Pd58-12 Financial Toxicity in Non-Metastatic Versus Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients

You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Epidemiology & Evaluation/Staging/Surveillance III (PD58) 1 May 2024PD58-12 FINANCIAL TOXICITY IN NON-METASTATIC VERSUS METASTATIC RENAL CELL CARCINOMA PATIENTS Michael D. Staehler, Ulka Vaishampayan, Sumanta K. Pal, Pavlos Msaouel, Ithaar Derweesh, David F. Penson, and Dena J. Battle Michael D. StaehlerMichael D. Staehler, Ulka VaishampayanUlka Vaishampayan, Sumanta K. PalSumanta K. Pal, Pavlos MsaouelPavlos Msaouel, Ithaar DerweeshIthaar Derweesh, David F. PensonDavid F. Penson, and Dena J. BattleDena J. Battle View All Author Informationhttps: //doi. org/10. 1097/01. JU. 0001008868. 74763. 2c. 12AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the financial impact of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We sought to ascertain real world data on financial implications and how financial toxicity (FT) impacts quality of life in patients with localized RCC versus patients with metastatic RCC. METHODS: An online survey was conducted by the Kidney Cancer Research Alliance (KCCure), a non-profit patient advocacy organization, from 7/22 to 9/22. The survey included questions about costs and financial concerns and the COST questionnaire. Pearson's correlation (r) and Kendal's tau test were used to analyze the COST questionnaire, financial burden and hardship. RESULTS: Out of 1062 responders 623 had localized RCC. Out of these patients 395 did not recur and 204 were willing to answer questions related to cost and financial hardship. 289 responders had metastatic disease and were on systemic therapy and 177 pts answered the COST questionnaire. In localized disease 28% of patients reported that their medical diagnosis has not reduced their income, in 26% the diagnosis had reduced their income very much. 31% experienced insurance denials for imaging, 30% faced delays in care due to pre-approval requirements, 45% faced high out-of-pocket costs for medical care, 18% reported being unable to go outside of a provider network. 24% of patients reported taking a hardship withdrawal from a retirement account, 28% stopped funding or lowered contributions to an existing retirement account, 20% borrowed from friends or family. In metastatic patients 14% reported difficulties to pay their premiums. 31% were retired and 24% not able to work. 28% reported that their medical situation has not reduced their income and 26% claimed that their disease reduced their income very much. The monthly out of pocket costs were independent of type of therapy with 50% of the patients reporting spendings of <50US. 36% reported high out of pocket costs are a barrier to care. 44% have received financial support through a manufacturer or a foundation. Median COST score in non-metastatic RCC was 32 (range 19-44) ) and was significantly correlated to age, NCCN distress score, risk of recurrence and supplement intake (p<0. 05). Metastatic patients had a significantly higher median COST score of 22 (range 4-36) ) that was also correlated to age, NCCN distress score, time since diagnosis and supplement intake (p<0. 05). CONCLUSIONS: RCC imposes financial hardship on patients. Younger patients with a higher NCCN distress score and a shorter time since diagnosis are more likely to suffer financial hardships. Patients are willing to pay for supplements. Financial counseling should be considered in these patient subgroups regardless of stage. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1220 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Metrics Author Information Michael D. Staehler More articles by this author Ulka Vaishampayan More articles by this author Sumanta K. Pal More articles by this author Pavlos Msaouel More articles by this author Ithaar Derweesh More articles by this author David F. Penson More articles by this author Dena J. Battle More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading. . .