Validation of a Single Item Measure for Financial Toxicity Screening in Patients With Breast Cancer.

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY JCO oncology practice Pub Date : 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1200/OP-24-00753
Laila A Gharzai, Leila J Mady, Maria Armache, Zequn Sun, Reshma Jagsi, David Cella, J Devin Peipert, Gelareh Sadigh, Richard W Hass
{"title":"Validation of a Single Item Measure for Financial Toxicity Screening in Patients With Breast Cancer.","authors":"Laila A Gharzai, Leila J Mady, Maria Armache, Zequn Sun, Reshma Jagsi, David Cella, J Devin Peipert, Gelareh Sadigh, Richard W Hass","doi":"10.1200/OP-24-00753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Financial toxicity (FT) has been linked to higher symptom burden and poorer clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Despite the availability of validated tools to measure FT, a simple screen remains an unmet need. We evaluated item 12 (\"My illness has been a financial hardship to my family and me\") of the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure as a single-item FT screening measure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this secondary analysis, 711 patients with cancer (690 with breast cancer) were recruited via a web-based survey from a philanthropic organization. COST items 1-11 were scored according to Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy scoring guidelines, with lower scores indicating worse FT. Analyses focused on establishing a correlation, examining item properties, and sensitivity/specificity of item 12 relative to the total COST score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Item 12 had a correlation of <i>r</i> = 0.53 with the COST-11 score, and an increase of one point on item 12 is associated with a decrease of approximately three total points on the full scale (<i>b</i>, 3.35; <i>P</i> < .001; adjusted <i>R</i><sup>2</sup>, 0.28). Item analysis with the graded-response item in response theory modeling showed very good discrimination (<i>a</i>, 2.096) for item 12, indicating that it can reliably distinguish between low and high FT in patients. Sensitivity ranged between 75.6% and 95.7% on all item 12 thresholds to screen positive for FT using two COST cutoffs as criteria. Maximizing both sensitivity and specificity was to be found for higher item 12 scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To our knowledge, this is the first validation of a single-item screening measure for FT. Overall, these results illustrate that item 12 from the COST measure is a good candidate for a single-item screener. Clinicians can choose among item 12 screening thresholds depending on their tolerance for low specificity.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2400753"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-24-00753","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Financial toxicity (FT) has been linked to higher symptom burden and poorer clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Despite the availability of validated tools to measure FT, a simple screen remains an unmet need. We evaluated item 12 ("My illness has been a financial hardship to my family and me") of the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure as a single-item FT screening measure.

Methods: In this secondary analysis, 711 patients with cancer (690 with breast cancer) were recruited via a web-based survey from a philanthropic organization. COST items 1-11 were scored according to Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy scoring guidelines, with lower scores indicating worse FT. Analyses focused on establishing a correlation, examining item properties, and sensitivity/specificity of item 12 relative to the total COST score.

Results: Item 12 had a correlation of r = 0.53 with the COST-11 score, and an increase of one point on item 12 is associated with a decrease of approximately three total points on the full scale (b, 3.35; P < .001; adjusted R2, 0.28). Item analysis with the graded-response item in response theory modeling showed very good discrimination (a, 2.096) for item 12, indicating that it can reliably distinguish between low and high FT in patients. Sensitivity ranged between 75.6% and 95.7% on all item 12 thresholds to screen positive for FT using two COST cutoffs as criteria. Maximizing both sensitivity and specificity was to be found for higher item 12 scores.

Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first validation of a single-item screening measure for FT. Overall, these results illustrate that item 12 from the COST measure is a good candidate for a single-item screener. Clinicians can choose among item 12 screening thresholds depending on their tolerance for low specificity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
期刊最新文献
Environmental Impact Assessment of Intravenous Versus Subcutaneous Monoclonal Antibodies: A Carbon Footprint Analysis. Engage: A Survivorship Program to Improve Childhood Cancer Survivors' Self-Efficacy and Quality of Life. Erratum: Systemic Therapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update Clinical Insights. Health Information Disparities Among Asian American People With Cancer. How Should We Manage the Impact of Antimicrobial Resistance in Patients With Cancer? An Oncological and Infectious Disease Specialist Point of View.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1