ArticleANZ journal of surgery2026
Out-of-Pocket Costs and Financial Toxicity Associated With the Surgical Management of Oesophageal Cancer.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients undergoing cancer treatment incur significant out-of-pocket costs attributed to both medical and non-medical expenditure. We quantified out-of-pocket costs for patients receiving surgical treatment for oesophageal cancer and their financial toxicity.
methodsPatients who had undergone oesophagectomy for cancer completed an out-of-pocket questionnaire which determined medical costs (e.g., gap payments and medications), non-medical costs (e.g., travel, accommodation, wage loss) and carer costs (travel and wage loss). Financial toxicity was assessed using the validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) questionnaire. Out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity were summarised using medians with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (1000 resamples). Between-group comparisons were assessed with Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests and associations with income percentiles using Spearman's correlation.
resultsSeventy individuals completed the survey (43.3% response rate). The majority were male (85.7%), aged 60-79 (76.5%) and 0-5 years post-cancer diagnosis (55.7%). Median out-of-pocket expenditure was $1352 and was mainly attributed to wage loss (64.7%), followed by carer cost (23.7%). Out-of-pocket costs were higher for younger age groups (40-59 years) compared to those aged 60-79 years (p = 0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in out-of-pocket costs between public versus privately insured patients. Median out-of-pocket costs trended higher for rural ($1696) versus urban located patients ($1235), but this was not statistically significantly different (p = 0.140). The median financial toxicity score was 23.5 (95% CI: 21.0-27.5), indicating moderate financial toxicity. Financial toxicity did not differ significantly by age, gender, country of birth, education or location. A lower income percentile was associated with greater financial toxicity (ρ = -0.30, p = 0.012).
conclusionPatients facing oesophagectomy for cancer incur many out-of-pocket costs, mostly due to wage loss from time spent away from work for both patients and carers. Younger patients and those with lower income face proportionately greater financial burdens, highlighting a need for targeted support to reduce financial stress.
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.