Discussion of costs and financial burden in clinical practice: A survey of medical oncologists in Australia

Background A diagnosis of cancer is associated with significant physical, psychological and financial burden. Including costs of cancer is an important component of shared decision making. Doctors bear a responsibility towards educating patients about the financial aspects of care. Multiple organisations have advocated for price transparency and implementing Informed Financial Consent in the clinic. However, few studies have evaluated the perspectives of oncologists on the current state of this discussion. Aims The aim of this study is to determine the views and perspectives of medical oncologists regarding communication of costs and financial burden in patients with cancer. Methods We conducted a prospective cross-sectional online survey via REDCap. The survey was distributed to medical oncologists and advanced trainees currently registered with Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA). Data was collected using the online survey comprising socio-demographic characteristics, discussion of costs and financial burden, and facilitators and barriers to these discussions. Results 547 members of MOGA were invited to participate in the study, and 106 of 547 MOGA members (19%) completed the survey. Most oncologists (66%) felt that it was their responsibility to discuss costs of care, however a majority of oncologists (59.3%) reported discussing costs with less than half of their patients. Only 25% of oncologists discussed financial concerns with more than half of their patients, and most oncologists were unfamiliar with cancer-related financial burden. Most Oncologists with greater clinical experience and those working in private practice were more likely to discuss costs with a majority of their patients. Conclusions Certain characteristics of medical oncologists and their practices were associated with reported prevalence of discussing costs of care and financial burden with their patients. In the context of rising costs of cancer care, interventions targeting modifiable factors such as raising oncologist awareness of costs of care and financial burden, screening for financial toxicity and availability of costs information in an easily accessible manner, may help increase the frequency of patient-doctor discussions about costs of care, contributing to informed decision-making and higher-quality cancer care

Interactions between Australian cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES: To understand how and why Australian cancer physicians interact with the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, performed by a medical oncologist. Thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive codes. SETTING: Given the evidence on industry influences on clinical practice and the importance to the market of oncology drugs, we sought to better understand cancer physicians' experiences. Practising consultant medical oncologists and clinical haematologists from four Australian states were interviewed over Zoom. PARTICIPANTS: 16 cancer physicians were interviewed between November 2021 and March 2022, from 37 invited (response rate 43%). Most were medical oncologists (n=12 of 16, 75%) and male (n=9 of 16, 56%). OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis of all interviews was based on grounded theory. Transcripts were coded and then codes formed into themes with supporting quotes. The themes were then placed into categories, used to describe the broad areas into which the themes could be grouped. RESULTS: Six themes were identified that fell within two broad categories: cancer physicians' views and experiences of interactions and management of these interactions. Views and experiences included: the transactional nature of relationships, risks of research dependence, ethical challenges and varied attitudes based on interaction type. Management themes included: lack of useful guidance and reduced interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These led to an overarching seventh theme, on the desire for a 'middle road'. Cancer physicians identified the transactional nature of industry relationships and felt uncomfortable with several types of interactions, including those with sales representatives. Most wanted less contact with industry, and the forced separation that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic was generally welcome. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer physicians may have difficulty balancing the perceived need to interact with industry in modern cancer care while maintaining distance to minimise conflicts of interest. Further research is needed to assess management strategies in this area

Physician-patient communication of costs and financial burden of cancer and its treatment: a systematic review of clinical guidelines

Background Optimising the care of individuals with cancer without imposing significant financial burden related to their anticancer treatment is becoming increasingly difficult. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has recommended clinicians discuss costs of cancer care with patients to enhance shared decision-making. We sought information to guide oncologists’ discussions with patients about these costs. Methods We searched Medline, EMBASE and clinical practice guideline databases from January 2009 to 1 June 2019 for recommendations about discussing the costs of care and financial burden. Guideline quality was assessed with the AGREE-II instrument. Results Twenty-seven guidelines met our eligibility criteria, including 16 from ASCO (59%). 21 of 27 (78%) guidelines included recommendations about discussion or consideration of treatment costs when prescribing, with information about actual costs in four (15%). Recognition of the risk of financial burden or financial toxicity was described in 81% (22/27) of guidelines. However, only nine guidelines (33%) included information about managing the financial burden. Conclusions Current clinical practice guidelines have little information to guide physician-patient discussions about costs of anticancer treatment and management of financial burden. This limits patients’ ability to control costs of treatment, and for the healthcare team to reduce the incidence and severity of financial burden. Current guidelines recommend clinician awareness of price variability and high costs of treatment. Clinicians are recommended to explore cost concerns and address financial worries, especially in high risk groups. Future guidelines should include advice on facilitating cost transparency discussions, with provision of cost information and resources

