Methods for measuring financial toxicity after cancer diagnosis and treatment: a systematic review and its implications.

Key Message To measure and quantify financial distress experienced by cancer patients, available instruments may not be capable of ascertaining all relevant domains of a patients’ distress perception. Instruments should further be developed based on identified six domains and need to be adjusted to different health systems.

Introduction

While scientific advances in oncology bring more treatment options to an expanded number of cancer patients, payers are noticing the impact of rising treatment costs [ 1 , 2 ] and longer treatment duration on drug budgets [ 3 ]. Apart from this economic impact of cancer treatment on healthcare systems, economic side-effects also become discernible at the patient level. So far, research on the individual financial effects of cancer therapy has largely focused on quantifying objective financial burden such as out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses [ 4 ]. In contrast, the subjective financial impact understood as the consequence of cost concerns on the individual patient has gained interest only in recent years.

Studies show that anxiety and stress as possible individual side-effects of cancer therapy costs are associated with a number of adverse health outcomes, both physical and mental [ 5 , 6 ]. Patients experiencing considerable subjective financial distress may alter their care to defray OOP expenses [ 7 ], may have inferior health-related quality of life (HRQOL) [ 8 ] or even lower chances of survival [ 9 ]. Cancer-related financial distress was reported even by insured patients in the United States [ 7 ]. As a result, the term ‘financial toxicity’ has been established as a generic term, covering both ‘objective financial burden’ and ‘subjective financial distress’ experienced by cancer patients [ 10 ].

First systematic reviews focus on the prevalence of financial toxicity in different health care contexts [ 3 , 4 , 11–14 ]. However, the inconsistent use of definitions, terms, and measures of financial toxicity makes it difficult to summarize the available evidence [ 13 ]. To obtain comparable results, the use of standardized instruments based on the same constructs and understanding of the factors that contribute to subjective financial distress is necessary. One recent review therefore started with conceptualizing a typology and differentiated material, psychological, and behavioral reactions of the individual cancer patients as a result of subjective financial distress [ 13 ]. Yet, a description of how these three domains have been used or compiled into questionnaires and related items is still lacking.

Furthermore, most of the available evidence is from the United States healthcare system [ 12 ]. First studies from countries with social insurance-based health care systems indicate need for further methodological research to cover the cancer patients experience and reaction in theses health care systems [ 15–18 ]. To enable both a better understanding of the underlying construct of cancer-related financial distress and to facilitate the compilation of survey instruments that are adjustable to other healthcare contexts such as third-party-payer systems in Europe, this review systematizes the methods and items that previous studies used for measuring the subjective financial distress of cancer patients. Since a validated test instrument is a prerequisite for robust and comparable results, the present systematic review focuses on the methodology of how questions are used to operationalize the concept of financial distress.

Methods

Search strategy and study selection

We searched PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science databases up to March 2018 to identify studies that provide data on cancer-related financial distress experienced by adult patients. A manual search was further carried out based on the reference lists of included studies. Different keywords for definitions of financial toxicity as well as cancer and related synonyms were used (see supplementary Table S1 , available at Annals of Oncology online). We followed the PRISMA guidelines in conducting this review.

Full-text publications of systematic literature reviews, primary observational studies or surveys with cancer patients regardless of tumor entity or employment status were included when available in English or German language. Reported measures of direct (e.g. OOP-cost or deductibles) or indirect treatment-related costs (e.g. loss of earnings) had to be linked with the individuals’ perception of its financial situation during or after cancer diagnosis and treatment. A structured and documented data generation via questionnaires or structured interviews was mandatory. Therefore, qualitative studies without structured and published interview guidelines were not considered. Studies on financial consequences of cancer treatment of a household member (especially children) were excluded. No limit was placed on the study setting or publication date.

Data extraction

In the absence of a standardized taxonomy, we define the term financial toxicity as a potential consequence of subjective financial distress experienced by patients due to cancer-related (or anticipated) direct and indirect treatment costs (see Figure 1 ). Since the concept of ‘subjective financial distress’ is not conclusively defined in neither a broader context nor a disease-specific [ 13 ], we analyzed the wording of the included studies and checked whether there was an explanation of the concept of subjective financial distress. Therefore, verbalizations and definitions from the methods and results sections of the included articles were scrutinized. The items used to assess the individual financial distress were extracted from the study reports or, where applicable, from separately published questionnaires. Two authors (JW, RL) independently reviewed abstracts of the studies, and three authors collectively made decisions about whether studies should be included or excluded when there was no consensus on the first review (JW, RL, BS). Two authors (JW, RL) abstracted data from the studies or questionnaires, and all authors reviewed these data and categorized the identified questions regarding the individual responses to financial distress. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Domains of subjective financial distress

Supplementary Table S2 , available at Annals of Oncology online gives a detailed and comprehensive overview of the questions used in the included studies. Questions were allotted to a classification of six self-developed conceptual subdomains. This classification was based on a typology of three broad domains used by a number of authors [ 7 , 13 , 19 , 20 ]. These three domains cover the following aspects: (i) the material conditions that arise from increased direct and indirect costs, (ii) the psychological response as a result of efforts necessary to cope with the increased costs and (iii) the coping behaviors itself that patients adopt to manage their medical care while experiencing increased expenses [ 13 ].

