 respondents met criteria for financial toxicity (a COST lower than 22). As expected, all items correlated strongly to the overall COST, but four items (items 3, 6, 8, and 10) performed strongest (r > 0.8). This study provides evidence for individual COST items to be used as brief screening items. Future research should test the utility of these items in larger sample sizes with a more diverse representation of patients by age, race, ethnicity, and tumor type and stage.

Background The study investigated the experiences of financial toxicity (FT) amongst cancer patients/survivors in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (USA/US). Methods Six hundred cancer patients/survivors residing in the UK ( n  = 319) or USA/US ( n  = 281) completed an online cross-sectional survey using the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST)—a validated measure of FT. Severity of FT was defined as ‘no’ (COST scores ≥ 26), ‘mild’ (14–25), and ‘moderate/severe’ (0–13). Results Thirty-four percent of UK participants faced FT which was significantly lower compared to the USA/US at 55% (crude OR = 2.44, 95% CI 1.73–3.42). An ordered logistic regression model showed that in the USA/US, being 65 + years old (adjusted OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.07–0.48), retired (aOR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.09–0.75), and having a higher household income (aOR ranged 0.03–0.19) decreased the risk of FT, whilst being female increased the risk (aOR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.01–3.32). In the UK, age and sex did not have an effect, but higher income and being retired showed an identical pattern compared to the US. Conclusions FT was less prevalent and less severe in the UK, compared to the USA/US. The high prevalence of FT underscores the need to provide an additional level of protection to the most vulnerable groups than is currently offered in either country.

This study reported the prevalence of financial distress (financial toxicity (FT)) and COVID-19-related economic stress in patients with breast cancer (BC). Patients with BC were recruited from the Ciitizen platform, Breastcancer.org, and patient advocacy groups between 30 March and 6 July 2021. FT was assessed with the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) instrument. COVID-19-related economic stress was assessed with the COVID-19 Stress Scale. Among the 669 patients, the mean age was 51.6 years; 9.4% reported a COVID-19 diagnosis. The prevalence rates of mild and moderate/severe FT were 36.8% and 22.4%, respectively. FT was more prevalent in patients with metastatic versus early BC (p < 0.001). The factors associated with FT included income ≤ USD 49,999 (adjusted odds ratio (adj OR) 6.271, p < 0.0001) and USD 50,000–USD 149,999 (adj OR 2.722, p < 0.0001); aged <50 years (adj OR 3.061, p = 0.0012) and 50–64 years (adj OR 3.444, p = 0.0002); living alone (adj OR 1.603, p = 0.0476); and greater depression severity (adj OR 1.155, p < 0.0001). Black patients (adj OR 2.165, p = 0.0133), patients with income ≤ USD 49,999 (adj OR 1.921, p = 0.0432), or greater depression severity (adj OR 1.090, p < 0.0001) were more likely to experience COVID-19-related economic stress. FT was common in patients with BC, particularly metastatic disease, during COVID-19. Multiple factors, especially lower income and greater depression severity were associated with financial difficulties during COVID-19.

In India, approximately 1.4 million new cases of cancer are recorded annually, with 26.7 million people living with cancer in 2021. Providing care for family members with cancer impacts caregivers’ health and financial resources. Effects on caregivers’ health and financial resources, understood as family and caregiver “financial toxicity” of cancer, are important to explore in the Indian context, where family members often serve as caregivers, in light of cultural attitudes towards family. This is reinforced by other structural issues such as grave disparities in socioeconomic status, barriers in access to care, and limited access to supportive care services for many patients. Effects on family caregivers’ financial resources are particularly prevalent in India given the increased dependency on out-of-pocket financing for healthcare, disparate access to insurance coverage, and limitations in public expenditure on healthcare. In this paper, we explore family and caregiver financial toxicity of cancer in the Indian context, highlighting the multiple psychosocial aspects through which these factors may play out. We suggest steps forward, including future directions in (1) health services research, (2) community-level interventions, and (3) policy changes. We underscore that multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral efforts are needed to study and address family and caregiver financial toxicity in India.

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.

Abstract Financial toxicity describes the financial burden and distress that can arise for patients, and their family members, as a result of cancer treatment. It includes direct out-of-pocket costs for treatment and indirect costs such as travel, time, and changes to employment that can increase the burden of cancer. While high costs of cancer care have threatened the sustainability of access to care for decades, it is only in the past 10 years that the term “financial toxicity” has been popularized to recognize that the financial burdens of care can be just as important as the physical toxicities traditionally associated with cancer therapy. The past decade has seen a rapid growth in research identifying the prevalence and impact of financial toxicity. Research is now beginning to focus on innovations in screening and care delivery that can mitigate this risk. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer centers to address costs of care in order to minimize financial toxicity, promote access to high value care, and reduce health disparities. We review the evolution of concerns over costs of cancer care, the impact of financial burdens on patients, methods to screen for financial toxicity, proposed solutions, and priorities for future research to identify and address costs that threaten the health and quality of life for many patients with cancer.

