ArticleJCO oncology practice2025
Development and Validation of a Simplified Financial Toxicity Screening Tool for Use in Clinical Practice.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Financial Distress Screening and Financial Navigation Among Adolescents and Young Adults Within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program: Results of the 2022 Landscape Survey.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Screening for Financial Toxicity and Health-Related Social Risks in Patients With GI Cancer: Results From a Large Cancer Center.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Understanding financial toxicity in cancer care through a social-ecological lens.Current opinion in oncology · 2026Review
- Application of digital health interventions in the management of economic toxicity in cancer patients: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Prevalence of financial toxicity and construction of a risk prediction model for lung cancer patients at 6 months after discharge.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A Multistakeholder Qualitative Analysis of Barriers to Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma.Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia · 2026Article
- Factors correlated with financial hardship among cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2026Article
- Characterizing and Addressing the Financial, Time, and Administrative Burdens of Cancer and its Care.Current treatment options in oncology · 2025Review
- Screened but Still Struggling: Challenges in Delivering Financial Assistance After Positive Financial Toxicity Screens.JCO oncology practice · 2025Article
- Assessing the Unmet Social Needs and Financial Hardship of Cancer Caregivers: A Scoping Review.Current oncology reports · 2025Article
- Mapping Disparities in the Measurement of Financial Toxicity in Cancer Care: A Scoping Review.Current oncology reports · 2025Article
- Financial Toxicity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An Issue in Need of Clarity and Solutions.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Article
- Social Needs in Cancer Survivors: A Scoping Review and Future Directions.Current oncology reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCancer-related financial toxicity occurs frequently and is a key driver of inequities in access to care and disparities in treatment outcomes. Current practices to screen for financial toxicity are inconsistent because of the lack of a validated and clinically integrated screening tool. This analysis aimed to create and assess an abbreviated version of the validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool, a measure of financial toxicity used for research purposes, which could easily be added into often-lengthy clinical screening workflows.
methodsAt an urban comprehensive cancer center with suburban satellite locations, a financial toxicity screening quality improvement project was conducted from June 2022 to August 2023 as part of routine clinical care: 57,526 longitudinal COST surveys were completed by 38,249 patients with cancer. An iterative algorithm selected the items with highest correlation with the total score. Using a separate validation data set, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) of the abbreviated tool (two-item) were assessed against the full COST score, with varying risk thresholds.
resultsInclusion of two COST questions (Q3: "I worry about the financial problems I will have in the future as a result of my illness or treatment"; Q6: "I am satisfied with my current financial situation") yielded a score that had a correlation of 0.922 with the full instrument score. For the two-item scale, PPV ranged from 74% to 91%, and NPV ranged from 91% to 98% when compared with the full COST tool.
conclusionThis analysis of a large data set finds that a simplified COST tool has high predictive value when compared with the full validated measure. An abbreviated COST measure of two questions is suitable for implementation into clinical screening workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.