We expanded the classification to six subdomains since we learned during the process of allotting questions to domains of financial distress that the preliminary three dimensions were not sufficiently differentiating all aspects (see Figure 1 ). We suggest subdividing the domain of material conditions into active ‘financial spending’ (e.g. percentage of health-related spending in relation to household income) and the use up of passive ‘financial resources’ (e.g. selling property or using up savings). This should enable a better distinction between direct and indirect financial reactions, which seems to be relevant in third-party payer systems with (approximate) full reimbursement of therapy costs. The domain of ‘affect’ continues to represent the psychological response to increased cancer-related expenses (e.g. concerns about current financial situation). To incorporate influences of the surrounding social environment, we propose to rename this domain into ‘psychosocial responses’. Last, we suggest subdividing possible coping behaviors into three subdomains: ‘support seeking’ from others (e.g. searching for financial assistance), altering care plans (‘coping care’, e.g. cutting back on prescribed medications ) and changes in one’s lifestyle (‘coping lifestyle’, e.g. reduce leisure activities ).

Results

Study characteristics

Based on 3298 records screened, 41 publications based on 40 studies matched our inclusion criteria (see Figure 2 ). Six systematic reviews matching our inclusion criteria were identified that are discussed and contrasted with our results in the discussion section. Detailed information about the included studies can be taken from Table 1 . Regarding the number of studies included, it should be noted that two studies are based on the same survey but use different samples and are therefore counted as two separate studies [ 21 , 22 ].

Most of the included studies ( n = 43) were conducted after 2010, mostly in the United States ( n = 30). There are only four studies from Europe with one study conducted in France [ 16 ], one from the UK [ 23 ] and two studies from Ireland [ 17 , 18 ]. The sample sizes range between 73 [ 24 ] and a maximum of 9513 participants [ 25 ]. Twenty-four of the included studies did not specify the type of cancer patients that were included in the survey. Studies considering a specific type of cancer patients mostly included breast cancer ( n = 10), colorectal cancer ( n = 6), lung cancer ( n = 6) and prostate cancer ( n = 6). Thirty-four studies were quantitative surveys and five studies used qualitative interviews. The time of patient inclusion during their course of disease (e.g. after diagnosis or treatment) varied widely across the identified studies. In four studies [ 7 , 26–28 ], the study population was already at risk for poverty at study onset (e.g. recruitment through an organization that provides financial assistance to help patients with co-payments, etc.). For a comprehensive overview over the general study characteristics, see supplementary Table S2 , available at Annals of Oncology online.

Instruments used to measure a patient’s subjective financial distress

Most of the studies used self-designed questionnaires to measure subjective financial distress. Fourteen studies were based on eight different pre-existing instruments. These instruments either were designed to measure subjective financial distress or include only a subscale on the financial situation among other items (e.g. HRQOL). Some of them were cancer-specific and others for generic application (Table 2 ).

Of the four instruments developed specifically for measuring subjective financial distress, three are intended for the indication-specific use in cancer patients (BCFS, COST, SWBS). de Souza et al. [ 35 ] first used the relatively new COST measure. Briefly, the COST is an 11-item instrument to measure financial toxicity with a single item on financial spending, 2 items on financial resources and 8 items on the psychosocial response of cancer patients. This instrument was developed in 2014 by de Souza et al. [ 36 ] and has recently been validated on United States patients. One study employed the cancer-specific SWBS [ 39 ]. It consists of 17 items divided into 2 subscales: material (9 items) and social capital (8 items). While items from the material subscale include questions on financial spending as well as financial resources, the social capital subscale comprise aspects of psychosocial resources such as family support or the person’s health literacy. The SWBS was developed to be a subscale of other questionnaires assessing HRQOL but can be used as a stand-alone measure as well [ 38 ]. The BCFS, used in one study [ 30 ], is a 42-item instrument that asks about crucial aspects of cancer-related economic burden including psychosocial aspects (i.e. changes in motivation, productivity), both aspects of material responses (i.e. changes in income, finding second jobs, selling property, borrowing money, using saving, or missing bill payments), coping behavior (changing economic lifestyle) and OOP expenses (i.e. for insurance, medical care, medicines or alternative treatment and services). The most used instrument was the InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale [IFDFW, now known as the Personal Financial Wellness Scale (PFW Scale)] used in four studies [ 4 , 32–34 ]. This instrument is indicated for generic use, measuring solely subjective financial distress with eight items in total, comprising five questions on the psychosocial affect, two questions on financial resources and one item on lifestyle related coping strategies.

Instruments that only include a subscale for financial distress aim at a broader assessment of HRQOL or well-being. The most frequently used disease-specific instrument was the EORTC questionnaire [ 23 , 42 , 43 ]. The EORTC questionnaire includes 30 items measuring the multidimensionality of cancer patients’ HRQOL. The financial difficulty subscale is represented by a single item (‘during the past week: Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties?’). One study measured the financial difficulty of patients using items of the SDI [ 23 ]. The SDI consists of 21 items with each of the items covering a different area of potential issues in daily life, such as perceived difficulties with work, residence, finance and planning for the future [ 46 ]. Two of the 21 items refer to cancer-related financial consequences. Two studies used the CanCORS Patient survey to measure the objective financial burden of the cancer patients [ 49 , 50 ]. This disease-specific survey is designed for patients with lung and colorectal cancer and uses one question on financial resources to capture the individual’s reaction to financial burden (‘How difficult is it for you to live on your total household income right now?’). One study [ 45 ] used the PSQ-18, which assesses how participants feel about the medical care they receive. The 18-item scale includes seven dimensions of satisfaction with medical care, of which 2 items may reflect subjective financial distress (‘I feel confident that I can get the medical care I need without being set back financially’, ‘I have to pay for more of my medical care than I can afford’) [ 44 ].