Retrospective evaluation of the use of pembrolizumab in malignant mesothelioma in a real-world Australian population

Introduction: We investigated the efficacy and toxicity of pembrolizumab in patients with mesothelioma from a real-world Australian population. We aimed to determine clinical factors and predictive biomarkers that could help select patients who are likely to benefit from pembrolizumab. Method: Patients with mesothelioma who were treated with pembrolizumab as part of the Insurance and Care New South Wales compensation scheme were included. Clinical information was collected retrospectively. Tumor biomarkers such as programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), BAP1, and CD3-positive (CD3+) tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were examined using archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples. Results: A total of 98 patients were included with a median age of 70 years (range, 46–91 y); 92% were men; 76% had epithelioid subtype; 21% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0. Pembrolizumab was used as second-line or subsequent-line treatment in 94 patients and as first-line treatment in four patients. The overall response rate was 18%, and the disease control rate was 56%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.8 months (95% confidence interval: 3.6–6.2), and the median overall survival (OS) was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval: 6.6–13.7). Immune-related adverse events occurred in 27% of patients, of which nine (9%) were of grade 3 or higher. In the multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with longer PFS included baseline ECOG status of 0 (median PFS: 12 mo versus 4 mo, p < 0.01) and PD-L1 tumor proportion score of greater than or equal to 1% (median PFS: 6 mo versus 4 mo, p < 0.01). Baseline platelet count of less than or equal to 400 × 109/liter was independently associated with longer PFS and OS (median PFS: 6 mo versus 2 mo, p = 0.05; median OS: 10 mo versus 4 mo, p = 0.01), whereas lack of pretreatment dexamethasone was independently associated with OS but not PFS (median OS: 10 mo versus 3 mo, p = 0.01). The odds of response were higher for patients with baseline ECOG status of 0 (p = 0.02) and with greater than or equal to 5% CD3+ TILs in the tumor (p < 0.01). PD-L1 expression, BAP1 loss, and CD3+ TILs in the stroma were not significantly associated with the overall response rate. Conclusions: Immunotherapy is a reasonable treatment option for patients with mesothelioma. Our results are comparable to other clinical trials investigating pembrolizumab in mesothelioma in terms of response. Good performance status assessment remains the most robust predictor for patient outcomes. CD3+ TILs in the tumor may help select patients that are likely to respond to pembrolizumab, whereas factors such as PD-L1 expression, baseline platelet count, and lack of pretreatment dexamethasone may help predict survival outcomes from pembrolizumab treatment

Valuing the benefits of new anticancer drugs

Improvements in survival and cancer-related symptoms must be weighed up against treatment-related adverse effects and financial burden

Australian Cancer Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Survey of Attitudes and Interactions

