Hoda Badr

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) awarded administrative supplements to 11 NCI-designated cancer centers to build capacity for financial navigation services and collect preliminary data to implement and evaluate financial navigation programs. Preliminary findings from the projects were shared during a virtual conference in October 2022. This paper reflects major themes from the conference, the now completed projects, and findings from scientific literature to propose a set of recommendations for addressing financial hardship as part of cancer care delivery. Recommendations include the following principles. Healthcare systems should implement financial hardship screening using validated, culturally appropriate tools, considering patient literacy and language needs. Screening programs should be universal with assessments repeated over time. Financial navigation services should be available to help patients manage direct and indirect costs of care, access financial assistance and navigate employment-related challenges. Financial navigators should receive specialized training to build their knowledge of healthcare billing, insurance, financial assistance, and patient advocacy while also preparing them to support patients and leverage local and regional resources. A multidisciplinary care team approach should be applied to developing and implementing financial hardship screening and navigation services. Finally, health systems should harmonize information technology and workflows across departments involved in screening and financial navigation service delivery and automate screening, referral, and care team notification processes. Future research should address outstanding knowledge gaps, including the optimal interval for screening, how to identify patient needs early to mitigate downstream financial hardship, and the ideal components and timing of financial navigation for different settings and populations.

Background: Complementary therapies are being increasingly used by cancer survivors. As a channel for customers to share their feelings, outcomes, and perceived knowledge about the products purchased from e-commerce platforms, Amazon consumer reviews are a valuable real-world data source for understanding cancer survivorship care needs. Objective: In this study, we aimed to highlight the potential of using Amazon consumer reviews as a novel source for identifying cancer survivorship care needs, particularly related to symptom self-management. Specifically, we present a publicly available, manually annotated corpus derived from Amazon reviews of health-related products and develop baseline natural language processing models using deep learning and large language model (LLM) to demonstrate the usability of this dataset. Methods: We preprocessed the Amazon review dataset to identify sentences with cancer mentions through a rule-based method and conducted content analysis including text feature analysis, sentiment analysis, topic modeling, cancer type, and symptom association analysis. We then designed an annotation guideline, targeting survivorship-relevant constructs. A total of 159 reviews were annotated, and baseline models were developed based on deep learning and large language model (LLM) for named entity recognition and text classification tasks. Results: A total of 4703 sentences containing positive cancer mentions were identified, drawn from 3349 reviews associated with 2589 distinct products. The identified topics through topic modeling revealed meaningful insights into cancer symptom management and survivorship experiences. Examples included discussions of green tea use during chemotherapy, cancer prevention strategies, and product recommendations for breast cancer. Top 15 symptoms in reviews were also identified, with pain being the most frequent symptom, followed by inflammation, fatigue, etc. The annotation labels were designed to capture cancer types, indicated symptoms, and symptom management outcomes. The resulting annotation corpus contains 2067 labels from 159 Amazon reviews. It is publicly accessible, together with the annotation guideline through the Open Health Natural Language Processing (OHNLP) GitHub. Our baseline model, Bert-base-cased, achieved the highest weighted average F₁-score, that is, 66.92%, for named entity recognition, and LLM gpt4-1106-preview-chat achieved the highest F₁-score for text classification tasks, that is, 66.67% for “Harmful outcome,” 88.46% for “Favorable outcome” and 73.33% for “Ambiguous outcome.” Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the potential of Amazon consumer reviews as a novel data source for identifying persistent symptoms, concerns, and self-management strategies among cancer survivors. This corpus, along with the baseline natural language processing models developed for named entity recognition and text classification, lays the groundwork for future methodological advancements in cancer survivorship research. Importantly, insights from this study could be evaluated against established clinical guidelines for symptom management in cancer survivorship care. By revealing the feasibility of using consumer-generated data for mining survivorship-related experiences, this study offers a promising foundation for future research and argumentation analysis aimed at improving long-term outcomes and support for cancer survivors.