Domains and questions to measure subjective financial distress

With regard to the methodology of measuring ‘subjective financial distress’, three aspects were operationalized quite differently in available studies: (i) the wording used to describe financial distress, (ii) the number of included dimensions and (iii) the corresponding number of questions used within the applied questionnaires.

First, authors used a total of eight different wordings to describe subjective financial distress related to cancer diagnosis and treatment (Table 1 ). The term ‘burden’ was used most often ( n = 16), followed by the terms ‘distress’ ( n = 12), ‘hardship’ ( n = 7), ‘difficulty’ ( n = 5), ‘stress’ ( n = 4), ‘toxicity’ ( n = 4), ‘strain’ ( n = 3), ‘worry’ ( n = 2) and ‘catastrophe’ ( n = 1), respectively. Secondly, the instrument length ranged from 12 [ 51 ] to 130 items [ 16 ], including both, items on the subjective perception of financial distress and questions regarding other aspects such as HRQOL, overall survival or other cancer-related issues (Table 3 ). Thirdly, the number of items specifically focusing on the subjective financial distress ranged from one [ 43 , 50 , 57 ] to 37 [ 60 ], with an average of ten questions.

Based on all 352 different questions used in the literature so far, we developed a classification of six relevant subdomains of subjective financial distress. With 34 studies, the majority included financial resources in their survey (Table 3 ). In order to assess the material financial burden, both the possibility of active financial spending and usage of passive financial resources need to be distinguished. Half of the studies assessed active financial spending with mostly one or two but no more than six questions. Two studies focused on this issue with 15 [ 60 ] or even 19 [ 23 ] related questions. The number of items regarding the use of passive financial resources ranged from one item to a maximum of 16 [ 60 ]. Psychosocial aspects were only considered in 23 studies. The questions used mainly reflect the perception of stress as a result of financial constraints as well as related fears. Only three studies focused on the assessment of psychosocial aspects asking more than five questions [ 16 , 37 , 56 ], while most of the studies included just one item asking whether patients worry about their financial situation. In contrast, the study by Barbaret et al. [ 16 ] exemplifies the possible range of psychosocial reactions. Besides questions on the relation of financial restrictions and stress experience (e.g. ‘Has the financial cost of treating your cancer caused you or your family distress?’), perceived financial distress is also captured in relation to typical dimensions of HRQOL (e.g. ‘I have more financial distress than physical distress’). Captured behavioral changes includes three different aspects: ‘seeking support’ from others, altering care plans (‘coping care’) or changes in one’s lifestyle (‘coping lifestyle’). Most studies focused on the need to alter care plans (what is uncommon in third-party payer health care systems), the need for support seeking, e.g. from financial advisors or family members, is less studied. Just two studies included items on all three dimensions of behavioral changes [ 30 , 32 ].

Quantifying data on subjective financial distress

While eight studies do not define whether or how they processed data on subjective distress, other tried to quantify and grade results on the experience of financial distress (Table 2 ). Methodological approaches for quantifying financial distress are very heterogeneous, as they differ in both, the types of questions that are applied and whether scales are used to quantify the amount or level of subjective financial distress. Underlying scale types were similar in all included questions, including (i) scaled questions (e.g. Likert-scales), (ii) dichotomous questions and (iii) multiple-choice questions or combinations of different scale types (Table 4 ). When the data were used for quantification, both scores where multiple scales are transformed into a composite value, or threshold values that indicate the presence of subjective financial distress if a certain score value is exceeded, or a minimum number of conditions are met, were used.

Three out of 19 studies that applied a 1D Likert-scale used the EORTC QLQ-C30, in which a single item is answered on a 4-point scale. On this scale, only four scores are possible: 0, 33.33, 66.67 and 100 with a higher score indicating a greater level of financial difficulty [ 23 , 42 , 43 ]. Four studies that applied multi-dimensional Likert-scales calculated a score and then reported a threshold for subjective financial distress or reported several thresholds to distinguish between different degrees of severity of subjective financial distress [ 32 , 33 , 37 , 49 ]. Both heuristic and data-driven approaches (e.g. deviation from the median) were used to define such thresholds. An example is the study of Huntington et al. [ 37 ] that applied the COST instrument, which records financial distress on an 11-dimensional Likert-scale and provides a score ranging from 0 to 44 indicating the extent of ‘financial toxicity’. The lower the score, the worse is the individual’s financial toxicity. Of the studies using dichotomous items, Kodama et al. [ 63 ] applied a single dichotomous question (‘Do you feel the financial burden of your medical expenses?’) to measure subjective financial distress. Eight studies that asked more than one dichotomous question defined financial distress as being existent if a certain threshold of conditions is met [ 21 , 22 , 24–26 , 54 , 67 , 68 ] or stated multiple thresholds on different scales, of which at least one has to be satisfied to meet the definition of subjective financial distress.

