Background: Patients with cancer experience financial toxicity from the costs of treatment, as well as material and psychologic stress related to this burden. A synthesized understanding of predictors and outcomes of the financial burdens associated with cancer care is needed to underpin strategic responses in oncology care. This study systematically reviewed risk factors and outcomes associated with financial burdens related to cancer treatment. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from study inception through June 2018, and reference lists were scanned from studies of patient-level predictors and outcomes of financial burdens in US patients with cancer (aged ≥18 years). Two reviewers conducted screening, abstraction, and quality assessment. Variables associated with financial burdens were synthesized. When possible, pooled estimates of associations were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 74 observational studies of financial burdens in 598,751 patients with cancer were identified, among which 49% of patients reported material or psychologic financial burdens (95% CI, 41%–56%). Socioeconomic predictors of worse financial burdens with treatment were lack of health insurance, lower income, unemployment, and younger age at cancer diagnosis. Compared with patients with health insurance, those who were uninsured demonstrated twice the odds of financial burdens (pooled odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% CI, 1.33–3.30). Financial burdens were most severe early in cancer treatment, did not differ by disease site, and were associated with worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and nearly twice the odds of cancer medication nonadherence (pooled OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13–2.56). Only a single study demonstrated an association with increased mortality. Studies assessing the comparative effectiveness of interventions to mitigate financial burdens in patients with cancer were lacking. Conclusions: Evidence showed that financial burdens are common, disproportionately impacting younger and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with cancer, across disease sites, and are associated with worse treatment adherence and HRQoL. Available evidence helped identify vulnerable patients needing oncology provider engagement and response, but evidence is critically needed on the effectiveness of interventions designed to mitigate financial burden and impact.

Background.: Outpatient palliative care clinics facilitate early referral and are associated with improved outcomes in cancer patients. However, appropriate candidates for outpatient palliative care referral and optimal timing remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify criteria that are considered when an outpatient palliative cancer care referral is initiated. Methods.: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1948–2013 citations) and Ovid Embase (1947–2015 citations) for articles related to outpatient palliative cancer care. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and extracted the referral criteria. The interrater agreement was high (κ = 0.96). Results.: Of the 186 publications in our initial search, 21 were included in the final sample. We identified 20 unique referral criteria. Among these, 6 were recurrent themes, which included physical symptoms (n = 13 [62%]), cancer trajectory (n = 13 [62%]), prognosis (n = 7 [33%]), performance status (n = 7 [33%]), psychosocial distress (n = 6 [29%]), and end-of-life care planning (n = 5 [24%]). We found significant variations among the articles regarding the definition of advanced cancer and the assessment tools for symptom/distress screening. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (n = 7 [33%]) and the distress thermometer (n = 2 [10%]) were used most often. Furthermore, there was a lack of consensus in the cutoffs in symptom assessment tools and timing for outpatient palliative care referral. Conclusion.: This systematic review identified 20 criteria including 6 recurrent themes for outpatient cancer palliative care referral. It highlights the significant heterogeneity regarding the timing and process for referral and the need for further research to develop standardized referral criteria.

Background: Patients with heart failure have significant symptom burden, care needs, and often a progressive course to end-stage disease. Palliative care referrals may be helpful but it is currently unclear when patients should be referred and by whom. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to examine referral criteria for palliative care among patients with heart failure. Methods: We searched Ovid, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed databases for articles in the English language from the inception of databases to January 17, 2019 related to palliative care referral in patients with heart failure. Two investigators independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and then extracted the referral criteria. Referral criteria were then categorized thematically. Results: Of the 1199 citations in our initial search, 102 articles were included in the final sample. We identified 18 categories of referral criteria, including 7 needs-based criteria and 10 disease-based criteria. The most commonly discussed criterion was physical or emotional symptoms (n=51 [50%]), followed by cardiac stage (n=46 [45%]), hospital utilization (n=38 [37%]), prognosis (n=37 [36%]), and advanced cardiac therapies (n=36 [35%]). Under cardiac stage, 31 (30%) articles suggested New York Heart Association functional class ≥III and 12 (12%) recommended New York Heart Association class ≥IV as cutoffs for referral. Prognosis of ≤1 year was mentioned in 21 (21%) articles as a potential trigger; few other criteria had specific cutoffs. Conclusions: This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding referral criteria for the involvement of palliative care in patients with heart failure. Further research is needed to identify appropriate and timely triggers for palliative care referral.

Accurate assessment of GFR is crucial to guiding drug eligibility, dosing of systemic therapy, and minimizing the risks of both undertreatment and toxicity in patients with cancer. Up to 32% of patients with cancer have baseline CKD, and both malignancy and treatment may cause kidney injury and subsequent CKD. To date, there has been lack of guidance to standardize approaches to GFR estimation in the cancer population. In this two-part statement from the American Society of Onco-Nephrology, we present key messages for estimation of GFR in patients with cancer, including the choice of GFR estimating equation, use of race and body surface area adjustment, and anticancer drug dose-adjustment in the setting of CKD. These key messages are based on a systematic review of studies assessing GFR estimating equations using serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer, against a measured GFR comparator. The preponderance of current data involving validated GFR estimating equations involves the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations, with 2508 patients in whom CKD-EPI using serum creatinine and cystatin C was assessed (eight studies) and 15,349 in whom CKD-EPI with serum creatinine was assessed (22 studies). The former may have improved performance metrics and be less susceptible to shortfalls of eGFR using serum creatinine alone. Since included studies were moderate quality or lower, the American Society of Onco-Nephrology Position Committee rated the certainty of evidence as low. Additional studies are needed to assess the accuracy of other validated eGFR equations in patients with cancer. Given the importance of accurate and timely eGFR assessment, we advocate for the use of validated GFR estimating equations incorporating both serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer. Measurement of GFR via exogenous filtration markers should be considered in patients with cancer for whom eGFR results in borderline eligibility for therapies or clinical trials.