Treatment for breast cancer exacts a high financial toll on patients, not just in the United States and other high-income countries but in low- and middle-income countries as well, a meta-analysis found.
Although the rate of financial toxicity was much higher in low- and middle-income countries — affecting 79% of patients — more than 35% of patients in high-income countries also incurred financial hardship, the study team found.
The findings highlight the need for policies to offset the burden of direct and indirect costs for breast cancer care and improve the financial health of vulnerable patients, said the study authors, led by Kavitha Ranganathan, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
The study was published online February 8 in JAMA Network Open.
The Most Expensive Malignancy?
Patients with breast cancer may be particularly burdened by costs of care, with one study showing substantially higher out-of-pocket costs for patients with breast cancer than colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer combined.
A Lancet Oncology Commission report revealed that breast cancer was the most expensive cancer in the US in 2010, accounting for $16.5 billion, or 13% of all cancer-related spending. A separate analysis found that individual direct medical costs of breast cancer care can reach $100,000.
In high-income countries, the financial burden of breast cancer care may be the result of novel and costly cancer therapeutics and interventions, overuse of services, increased willingness to pay, and varying insurance coverage. In low- and middle-income countries, women may experience delayed diagnosis because of limited access to screening and high-quality diagnostic services, leading to more later-stage diagnoses requiring more extensive treatments. Lower baseline income, limited insurance coverage, and greater distance to treatment centers may also be factors.
“Establishing the global extent of financial toxicity and comparing the economic burden of disease in different populations is imperative to help policy makers prioritize funding of breast cancer care infrastructure,” Ranganathan and colleagues write.
In their meta-analysis of 18 studies — 14 from high-income countries and 4 from low — published from 2008 to 2021, the authors found that the definition of financial toxicity varied widely across studies.
For example, some used specific numerical criteria for defining financial toxicity, such as medical cost exceeding 40% of household capacity to pay or potential income or out-of-pocket costs exceeding 30% of annual household income.
Others used patient-reported outcome measures instruments evaluating subjective statements of financial difficulty, such as an affirmative answer to having financial difficulty or trouble paying medical bills, or paying more for medical care than is affordable.
In other studies, financial toxicity was defined according to a patient’s report of specific, objective financial consequences of care, including losing income or a job; having to borrow money or go into debt; having trouble paying for food, rent or transportation; or having to forgo any type of medical care because of cost.
In their analysis, the pooled rate of financial toxicity among patients with breast cancer was 35.3% in high-income countries and 78.8% in low/middle income countries, both demonstrating high heterogeneity or variability (P for heterogeneity < .001). In contrast, typical financial toxicity rates across all health conditions in low-income countries ranged from 6% to 12%, the investigators noted.
One study assessing quality of life measures in Egypt found that 47.5% of patients were food insecure, 66% needed financial assistance, 34% used savings to pay for treatment, and 41.2% lacked savings altogether.
Given the high rates of financial toxicity associated with breast cancer, what strategies might reduce this cost burden?
When exploring potential factors associated with financial toxicity, the researchers found no clear association between financial toxicity and race, employment status, and age, and could draw no firm conclusions about the impact of comorbidities and urban vs rural place of residence. In addition, cancer stage and treatments were “extremely” heterogeneous across studies and the authors found no clear association between either factor and financial toxicity.
But the authors noted that the highest-priority patients are typically those who have low education, low socioeconomic status, lack health insurance, and live in low-resource areas.
To reduce financial toxicity and improve outcomes among patients with breast cancer, the study team recommended four potential strategies:
-
Use targeted educational campaigns to raise awareness about the signs and symptoms of breast cancer and the importance of early diagnosis and treatment
-
Expand health are coverage to minimize direct medical out-of-pocket costs
-
Develop programs to assist with direct nonmedical and indirect costs, such as transportation to and lodging near treatment centers and childcare
-
Improve screening, referral, and treatment infrastructure for breast cancer care
The researchers also noted that their data highlight the value of universal healthcare coverage as a policy strategy, with evidence of lower financial toxicity rates in countries with universal health coverage.
Support for the study was provided in part by the National Cancer Institute, United Nations Institute for Training and Research and the Global Surgery Foundation, Harvard Global Health Institute, Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology, the Center for Surgery and Public Health, and the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery. Ranganathan reports no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors have disclosures; the full list can be found with the original article.
JAMA Netw Open. Published online February 8, 2023. Full text
For more from Medscape Oncology, join us on Twitter and Facebook
Source: Read Full Article