Discussion

Cancer diagnosis and treatment is associated with physical, psychological and financial burdens in patients. While physical and psychological strain is documented and increasingly addressed with supportive therapy [ 69 ] and psycho-oncological support in a systematic way, there is only scarce data on the perception of financial distress and its effects on patients in general—and even less with regard to patients in third-party payer health care systems [ 70 , 71 ]. While it is commendable that the number of publications on this topic is now on the rise, one major result of this systematic review is that there is a large variation and no consistency in the understanding of item domains describing subjective financial distress, and thus a huge variety of questions used to measure this issue. In the short term, this has also led to a discordant use of terminology . In most studies evaluating the negative personal financial impact of cancer care, the measure of financial distress is not clearly stated nor is the underlying construct validated. It is therefore not surprising that data on subjective financial distress have not yet been quantified in a standardized way. In the long term, however, the lack of standardization in measurement also interferes or even prevents the planning and implementation of consolidated measures for early detection and avoidance of financial burdens. We will discuss this heterogeneity and suggest further steps for consolidating research and potential use of our results.

To clarify the terminology, we suggest the following definition based on our review: ‘financial toxicity’ is the possible outcome of perceived ‘subjective financial distress’ resulting from ‘objective financial burden’. Thereby, objective financial burden refers to direct and indirect cancer-related costs since this concept is well established in health economic analysis despite some critique as to the limitations in the use of objective definitions [ 72 ]. Although the wording ‘financial toxicity’ has some appeal because oncologists understand the analogy to other treatment-related side-effects such as nausea or vomiting we should keep in mind that the analogy is questionable as financial difficulties are not always fateful, but the consequence of social or private circumstances in the past.

Possible domains that describe the subjective financial distress have not yet been well established. Based on a broader classification of three dimensions [ 13 ], we have identified in total six more precise subdomains that explain perceptions of and reactions to financial distress. While eight different pre-existing instruments were used, most of the questionnaires were self-designed and offer limited to none comparability. The two most frequently used questionnaires are the cancer-specific EORTC questionnaire and the InCharge instrument, indicated for generic use. Both instruments are brief and do not cover all six identified domains of subjective financial distress. However, the EORTC or other, shorter and validated instruments may be used as rough screening tools. Since it is frequently used in pivotal studies of new drugs, it could, e.g. be used to identify cancer indications with a particularly high risk of financial toxicity for cancer patients. A longer instrument reflecting all possible relevant domains of financial distress could then be used within these groups consecutively. In a post hoc analysis, Perrone et al. [ 14 ] recently pooled data on subjective financial distress from 16 prospective studies using the EORTC in Italy. Owing to general limitations of observational studies and the accompanying post hoc analysis, generalizability of these study results remains unclear [ 71 ]. But also in clinical practice, shorter instruments may be used as an early detection tool during hospital admission to offer counseling services.

The COST measure [ 36 ] was validated for measuring financial distress in cancer patients in the United States. However, due to different socio-political conditions, it can be expected that patients in the United States and Europe differ in their experience of financial effects related to cancer diagnosis and treatment. First, due to uniform health-care coverage by social insurance, OOP medical expenses seem not to be that relevant to EU cancer patients since co-payments are capped and supported by social welfare offices in most countries. Secondly, in Europe workplace compensation programs are more prevalent and more comprehensive than in the United States. While in the United States, due to a lack of general security systems, private assets must compensate the loss of income in most cases, in European social security systems other compensation benefits such as sick pay or reduced pension payments through early retirement play a major role. In Europe, most countries provide paid sick leave for at least some weeks. While this might still not be enough, the United States has by and large no statutory mandate for such regulation [ 73 ]. In order to assess the influence of a cancer disease on financial distress, questions relating to earning capacity must therefore be given greater consideration in the European context.

Our six-domain classification of item dimensions allows for a detailed overview of the main research areas and thus facilitates the transfer of the items developed so far to the specifics of the European Health care delivery system. We have shown that questions were mainly asked about material reactions such as using financial ressources. Psychosocial aspects, such as perceived impact of financial distress on a person’s emotional well-being and social context, were less considered. We have further suggested three different subdomains of coping behavior as we assume each subdomain having different implications on measuring reactions to financial distress. Treatment noncompliance, being an example of the coping care subdomain, probably has direct effect on clinical outcomes [ 74 ], whereas the seeking of support or the alteration of one’s lifestyle does not affect clinical outcomes directly, although it might still reduce quality of life [ 75 ]. Within these different behavioral reactions, strategies to alter care plans were surveyed in most studies, while strategies to alter the lifestyle or to seek emotional or specialized support were only asked in a few studies. Yet, the individual adaptation of treatment plans to financial capabilities is more important in privately financed health care systems, other dimensions such as support seeking may play an important role in social insurance-based systems [ 76 ]. Hence, we identified the need for an instrument applicable to countries with universal healthcare. Development should start with a systematic appraisal of domains of the construct to be surveyed. These domains should be based on qualitative research in the respective country and can additionally be taken from existing instruments as shown in our review.

