Abstract
Ovarian cancer is considered the most fatal and costly gynecologic cancer. Although personalized therapies have improved ovarian cancer prognosis, they have resulted in increased financial toxicity concerns among this population. This study evaluated financial toxicity in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Using secondary data from a study of barriers to palliative care, financial toxicity (FT) was measured through the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity scale. Univariate and bivariate analyses were used to assess the relationship between selected demographic (i.e., age, race, ethnicity, education, place of birth, insurance type, yearly household income, employment status) and treatment-specific variables (i.e., years since diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, hormonal and targeted therapy) with clinically relevant financial toxicity. Characteristics were compared using Fisher’s exact or chi squared tests. A total of 38 participants with advanced ovarian cancer were included in this study; 24% (n = 9) reported clinically significant FT. Income (p = .001), place of birth (p = .048) and employment status (p = .001) were related to FT. Study findings highlight that advanced ovarian cancer patients experience high FT, particularly those with low income, who are not able to work and were born outside the US. Further research using larger datasets and more representative samples is needed to inform intervention development and implementation.
Ethics statement
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the Helsinki declaration. This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of South Florida (Protocol #00039905). Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants in this study.
Authors contribution
Elsa María Vásquez-Trespalacios: conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, writing original draft, and writing, review, and editing.
Jessica N. Rivera Rivera: conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, writing original draft, and writing, review, and editing.
McKenzie McIntyre: investigation, data curation, and writing, review, and editing
Waleska Santiago-Datil: investigation, data curation, and writing, review, and editing
Robert M. Wenham: investigation, funding acquisition, and writing, review, and editing
Susan T. Vadaparampil: conceptualization, formal analysis, funding acquisition, methodology, writing original draft, and writing, review, and editing.
Andrea L. Buras: investigation, funding acquisition, and writing, review, and editing
Claire C. Conley: conceptualization, funding acquisition, and writing, review, and editing.
Data availability statement
De- identified data from this study will be made available by emailing the corresponding author as allowed by institutional IRB standards.