Extravasation

Olver, Ian

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90990-5_36

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Financial toxicity is the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress experienced by patients because of their cancer treatment . This adverse effect of cancer treatment is amplified in low-income persons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of Household Income at Diagnosis With Financial Toxicity, Health Utility, and Survival in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Noel

Hueniken

Forner

et al. 2023

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceWhile several studies have documented a link between socioeconomic status and survival in head and neck cancer, nearly all have used ecologic, community-based measures. Studies using more granular patient-level data are lacking.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline annual household income with financial toxicity, health utility, and survival.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a prospective cohort of adult patients with head and neck cancer treated at a tertiary cancer center in Toronto, Ontario, between September 17, 2015, and December 19, 2019. Data analysis was performed from April to December 2021.ExposuresAnnual household income at time of diagnosis.Main Outcome and MeasuresThe primary outcome of interest was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included subjective financial toxicity, measured using the Financial Index of Toxicity (FIT) tool, and health utility, measured using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between household income and survival. Income was regressed onto log-transformed FIT scores using linear models. The association between income and health utility was explored using generalized linear models. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for patient-level clustering.ResultsThere were 555 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.7 [10.7] years; 109 [20%] women and 446 [80%] men) included in this cohort. Two-year disease-free survival was worse for patients in the bottom income quartile (&lt;$30 000: 67%; 95% CI, 58%-78%) compared with the top quartile (≥$90 000: 88%; 95% CI, 83%-93%). In risk-adjusted models, patients in the bottom income quartile had inferior disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.22-3.71) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.94-4.29), when compared with patients in the highest quartile. The average FIT score was 22.6 in the lowest income quartile vs 11.7 in the highest quartile. In adjusted analysis, low-income patients had 12-month FIT scores that were, on average, 134% higher (worse) (95% CI, 16%-253%) than high-income patients. Similarly, health utility scores were, on average, 0.104 points lower (95% CI, 0.026-0.182) for low-income patients in adjusted analysis.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, patients with head and neck cancer with a household income less than CAD$30 000 experienced worse financial toxicity, health status, and disease-free survival. Significant disparities exist for Ontario’s patients with head and neck cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of Household Income at Diagnosis With Financial Toxicity, Health Utility, and Survival in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Noel

Hueniken

Forner

et al. 2023

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The participants of included studies will: (1) be human being, (2) be 18 years of age or older, (3) have a confirmed pathological diagnosis of lung cancer, (4) have reported financial toxicity. The concept, financial toxicity, was defined as the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress of patients with cancer, as a result of treatments using innovative drugs and concomitant health services 7 19 20. Objective financial burden stems from out-of-pocket spending on cancer drugs as well as the services that make up the treatment regimen, including medical imaging, radiotherapy, surgery, lost wages for patients or caregivers, and other procedures 7 20 21.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concept, financial toxicity, was defined as the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress of patients with cancer, as a result of treatments using innovative drugs and concomitant health services 7 19 20. Objective financial burden stems from out-of-pocket spending on cancer drugs as well as the services that make up the treatment regimen, including medical imaging, radiotherapy, surgery, lost wages for patients or caregivers, and other procedures 7 20 21. Subjective financial distress results from the accumulation of out-of-pocket spending from the time of diagnosis, the erosion of the household’s wealth and non-medical budget, and worry about the effectiveness of coping strategies available to and used by the patient 7 20 22.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Objective financial burden stems from out-of-pocket spending on cancer drugs as well as the services that make up the treatment regimen, including medical imaging, radiotherapy, surgery, lost wages for patients or caregivers, and other procedures 7 20 21. Subjective financial distress results from the accumulation of out-of-pocket spending from the time of diagnosis, the erosion of the household’s wealth and non-medical budget, and worry about the effectiveness of coping strategies available to and used by the patient 7 20 22. The context of studies will be globally acute care, primary healthcare, community care and so on.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Financial toxicity in patients with lung cancer: a scoping review protocol

Zhuang

Luo

et al. 2022

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionLung cancer has the second-ranked morbidity rate and the first-ranked mortality rate worldwide. With the progression of the cancer condition and the advancement of new treatments, the corresponding medical expenses have risen sharply. Nowadays, financial toxicity has become one of the most common concerns in patients with cancer. However, by far, the full landscape of studies on financial toxicity is unclear in patients with lung cancer. Thus, this scoping review aims to summarise the degree, affecting factors, outcomes and intervention strategies of financial toxicity in patients with lung cancer.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be developed following the methodology described in the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis on scoping review protocol, which was based on Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework, Levac et al’s recommendations for applying this framework and Peters et al’s enhancements of the framework. From the day of database building to 31 December 2021, 10 English databases will be searched in the ‘Abstract’ field with three key search terms: “Lung”, “Cancer” and “Financial toxicity”. The studies’ screening and data extraction will be independently performed by two reviewers (MZ and RZ). Any disagreements between the two reviewers (MZ and RZ) will be resolved by consensus, and a third reviewer (BW) will be invited if necessary. The results will be analysed and presented using tables and figures. This scoping review will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Ethics and disseminationAn ethical approval is not required for this scoping review protocol, nor for the scoping review. The results of this scoping review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal or presentation at conferences.RegistrationThis scoping review protocol has been registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ub45n/?view_only=bb93eb94e1434a0f8196b3b61cffcec2).

show abstract

“…It should be noted that while there is limited evidence to support models of supportive care, there is a wealth of evidence to support the use of interventions to manage the specific problems encountered within supportive care [35]. For example, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was previously a major issue, resulting in significant morbidity and interruption or discontinuation of chemotherapy (with a negative impact on tumour response and overall survival).…”

Section: Rationale and Evidence For Supportive Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Supportive Care: The “Keystone” of Modern Oncology Practice

Scotté,

Taylor,

Davies

2023

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) defines supportive care as “the prevention and management of the adverse effects of cancer and its treatment. This includes management of physical and psychological symptoms and side effects across the continuum of the cancer journey from diagnosis through treatment to post-treatment care. Supportive care aims to improve the quality of rehabilitation, secondary cancer prevention, survivorship, and end-of-life care”. This article will provide an overview of modern supportive care in cancer, discussing its definition, its relationship with palliative care, models of care, “core” service elements (multi-professional/multidisciplinary involvement), the evidence that supportive care improves morbidity, quality of life, and mortality in various groups of patients with cancer, and the health economic benefits of supportive care. The article will also discuss the current and future challenges to providing optimal supportive care to all oncology patients.

show abstract

Extravasation

Cited by 5 publications

References 60 publications

Association of Household Income at Diagnosis With Financial Toxicity, Health Utility, and Survival in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Association of Household Income at Diagnosis With Financial Toxicity, Health Utility, and Survival in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Financial toxicity in patients with lung cancer: a scoping review protocol

Supportive Care: The “Keystone” of Modern Oncology Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About