PURPOSE: Interactions between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry may create conflicts of interest that can adversely affect patient care. We aimed to survey cancer physicians regarding their attitudes toward and interactions with industry. METHODS: We surveyed Australian cancer physicians between December 2020 and February 2021, questioning how often they interacted with industry and their attitudes toward this. We also assessed factors associated with accepting payments from industry and the amount received, and opinions on policies and industry influence. We used logistic and linear regression to examine links between attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS: There were 116 responses (94 complete). Almost half (n = 53 of 115, 46.1%) felt that there was a positive relationship between cancer physicians and industry. Most (n = 79 of 104, 76.0%) interacted with industry at least once a month, and 67.7% (n = 63 of 93) had received nonresearch payments from industry previously, with a median value of 2,000 Australian dollars over 1 year. Most respondents believed that interactions could influence prescribing while simultaneously denying influence on their own prescribing (n = 66 of 94, 70.2%). Those who judged general sales representative interactions (odds ratio [OR] 9.37 [95% CI, 1.05 to 83.41], P = .045) or clinician sponsorship (OR 3.22 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.30], P = .049) to be more acceptable also met with sales representatives more frequently. Physicians were more likely to accept industry payments when they deemed sponsorship of clinicians for conferences (OR 10.55 [95% CI, 2.33 to 47.89], P = .002) or honoraria for advisory board membership more acceptable (OR 3.91 [95% CI, 1.04 to 14.74], P = .04) or when they had higher belief in industry influence over own prescribing (OR 25.51 [95% CI, 2.70 to 241.45], P = .005). CONCLUSION: Australian cancer physicians interact with industry frequently, and those who feel positive about these interactions are likely to do so more often. More research is needed to understand the motivations behind these interactions

Is it all about price? Why requests for government subsidy of anticancer drugs were rejected in Australia

Background Australians access anticancer drugs predominantly through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Aim To determine why the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) rejects submissions to list anticancer drugs on the PBS. Methods We reviewed publicly available information about submissions made to the PBAC for PBS listing of anticancer drugs from 2005 to 2014. Submission characteristics, including clinical and economic evidence, PBAC recommendations, and the reasons offered for rejection were recorded. Two reviewers independently categorised the reason for rejection offered by the PBAC. Logistic regression was used to determine submission characteristics associated with rejection. Results We identified 213 submissions for 110 unique indications of 60 anticancer drugs. The overall rejection rate was 56% (119/213). Of the 110 indications assessed, 69% (76/110) were rejected at least once. The annual rejection rate ranged from 50 to 73% with little evidence of a trend over time (P = 0.2). Submission characteristics strongly associated with rejection in multivariable analysis included: PBAC judged the clinical evidence to be problematic or uncertain (P \u3c 0.001); PBAC judged the economic evidence to be problematic or uncertain (P \u3c 0.001); and, inactive comparator used (P \u3c 0.001). The most frequent reasons for rejection offered by the PBAC was ‘inadequate cost-effectiveness or drug price too high’ (75/109, 69%). Conclusions Inadequate cost-effectiveness and PBAC uncertainty about the clinical and economic evidence were the most frequent reasons for rejection. Clarity of information about PBAC deliberations and their reasons for rejection are important for patients and doctors grappling with decisions about the use of expensive unfunded anticancer drugs

[In Press] Lung cancer treatment patterns and factors relating to systemic therapy use in Australia

Aim: Systemic therapies for lung cancer are rapidly evolving. This study aimed to describe lung cancer treatment patterns in New South Wales, Australia, prior to the introduction of immunotherapy and latest-generation targeted therapies. Methods: Systemic therapy utilization and treatment-related factors were examined for participants in the New South Wales 45 and Up Study with incident lung cancer ascertained by record linkage to the New South Wales Cancer Registry (2006–2013). Systemic therapy receipt to June 2016 was determined using medical and pharmaceutical claims data from Services Australia, and in-patient hospital records. Factors related to treatment were identified using competing risks regressions. Results: A total of 1,116 lung cancer cases were identified with a mean age at diagnosis of 72 years and median survival of 10.6 months. Systemic therapy was received by 45% of cases. Among 400 cases with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, 51% and 28% received first- and second-line systemic therapy, respectively. Among 112 diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer, 79% and 29% received first- and second-line systemic therapy. The incidence of systemic therapy was lower for participants with indicators of poor performance status, lower educational attainment, and those who lived in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage; and was higher for participants with small-cell lung cancer histology or higher body mass index. Conclusion: This population-based Australian study identified patterns of systemic therapy use for lung cancer, particularly small-cell lung cancer. Despite a universal healthcare system, the analysis revealed socioeconomic disparities in health service utilization and relatively low utilization of systemic therapy overall