小原 泉

Clinical nurses need learning programs that are useful in nursing support for patients' decision-making (NSPDM) regarding cancer clinical trials (CCTs). The usefulness of the learning program can be evaluated if the practices of NSPDM before and after participation in the learning program can be compared. We developed a scale to measure the level of self-assessed NSPDM regarding participation in a CCT. Thirty-two items of scale were developed in Japanese based on previous literature. Based on the results of a pilot study, items with similar meanings were removed and the validity of the 26 scale items was statistically examined in terms of construct validity and reliability. The study population was clinical nurses and included clinical research nurses. We received 102 valid responses from clinical nurses. Based on the bias of the boxplot distribution and the ceiling and floor effects for the items analysis of the 26-item draft scale, 17 items remained. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed that the scale consisted of three subscales and 17 items. Regarding fit indices of the model, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted GFI (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of application (RMSEA) were 0.775, 0.704, 0.477, and 0.081, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the overall scale was 0.951, with subscales ranging from 0.820 to 0.942. The validity and reliability of this scale were acceptable. This scale may be helpful to evaluate the usefulness of learning programs, i.e., the practice level of NSPDM.

OBJECTIVES: Patients often struggle with their financial situation during cancer treatment due to treatment-related costs or loss of income. This resulting negative effect is called financial toxicity, which is a known as a side effect of cancer care. This study aimed to evaluate the association between financial toxicity and health-related quality of life among patients with gynecologic cancer using validated questionnaires. METHODS: In this multicenter study, patients with gynecologic cancer receiving anti-cancer drug treatment for > 2 months were recruited. Patients answered the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool, EORTC-QLQ-C30, disease-specific tools (EORTC-QLQ-OV28/CX24/EN24), and EQ-5D-5L. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to determine associations. RESULTS: Between April 2019 and July 2021, 109 cancer patients completed the COST questionnaire. The mean COST score was 19.82. Strong associations were observed between financial difficulty (r = - 0.616) in the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and body image (r = 0.738) in the EORTC-QLQ-CX24, while weak associations were noted between the global health status/quality of life (r = 0.207), EQ-5D-5L index score (r = 0.252), and several function and symptom scale scores with the COST score. CONCLUSIONS: Greater financial toxicity was associated with worse health-related quality of life scores, such as financial difficulty in gynecologic cancer patients and body image in cervical cancer patients as strong associations, and weakly associated with general health-related quality of life scores and several function/symptom scales.

OBJECTIVE: Financial toxicity is a financial burden of cancer care itself, which leads to worse quality of life and higher mortality and is considered an adverse effect. The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) tool is a patient-reported outcome measurement used to evaluate financial toxicity. We aimed to validate the internal consistency and reproducibility of the COST tool in patients with gynecologic cancer. METHODS: In this multicenter study covering the period April 2019 to July 2021, using the COST tool in Japan, patients diagnosed with ovarian, cervical, or endometrial cancer receiving systemic anti-cancer drug therapy for more than 2 months were eligible. Patients with no out-of-pocket costs for direct medical costs were excluded. The patients answered the initial test and a retest, which was completed from 2 to 14 days after the initial test. Internal consistency and reproducibility were assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Cronbach's alpha ≥0.8 indicates good internal consistency, and ICC ≥0.8 is highly reliable. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients (ovarian: 50, cervical: 26, endometrial: 36) responded to the initial test, and 89 patients answered the retest from 2 to 14 days after the initial test. The median patient age was 58 (range, 28-78) years. The median COST score was 19. Cronbach's alpha showed good internal consistency at 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87). The ICC at 0.850 (95% CI 0.777 to 0.900) showed high reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The COST tool has good internal consistency and reliable reproducibility in patients with gynecologic cancer in Japan. The COST tool quantifies financial toxicity in the insurance system, where patients have limited out-of-pocket direct medical costs. The results support the use of the COST tool in patients with gynecologic cancer.