Last, we examined how data on subjective financial distress has been processed to quantify distress using scores or thresholds. Whether scores or threshold values are to be calculated based on this data depends on the goal with which the data is collected. Several valuable applications can be conceived, comparable to other patient-reported-outcome measures such as HRQOL: Monitoring the financial status of patient groups and their individual perception of subjective financial distress at different moments in time, e.g. diagnosis, curative or palliative treatment, survivor care. Evaluation and audit of health care, by measuring changes in financial status in individual patients and in groups of patients. Assessing the seriousness of conditions at different moments of time (‘early detection’). Tailoring of information and counseling need.

Systematic reviews generally highlight the need for consistent scales to evaluate financial distress associated with cancer (see supplementary Table S3 , available at Annals of Oncology online). To our knowledge, this is the first review that aims at compiling and systematizing the constructs, items and scales used so far. Yet, our review has some limitations. Despite the use of multiple databases, we were unable to capture every relevant article because of different indexing used by the databases and the inconsistent terminology used to define financial toxicity or financial distress. To help minimize this limitation, we hand-searched the reference lists for each article for any additional studies that were not captured in the initial electronic search process. Data extraction was standardized and carried out by at least two authors. However, there still may be some subjectivity in our descriptive classification of items used.

In summary, as we welcome the fact that the topic of financial toxicity is becoming increasingly relevant and that numerous studies are being initiated, we also see shortcomings due to a lack of consensus on a standardized instrument, such as the poor comparability of study results. There is a need to join efforts to develop a common understanding of the concept of financial toxicity and related subjective financial distress. We encourage using the identified six domains (i) active financial spending, (ii) use of passive financial resources, (iii) psychosocial responses, (iv) support seeking, (v) coping with care or (vi) coping with ones’ lifestyle to further develop survey instruments and adjust them to different health systems. Practically, a discussion on item domains and taxonomy could be coordinated by the EORTC-group, as they already have experience in developing cancer-specific survey tools, such as the EORTC QLQ-C30, that constitutes an important contribution to the assessment of quality of life of cancer patients [ 40 ]. In addition, discussions could be initiated with ESMO on whether questions on the subjective financial distress should also be included in the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale to enable a better understanding of new treatment options and their relative financial implications to patients.

Funding

This work was supported by IPSEN Pharma GmbH, unrestricted research grant (ESS A-DE-52030-362).

Disclosure

The study was sponsored by IPSEN Pharma GmbH, but study selection, data extraction and manuscript preparation were carried out independently. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary Material

Click here for additional data file.

References

1 McGuire A , Drummond M , Martin M , Justo N. End of life or end of the road? Are rising cancer costs sustainable? Is it time to consider alternative incentive and funding schemes? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2015 ; 15 ( 4 ): 599 – 605 . 26176751 10.1586/14737167.2015.1039518

2 Shih Y-CT , Smieliauskas F , Geynisman DM. Trend in the cost and use of targeted cancer therapies for the privately insured nonelderly: 2001 to 2011 . J Clin Oncol 2015 ; 33 ( 19 ): 2190 – 2196 . 25987701 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.2320 PMC4477789

3 Azzani M , Roslani AC , Su TT. The perceived cancer-related financial hardship among patients and their families: a systematic review . Support Care Cancer 2015 ; 23 ( 3 ): 889 – 898 . 25337681 10.1007/s00520-014-2474-y

4 Bestvina CM , Zullig LL , Zafar SY. The implications of out-of-pocket cost of cancer treatment in the USA: a critical appraisal of the literature . Future Oncol 2014 ; 10 ( 14 ): 2189 – 2199 . 25471033 10.2217/fon.14.130

5 Kahn JR , Pearlin LI. Financial strain over the life course and health among older adults . J Health Soc Behav 2006 ; 47 ( 1 ): 17 – 31 . 16583773 10.1177/002214650604700102

6 Zimmerman FJ , Katon W. Socioeconomic status, depression disparities, and financial strain: what lies behind the income-depression relationship? Health Econ 2005 ; 14 ( 12 ): 1197 – 1215 . 15945040 10.1002/hec.1011

7 Zafar SY , Peppercorn JM , Schrag D. The financial toxicity of cancer treatment: a pilot study assessing out-of-pocket expenses and the insured cancer patient's experience . Oncologist 2013 ; 18 ( 4 ): 381 – 390 . 23442307 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0279 PMC3639525

8 Lathan CS , Cronin A , Tucker-Seeley R et al Association of financial strain with symptom burden and quality of life for patients with lung or colorectal cancer . J Clin Oncol 2016 ; 34 ( 15 ): 1732 – 1740 . 26926678 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.2232 PMC4966336

9 Ramsey SD , Bansal A , Fedorenko CR et al Financial insolvency as a risk factor for early mortality among patients with cancer . JCO 2016 ; 34 ( 9 ): 980 – 986 . 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.6620 PMC4933128 26811521

10 Carrera PM , Kantarjian HM , Blinder VS. The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment . CA Cancer J Clin 2018 ; 68 ( 2 ): 153 – 165 . 29338071 10.3322/caac.21443 PMC6652174

11 Hanratty B , Holland P , Jacoby A , Whitehead M. Financial stress and strain associated with terminal cancer – a review of the evidence . Palliat Med 2007 ; 21 ( 7 ): 595 – 607 . 17942498 10.1177/0269216307082476

12 Gordon LG , Merollini KMD , Lowe A , Chan RJ. A systematic review of financial toxicity among cancer survivors: we can’t pay the co-pay . Patient 2017 ; 10 ( 3 ): 295 – 309 . 27798816 10.1007/s40271-016-0204-x