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) affect >3 million Americans and are associated with tremendous economic burden. Direct patient-level financial impacts, financial distress, and financial toxicity are less well understood. We aimed to summarize the literature on patient-level financial burden, distress, and toxicity associated with IBD in the United States. We conducted a literature search of US studies from 2002 to 2022 focused on direct/indirect costs, financial distress, and toxicity for patients with IBD. We abstracted study objectives, design, population characteristics, setting, and results. Of 2,586 abstracts screened, 18 articles were included. The studies comprised 638,664 patients with IBD from ages 9 to 93 years. Estimates for direct annual costs incurred by patients ranged from $7,824 to $41,829. Outpatient costs ranged from 19% to 45% of direct costs, inpatient costs ranged from 27% to 36%, and pharmacy costs ranged from 7% to 51% of costs. Crohn's disease was associated with higher costs than ulcerative colitis. Estimates for indirect costs varied widely; presenteeism accounted for most indirect costs. Severe and active disease was associated with greater direct and indirect costs. Financial distress was highly prevalent; associated factors included lower education level, lower household income, public insurance, comorbid illnesses, severity of IBD, and food insecurity. Higher degrees of financial distress were associated with greater delays in medical care, cost-related medication nonadherence, and lower health-related quality of life. Financial distress is prevalent among patients with IBD; financial toxicity is not well characterized. Definitions and measures varied widely. Better quantification of patient-level costs and associated impacts is needed to determine avenues for intervention.

Introduction The costs associated with cancer diagnosis, treatment and care present enormous financial toxicity. However, evidence of financial toxicity associated with cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is scarce. Aim To determine the prevalence, determinants and how financial toxicity has been measured among cancer patients in LMICs. Methods Four electronic databases were searched to identify studies of any design that reported financial toxicity among cancer patients in LMICs. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to derive the pooled prevalence of financial toxicity. Sub-group analyses were performed according to costs and determinants of financial toxicity. Results A total of 31 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of objective financial toxicity was 56.96% (95% CI, 30.51, 106.32). In sub-group meta-analyses, the objective financial toxicity was higher among cancer patients with household size of more than four (1.17% [95% CI, 1.03, 1.32]; p  = 0.02; I 2  = 0%), multiple cycles of chemotherapy (1.94% [95% CI, 1.00, 3.75]; p  = 0.05; I 2  = 43%) and private health facilities (2.87% [95% CI, 1.89, 4.35]; p  < 0.00001; I 2  = 26%). Included studies hardly focused primarily on subjective measures of financial toxicity, such as material, behavioural and psychosocial. One study reported that 35.4% ( n  = 152 of 429) of cancer patients experienced high subjective financial toxicity. Conclusions This study indicates that cancer diagnosis, treatment and care impose high financial toxicity on cancer patients in LMICs. Further rigorous research on cancer-related financial toxicity is needed.

Purpose Financial toxicity related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is a common issue in developed countries. We seek to systematically summarize the extent of the issue in very high development index countries with publicly funded healthcare. Methods We identified articles published Jan 1, 2005, to March 7, 2019, describing financial burden/toxicity experienced by cancer patients and/or informal caregivers using OVID Medline Embase and PsychInfo, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, and EconLit databases. Only English language peer-reviewed full papers describing studies conducted in very high development index countries with predominantly publicly funded healthcare were eligible (excluded the USA). All stages of the review were evaluated in teams of two researchers excepting the final data extraction (CJL only). Results The searches identified 7117 unique articles, 32 of which were eligible. Studies were undertaken in Canada, Australia, Ireland, UK, Germany, Denmark, Malaysia, Finland, France, South Korea, and the Netherlands. Eighteen studies reported patient/caregiver out-of-pocket costs (range US$17–US$506/month), 18 studies reported patient/caregiver lost income (range 17.6–67.3%), 14 studies reported patient/caregiver travel and accommodation costs (range US$8–US$393/month), and 6 studies reported financial stress (range 41–48%), strain (range 7–39%), or financial burden/distress/toxicity among patients/caregivers (range 22–27%). The majority of studies focused on patients, with some including caregivers. Financial toxicity was greater in those with early disease and/or more severe cancers. Conclusions Despite government-funded universal public healthcare, financial toxicity is an issue for cancer patients and their families. Although levels of toxicity vary between countries, the findings suggest financial protection appears to be inadequate in many countries.

Abstract Background Hematologic malignancies impose substantial economic burdens, but the quantitative association between financial toxicity and overall survival remains poorly defined across diverse clinical settings and disease lineages. Methods Adhering to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines, we searched electronic databases through January 2026 for studies reporting multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the association between financial toxicity and mortality in adults diagnosed with hematologic malignancies. A random-effects model with Hartung–Knapp adjustment was used for data synthesis. Small-study effects were addressed via the Duval and Tweedie trim-and-fill method. Results Eleven cohorts involving 280 826 individuals were included. Meta-analysis identified a significant association between financial toxicity and inferior survival (pooled aHR: 1.57; 95% CI, 1.29-1.91; P < .001). High heterogeneity (I2 = 85.1%) and a wide 95% prediction interval (0.89-2.77) indicated substantial variability across settings. Subgroup analysis revealed that mortality risk was primarily linked to structural barriers, specifically lack of insurance (aHR: 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.99), whereas this association was weaker in specialized transplant settings with integrated psychosocial support. Findings remained statistically significant after trim-and-fill adjustment for potential publication bias (adjusted aHR: 1.33; 95% CI, 1.05-1.69; P = .023). Conclusions Financial toxicity is a significant factor independently associated with mortality in hematologic malignancies. The strength of this association varies depending upon the care environment, with structural access barriers representing the highest risk. Integrating proactive financial navigation into standard clinical pathways is essential to alleviate socioeconomic disparities and may help improve survival outcomes.