Introduction: Financial toxicity associated with treatments for metastatic prostate cancer remains poorly defined. We sought to understand aspects of financial toxicity not captured in a commonly employed financial toxicity questionnaire and identify potential interventions to help alleviate financial toxicity through a convergent mixed methods approach.
Methods: Patients seen at our institution's advanced prostate cancer clinic were approached for completion of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST-FACIT) questionnaire (quantitative analysis). A maximal variation purposive sample was chosen to participate in focus group discussions (qualitative analysis). Conventional content analysis was performed using an inductive approach. COST-FACIT scores were compared between patients experiencing high and low financial toxicity using Wilcoxon rank sum test.
Results: Three themes were identified through qualitative analysis: (1) workload, (2) coping strategies, and (3) communication. We found alignment with the existing theory of financial capacity across our findings. Two unique aspects of financial toxicity emerged that were not assessed quantitatively and deemed to be significant. Specifically, cost transparency (including health care teams knowledgeable about and willing to discuss costs) and inclusion of informal caregivers in financial toxicity screening and decision-making may guide future interventions aimed at limiting financial toxicity in this population.
Conclusions: Prolonged treatment courses involving multiple lines of treatment with varying costs result in distinct financial toxicity components for patients with metastatic prostate cancer that are not assessed with COST-FACIT. Improving cost transparency, health care team knowledge and engagement, and providing resources to support informal caregivers may have a significant impact on the financial toxicity experienced by these patients.
Keywords: adaptation; cost of illness; financial stress; prostatic neoplasms; quality of life.