13 Altice CK , Banegas MP , Tucker-Seeley RD , Yabroff KR. Financial hardships experienced by cancer survivors: a systematic review . J Natl Cancer Inst 2017 ; 109 ( 2 ): djw205. 27754926 10.1093/jnci/djw205 PMC6075571

14 Perrone F , Jommi C , Di Maio M et al The association of financial difficulties with clinical outcomes in cancer patients: secondary analysis of 16 academic prospective clinical trials conducted in Italy . Ann Oncol 2016 ; 27 ( 12 ): 2224 – 2229 . 27789469 10.1093/annonc/mdw433

15 Mehlis K , Witte J , Surmann B et al Financial toxicity in cancer patients: impact of a chronic disease on patients’ economic situation and psychosocial outcomes . Psychother Psych Med 2018 ; 68 ( 08 ): e18 .

16 Barbaret C , Brosse C , Rhondali W et al Financial distress in patients with advanced cancer . PLoS One 2017 ; 12 ( 5 ): e0176470 . 28545063 10.1371/journal.pone.0176470 PMC5436643

17 Sharp L , Carsin A-E , Timmons A. Associations between cancer-related financial stress and strain and psychological well-being among individuals living with cancer . Psychooncology 2013 ; 22 ( 4 ): 745 – 755 . 22411485 10.1002/pon.3055

18 Sharp L , Timmons A. Pre-diagnosis employment status and financial circumstances predict cancer-related financial stress and strain among breast and prostate cancer survivors . Support Care Cancer 2016 ; 24 ( 2 ): 699 – 709 . 26143038 10.1007/s00520-015-2832-4

19 Martin MY , Fouad MN , Oster RA et al What do cancer patients worry about when making decisions about treatment? Variation across racial/ethnic groups . Support Care Cancer 2014 ; 22 ( 1 ): 233 – 244 . 24037412 10.1007/s00520-013-1958-5 PMC5338592

20 Meropol NJ , Schulman KA. Cost of cancer care: issues and implications . J Clin Oncol 2007 ; 25 ( 2 ): 180 – 186 . 17210937 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.6081

21 Regenbogen SE , Veenstra CM , Hawley ST et al The personal financial burden of complications after colorectal cancer surgery . Cancer 2014 ; 120 ( 19 ): 3074 – 3081 . 24889014 10.1002/cncr.28812

22 Veenstra CM , Regenbogen SE , Hawley ST et al A composite measure of personal financial burden among patients with stage III colorectal cancer . Med Care 2014 ; 52 ( 11 ): 957 – 962 . 25304021 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000241 PMC4270346

23 Rogers SN , Harvey-Woodworth CN , Hare J et al Patients' perception of the financial impact of head and neck cancer and the relationship to health-related quality of life . Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012 ; 50 ( 5 ): 410 – 416 . 22000023 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.07.026

24 de Souza JA , Kung S , O’Connor J , Yap BJ. Determinants of patient-centered financial stress in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer . JOP 2017 ; 13 ( 4 ): e310 – e318 . 28195811 10.1200/JOP.2016.016337

25 Jan S , Kimman M , Peters SAE , Woodward M. Financial catastrophe, treatment discontinuation and death associated with surgically operable cancer in South-East Asia: results from the ACTION Study . Surgery 2015 ; 157 : 971 – 982 . 25934082 10.1016/j.surg.2015.02.012

26 Nipp RD , Zullig LL , Samsa G et al Identifying cancer patients who alter care or lifestyle due to treatment-related financial distress . Psychooncology 2016 ; 25 ( 6 ): 719 – 725 . 26149817 10.1002/pon.3911

27 Ell K , Xie B , Wells A et al Economic stress among low-income women with cancer: effects on quality of life . Cancer 2008 ; 112 ( 3 ): 616 – 625 . 18085642 10.1002/cncr.23203

28 Zullig LL , Peppercorn JM , Schrag D et al Financial distress, use of cost-coping strategies, and adherence to prescription medication among patients with cancer . JOP 2013 ; 9 ( 6S ): 60s – 63s . 29431038 10.1200/JOP.2013.000971 PMC3825170

29 Given BA , Given CW , Stommel M. Family and out-of-pocket costs for women with breast cancer . Cancer Pract 1994 ; 2 ( 3 ): 187 – 193 . 8055022

30 Meneses K , Azuero A , Hassey L et al Does economic burden influence quality of life in breast cancer survivors? Gynecol Oncol 2012 ; 124 ( 3 ): 437 – 443 . 22138013 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.038 PMC3278545

31 Prawitz AD , Garman ET , Sorhaindo B et al InCharge financial distress/financial well-being scale: development, administration, and score interpretation . Financial Counsel Plann 2006 ; 17 ( 1 ): 34 – 50 .

