Financial Toxicity After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Its Relation with Oncologic, Functional Outcomes

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate frequency of financial toxicity among patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Data of 1,479 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients between 2006-2021 reporting no financial toxicity in preoperative assessments were included retrospectively. Financial toxicity was measured with financial impact of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-quality of life questionnaire-C30. Financial impact scores were collected preoperatively, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Results: The frequency of financial toxicity was 8.3% (122/1379; 95% CI 7.0-9.8) at any point in time throughout 2 years of follow-up. Patients reporting financial toxicity (63 [58-68]) were significantly younger than patients who had no financial toxicity (65 [61-69]; P = .001). There was no statistically significant difference between financial toxicity+ and financial toxicity− groups in terms of salvage radiotherapy (P = .8) and positive surgical margin (P = .2) rates. In functional assessments, clinically significant International Prostate Symptom Score and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire—Short Form score increase of financial toxicity+ patients (34% and 62%) were more frequent than financial toxicity− patients (23% and 47%; P = .004 and P = .002, respectively). In multivariable analysis, age at robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, International Prostate Symptom Score, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire—Short Form, and quality of life scores were associated with financial toxicity (P < .001, OR 0.95 [95% CI 0.92-0.98]; P = .015, OR 2.4 [95% CI 1.2-4.7]; P = .032, OR 1.5 [95% CI 1.2-2.5]; P = .01, OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.01-0.57], respectively). Patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy before retirement (≤65 years) had a 1.6-fold increased financial toxicity risk (P = .003, 95% CI 1.1-2.3). Conclusions: Financial toxicity after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is low in mid-term follow-up. Patients who report urological symptoms after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy should also be evaluated for financial toxicity. Required measures against financial toxicity should be taken especially in the follow-up of younger cancer survivors.

[1]  B. Gyawali,et al.  Financial Toxicity Among Patients with Prostate, Bladder, and Kidney Cancer: A Systematic Review and Call to Action. , 2021, European urology oncology.

[2]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[3]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Patient-Reported Financial Toxicity Associated with Contemporary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer. , 2020, The Journal of urology.

[4]  J. Marenco,et al.  Evaluation of Fluorescent Confocal Microscopy for Intraoperative Analysis of Prostate Biopsy Cores. , 2020, European urology focus.

[5]  P. Dasgupta,et al.  Workplace absenteeism amongst patients undergoing open vs. robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, and partial colectomy , 2020, Surgical Endoscopy.

[6]  L. Holmberg,et al.  Duration of sick leave after active surveillance, surgery or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: a nationwide cohort study , 2020, BMJ Open.

[7]  P. Dasgupta,et al.  Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Costs for Robotic Cancer Surgery in US Adults , 2020, JAMA network open.

[8]  N. Aaronson,et al.  Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research. , 2020, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  K. K. Lim,et al.  The minimum clinically important difference of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires (ICIQ-UI SF and ICIQ-LUTSqol). , 2019, Urology.

[10]  H. Sintonen,et al.  The association of financial difficulties and out-of-pocket payments with health-related quality of life among breast, prostate and colorectal cancer patients , 2019, Acta oncologica.

[11]  J. Smith-Palmer,et al.  Literature review of the burden of prostate cancer in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Canada , 2019, BMC Urology.

[12]  E. Bruera,et al.  Inequalities in Financial Distress, Symptoms, and Quality of Life Among Patients with Advanced Cancer in France and the U.S. , 2019, The oncologist.

[13]  K. Mukherjee,et al.  Variation in prostate surgery costs and outcomes in the USA: robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. , 2019, Journal of comparative effectiveness research.

[14]  E. Haglind,et al.  Health Economic Analysis of Open and Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Prostate Cancer Within the Prospective Multicentre LAPPRO Trial. , 2018, European urology.

[15]  E. Bruera,et al.  Financial distress in patients with advanced cancer , 2017, PloS one.

[16]  L. Gordon,et al.  A Systematic Review of Financial Toxicity Among Cancer Survivors: We Can’t Pay the Co-Pay , 2017, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[17]  Deborah Schrag,et al.  Association of Financial Strain With Symptom Burden and Quality of Life for Patients With Lung or Colorectal Cancer. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  L. Sharp,et al.  Pre-diagnosis employment status and financial circumstances predict cancer-related financial stress and strain among breast and prostate cancer survivors , 2016, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[19]  M. Ratain,et al.  The development of a financial toxicity patient‐reported outcome in cancer: The COST measure , 2014, Cancer.

[20]  C. Oliveira,et al.  Patient time and out-of-pocket costs for long-term prostate cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada , 2014, Journal of Cancer Survivorship.

[21]  Richard Sullivan,et al.  Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[22]  A. Araujo,et al.  Minimal clinically important differences in the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function scale. , 2011, European urology.

[23]  A. Wein,et al.  The burden of out‐of‐pocket and indirect costs of prostate cancer , 2010, The Prostate.

[24]  Yair Lotan,et al.  Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. , 2010, European urology.

[25]  M. Stokes,et al.  Treatment costs of prostate cancer in the first year after diagnosis: a short‐term cost of illness study for France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK , 2010, BJU international.

[26]  C. Bangma,et al.  The long-term relationship between a real change in prostate volume and a significant change in lower urinary tract symptom severity in population-based men: the Krimpen study. , 2008, European urology.

[27]  B. Sternfeld,et al.  Prevalence, management and impact of urinary incontinence in the workplace. , 2005, Occupational medicine.