Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37300721›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023

Factors associated with increased financial toxicity after the completion of radiation treatment for gynecologic cancer.

Katharine M Esselen, Rasha A Baig, Annika Gompers, Hannah Stack-Dunnbier, Michele R Hacker, Joanne W Jang

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Katharine M EsselenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. kesselen@bidmc.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6750-8699
Rasha A BaigDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Annika GompersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Hannah Stack-DunnbierDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Michele R HackerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Joanne W JangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe evaluated financial toxicity (FT) in patients with gynecologic cancer treated with radiation and assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients' financial wellbeing.

methodsPatients completed a survey 1 month after completing radiation from August 2019-March 2020 and November 2020-June 2021. The survey included the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool, EQ-5D to measure quality of life (QOL) and pandemic-related questions for the second survey period. High FT was COST score ≤ 23.

resultsOf 97 respondents (92% response rate), 49% completed the survey pre-pandemic and 51% after; the majority were white (76%) and had uterine cancer (64%). Sixty percent received external beam radiation with or without brachytherapy; 40% had only brachytherapy. High FT was associated with worse QOL (r = -0.37, P < 0.001), younger age and type of insurance (both p ≤ 0.03). Respondents with high FT were 6.0 (95% CI 1.0-35.9) times more likely to delay/avoid medical care, 13.6 (95% CI 2.9-64.3) times more likely to borrow money, and 6.9 (95% CI 1.7-27.2) times as likely to reduce spending on basic goods. The pandemic cohort had a smaller proportion of respondents with high FT than the pre-pandemic cohort (20% vs. 35%, p = 0.10) and a higher median COST score (32 (IQR 25-35) vs. 27 (IQR 19-34), p = 0.07).

conclusionPrivately insured, younger respondents who received radiation for gynecologic cancer were at risk for FT. High FT was associated with worse QOL and economic cost-coping strategies. We observed less FT in the pandemic cohort, though not statistically different from the pre-pandemic cohort.

Indexed as

COVID-19Genital Neoplasms, FemaleCost of IllnessFemaleFinancial StressHealth ExpendituresHumansPandemicsQuality of LifeCost of careFinancial toxicityGynecologic cancerGynecologic oncologyRadiation oncology

Identifiers

PMID37300721
PMCPMC10256970
OpenAlexW4380153913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.