32 Meisenberg BR , Varner A , Ellis E et al Patient attitudes regarding the cost of illness in cancer care . Oncologist 2015 ; 20 ( 10 ): 1199 – 1204 . 26330457 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0168 PMC4591944

33 Fathollahzade A , Rahmani A , Dadashzadeh A et al Financial distress and its predicting factors among Iranian cancer patients . Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015 ; 16 ( 4 ): 1621 – 1625 . 25743842 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.4.1621

34 Meeker CR , Geynisman DM , Egleston BL et al Relationships among financial distress, emotional distress, and overall distress in insured patients with cancer . JOP 2016 ; 12 ( 7 ): e755 – e764 . 27328795 10.1200/JOP.2016.011049 PMC5015446

35 de Souza JA , Yap BJ , Hlubocky FJ et al The development of a financial toxicity patient-reported outcome in cancer: the COST measure . Cancer 2014 ; 120 ( 20 ): 3245 – 3253 . 24954526 10.1002/cncr.28814

36 de Souza JA , Yap BJ , Wroblewski K et al Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome: the validation of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) . Cancer 2017 ; 123 ( 3 ): 476. 27716900 10.1002/cncr.30369 PMC5298039

37 Huntington SF , Weiss BM , Vogl DT et al Financial toxicity in insured patients with multiple myeloma: a cross-sectional pilot study . Lancet Haematol 2015 ; 2 ( 10 ): e408 – e416 . 26686042 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00151-9

38 Head BA , Faul AC. Development and validation of a scale to measure socioeconomic well-being in persons with cancer . J Support Oncol 2008 ; 6 ( 4 ): 183 – 192 . 18491687

39 Khera N , Chang Y-h , Hashmi S et al Financial burden in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation . Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2014 ; 20 ( 9 ): 1375 – 1381 . 24867778 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.05.011

40 Aaronson NK , Ahmedzai S , Bergman B et al The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology . J Natl Cancer Inst 1993 ; 85 ( 5 ): 365 – 376 . 8433390 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365

41 Aaronson NK , Bullinger M , Ahmedzai S. A modular approach to quality-of-life assessment in cancer clinical trials . Recent Results Cancer Res 1988 ; 111 : 231 – 249 . 2459750 10.1007/978-3-642-83419-6_27

42 Zucca A , Boyes A , Newling G et al Travelling all over the countryside: travel-related burden and financial difficulties reported by cancer patients in New South Wales and Victoria . Aust J Rural Health 2011 ; 19 ( 6 ): 298 – 305 . 22098213 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2011.01232.x

43 Gupta D , Lis CG , Grutsch JF. Perceived cancer-related financial difficulty: implications for patient satisfaction with quality of life in advanced cancer . Support Care Cancer 2007 ; 15 ( 9 ): 1051 – 1056 . 17242911 10.1007/s00520-007-0214-2

44 Marshall GN , Hays RD. The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short-Form (PSQ-18), P-7865 . Santa Monica, CA : RAND Corporation 1994 ; 1 – 36 .

45 Chino F , Peppercorn J , Taylor DH et al Self-reported financial burden and satisfaction with care among patients with cancer . Oncologist 2014 ; 19 ( 4 ): 414 – 420 . 24668333 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0374 PMC3983822

46 Wright P , Smith AB , Keding A , Velikova G. The social difficulties inventory (SDI): development of subscales and scoring guidance for staff . Psychooncology 2011 ; 20 ( 1 ): 36 – 43 . 20186841 10.1002/pon.1705

47 Wright EP , Kiely M , Johnston C et al Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice . Qual Life Res 2005 ; 14 ( 2 ): 373 – 386 . 15892426 10.1007/s11136-004-5332-4

48 Malin JL , Ko C , Ayanian JZ et al Understanding cancer patients’ experience and outcomes: development and pilot study of the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance patient survey . Support Care Cancer 2006 ; 14 ( 8 ): 837 – 848 . 16482448 10.1007/s00520-005-0902-8

49 Pisu M , Kenzik KM , Oster RA et al Economic hardship of minority and non-minority cancer survivors 1 year after diagnosis: another long-term effect of cancer? Cancer 2015 ; 121 ( 8 ): 1257 – 1264 . 25564986 10.1002/cncr.29206 PMC4393356

50 Zafar SY , McNeil RB , Thomas CM et al Population-based assessment of cancer survivors' financial burden and quality of life: a prospective cohort study . JOP 2015 ; 11 ( 2 ): 145 – 150 . 25515717 10.1200/JOP.2014.001542 PMC4371118

51 Shankaran V , Jolly S , Blough D , Ramsey SD. Risk factors for financial hardship in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer: a population-based exploratory analysis . JCO 2012 ; 30 ( 14 ): 1608 – 1614 . 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.9511 22412136

52 Abel GA , Albelda R , Khera N et al Financial hardship and patient-reported outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplantation . Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2016 ; 22 ( 8 ): 1504 – 1510 . 27184627 10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.05.008 PMC4949125

53 Azzani M , Roslani AC , Su TT. Financial burden of colorectal cancer treatment among patients and their families in a middle-income country . Support Care Cancer 2016 ; 24 ( 10 ): 4423 – 4432 . 27225528 10.1007/s00520-016-3283-2

54 Cagle JG , Carr DC , Hong S , Zimmerman S. Financial burden among US households affected by cancer at the end of life . Psychooncology 2016 ; 25 ( 8 ): 919 – 926 . 26282448 10.1002/pon.3933 PMC4956573

55 Chan A , Chiang YY , Low XH et al Affordability of cancer treatment for aging cancer patients in Singapore: an analysis of health, lifestyle, and financial burden . Support Care Cancer 2013 ; 21 ( 12 ): 3509 – 3517 . 23975225 10.1007/s00520-013-1930-4

