Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Comorbidity is common among cancer patients and, with an aging population, is becoming more so. Comorbidity potentially affects the development, stage at diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of people with cancer. Despite the intimate relationship between comorbidity and cancer, there is limited consensus on how to record, interpret, or manage comorbidity in the context of cancer, with the result that patients who have comorbidity are less likely to receive treatment with curative intent. Evidence in this area is lacking because of the frequent exclusion of patients with comorbidity from randomized controlled trials. There is evidence that some patients with comorbidity have potentially curative treatment unnecessarily modified, compromising optimal care. Patients with comorbidity have poorer survival, poorer quality of life, and higher health care costs. Strategies to address these issues include improving the evidence base for patients with comorbidity, further development of clinical tools to assist decision making, improved integration and coordination of care, and skill development for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:337-350. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.

Purpose The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between employment and financial toxicity by examining the prevalence of, and factors associated with, financial toxicity among cancer survivors. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of a sub-sample from the Dutch Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis and logistic regression were used. Results A total of 2931 participants with diverse cancer types were included in the analysis with a mean age of 55 years (range 18 to 65). Nearly half (49%) of participants were employed at the time of the survey, and 22% reported financial toxicity. Those who were not employed were at greater risk of financial toxicity (27% vs 16%, p < 0.001), and this did not vary according to time since diagnosis. The odds of reporting financial toxicity were greater for participants who were male, younger, unmarried, with low education, low socioeconomic status, or without paid employment. Those with basal cell carcinoma had lower risk of financial toxicity, while those with haematological or colorectal cancer had highest risk of financial toxicity. Conclusions This research confirms that unemployment is significantly associated with financial toxicity and that those with limited financial resources are most at risk. Implications for cancer survivors Increased awareness of financial toxicity and its associated factors among clinicians may result in improved screening and appropriate referrals for support services. The implementation of effective multidisciplinary return to work interventions, as part of standard cancer survivorship care, may reduce financial toxicity among cancer survivors.

Objective: To develop a psychotherapy rating scale to measure therapist adherence in the Strong Without