56 Delgado-Guay M , Ferrer J , Rieber AG et al Financial distress and its associations with physical and emotional symptoms and quality of life among advanced cancer patients . Oncologist 2015 ; 20 ( 9 ): 1092 – 1098 . 26205738 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0026 PMC4571810

57 Fenn KM , Evans SB , McCorkle R et al Impact of financial burden of cancer on survivors' quality of life . J Oncol Pract 2014 ; 10 ( 5 ): 332 – 338 . 24865220 10.1200/JOP.2013.001322

58 Goodwin JA , Coleman EA , Sullivan E et al Personal financial effects of multiple myeloma and its treatment . Cancer Nurs 2013 ; 36 ( 4 ): 301 – 308 . 23047800 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182693522 PMC3973128

59 Gordon L , Scuffham P , Hayes S , Newman B. Exploring the economic impact of breast cancers during the 18 months following diagnosis . Psychooncology 2007 ; 16 ( 12 ): 1130 – 1139 . 17345557 10.1002/pon.1182

60 Gordon LG , Walker SM , Mervin MC et al Financial toxicity: a potential side effect of prostate cancer treatment among Australian men . Eur J Cancer Care 2017 ; 26 ( 1 ): e12392. 10.1111/ecc.12392 PMC5297983 26423576

61 Jagsi R , Pottow JAE , Griffith KA et al Long-term financial burden of breast cancer: experiences of a diverse cohort of survivors identified through population-based registries . JCO 2014 ; 32 ( 12 ): 1269 – 1276 . 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.0956 PMC3986387 24663041

62 Kent EE , Forsythe LP , Yabroff KR et al Are survivors who report cancer-related financial problems more likely to forgo or delay medical care? Cancer 2013 ; 119 ( 20 ): 3710 – 3717 . 23907958 10.1002/cncr.28262 PMC4552354

63 Kodama Y , Morozumi R , Matsumura T et al Increased financial burden among patients with chronic myelogenous leukaemia receiving imatinib in Japan: a retrospective survey . BMC Cancer 2012 ; 12 : 152. 22530992 10.1186/1471-2407-12-152 PMC3502305

64 Longo CJ , Fitch M , Deber RB , Williams AP. Financial and family burden associated with cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada . Support Care Cancer 2006 ; 14 ( 11 ): 1077 – 1085 . 16896878 10.1007/s00520-006-0088-8

65 Longo CJ , Deber R , Fitch M et al An examination of cancer patients' monthly ‘out-of-pocket’ costs in Ontario, Canada . Eur J Cancer Care 2007 ; 16 ( 6 ): 500 – 507 . 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2007.00783.x 17944764

66 Pezzin LE , O’Niel MB , Nattinger AB. The economic consequences of breast cancer adjuvant hormonal treatments . J Gen Intern Med 2009 ; 24 ( S2 ): 446 – 450 . 10.1007/s11606-009-1079-5 PMC2763163 19838848

67 Whitney RL , Bell JF , Reed SC et al Predictors of financial difficulties and work modifications among cancer survivors in the United States . J Cancer Surviv 2016 ; 10 ( 2 ): 241 – 250 . 26188363 10.1007/s11764-015-0470-y PMC4854648

68 Yabroff KR , Dowling EC , Guy GP et al Financial hardship associated with cancer in the United States: findings From a population-based sample of adult cancer survivors . JCO 2016 ; 34 ( 3 ): 259 – 267 . 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.0468 PMC4872019 26644532

69 European Society for Medical Oncology. ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines: Supportive and Palliative Care. https://www.esmo.org/Guidelines/Supportive-and-Palliative-Care (10 April 2018, date last accessed).

70 Walther J. Krebs und Armut . Forum 2011 ; 26 : 27 – 30 .

71 Huntington SF. Cancer-related financial toxicity: beyond the realm of drug pricing and out-of-pocket costs . Ann Oncol 2016 ; 27 ( 12 ): 2143 – 2145 . 27742653 10.1093/annonc/mdw540

72 Emanuel EJ , Fairclough DL , Slutsman J , Emanuel LL. Understanding economic and other burdens of terminal illness: the experience of patients and their caregivers . Ann Intern Med 2000 ; 132 ( 6 ): 451 – 459 . 10733444 10.7326/0003-4819-132-6-200003210-00005

73 Treble J. A tale of two continents: insuring workers against loss of income due to sickness in North America and Europe . Natl Inst Econ Soc Res 2009 ; 209 ( 1 ): 116 – 125 .

74 Ohri N , Rapkin BD , Guha C et al Radiation therapy noncompliance and clinical outcomes in an urban academic cancer center . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016 ; 95 ( 2 ): 563 – 570 . 27020104 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.01.043

75 King MT , Kenny P , Shiell A et al Quality of life three months and one year after first treatment for early stage breast cancer: influence of treatment and patient characteristics . Qual Life Res 2000 ; 9 ( 7 ): 789 – 800 . 11297021 10.1023/a:1008936830764

76 Ridic G , Gleason S , Ridic O. Comparisons of health care systems in the United States, Germany and Canada . Mater Sociomed 2012 ; 24 ( 2 ): 112 – 120 . 23678317 10.5455/msm.2012.24.112-120 PMC3633404