Despite lung cancer affecting all races and ethnicities, disparities are observed in incidence and mortality rates among different ethnic groups in the United States. Non-Hispanic African Americans had a high incidence rate of lung cancer at 55.8 per 100 000 people, as well as the highest death rate at 37.2 per 100 000 people from 2016 to 2020. While previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified over 45 susceptibility risk loci that influence lung cancer development, few GWAS have investigated the etiology of lung cancer in African Americans. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted GWAS of lung cancer focused on studying African Americans, comprising 2267 lung cancer cases and 4264 controls. We identified three loci associated with lung cancer, one with lung adenocarcinoma, and four with lung squamous cell carcinoma in this population at the genomic-wide significance level. Among them, three novel loci were identified near VWF at 12p13.31 for overall lung cancer and GACAT3 at 2p24.3 and LMAN1L at 15q24.1 for lung squamous cell carcinoma. In addition, we confirmed previously reported risk loci with known or new lead variants near CHRNA5 at 15q25.1 and CYP2A6 at 19q13.2 associated with lung cancer and TRIP13 at 5p15.33 and ERC1 at 12p13.33 associated with lung squamous cell carcinoma. Further multi-step functional analyses shed light on biological mechanisms underlying these associations of lung cancer in this population. Our study highlights the importance of ancestry-specific studies for the potential alleviation of lung cancer burden in African Americans.

Patients with advanced cancer endure considerable physical and emotional distress without sufficient supportive care. This cross-sectional study examined the relationship between cancer-related symptoms, supportive care needs, and distress levels in patients with advanced lung, head and neck, or gastrointestinal cancers. 158 patients were assessed for symptom burden and distress levels using the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and unmet needs using the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-34) within one month of treatment initiation. Pearson correlations and multiple regression analyses were used to explore associations between supportive care needs and distress. Distress levels were moderate across the study population, with fatigue, pain, and disturbed sleep being the most reported symptoms. Patients who lived with their caregivers reported significantly lower needs in four out of five domains. Positive correlations were found between distress levels and supportive care needs in the psychological (r = 0.342, p < 0.001), health system (r = 0.253, p = 0.001), patient care and support (r = 0.237, p = 0.003), and physical and daily living domains (r = 0.378, p < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis showed that these domains collectively explained a significant portion of the variance in distress levels (R2 = 0.169, p < 0.001). Independent of demographic or clinic characteristics, patients with advanced cancer experience moderate distress and unmet supportive care needs, particularly in psychological and health system domains. The association between living with caregivers and lower reported needs suggests that caregiver support may play a crucial role in meeting these needs. Therefore, integrating strategies that involve and support caregivers could potentially reduce distress and improve the quality of life for patients with advanced cancer.

Purpose The diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) marks a transition from curative to palliative care, bringing significant psychosocial challenges, often exacerbated by racial and ethnic disparities. This mixed-methods study, grounded in the socioecological model, sought to examine distress levels among MBC patients and caregivers across academic and safety-net healthcare settings and to explore how individual, interpersonal, and system-level factors—shaped by intersecting identities such as race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status—influence unmet supportive care needs and intervention preferences. Methods Surveys and interviews were conducted with a racially and ethnically diverse group of MBC patients (N = 27) and caregivers (N = 19), recruited from a comprehensive cancer center with academic practice and safety-net hospital affiliates. Results Quantitative analyses found no significant differences in distress levels between patients at safety-net and academic hospitals or between patients and caregivers. Qualitative analysis identified six categories of supportive care needs: personalized supportive care, comprehensive health and symptom management, emotional and psychosocial support, interpersonal and family support, sexual health and intimacy support, and equitable access to care—with patients and caregivers strongly preferring targeted, multilevel interventions to address these needs. Conclusion Findings underscore the multifaceted nature of MBC care needs and the importance of developing targeted interventions to address the individual, interpersonal, and systemic challenges faced by patients and caregivers.

Background: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) hold promise for early lung cancer detection and personalized treatment, yet factors influencing patient interest in PRS-based genetic testing are not well understood. Purpose: Grounded in the health belief model, this mixed-methods study explored knowledge, attitudes, perceived benefits and barriers to lung cancer PRS, and preferences for receiving PRS results. Results: The study included 141 individuals (41% African American, 63% female) recruited from two hospital affiliates of a comprehensive cancer center in the Southwestern United States. Although participants recognized the severity of lung cancer, knowledge of PRS was limited. Concerns about privacy, psychological impacts, and uncertainty about result usefulness diminished interest in genetic testing for polygenic risk. Significant differences (P < .05) in attitudes were observed: women expressed heightened concerns about psychological effects, and African Americans reported greater perceptions of stigma and concerns about potential familial consequences. Qualitative findings emphasized the psychological burden of learning one’s genetic risk, particularly among those with family cancer histories or smoking exposure. Participants emphasized the need for clear, actionable results and assurances of data privacy. Conclusions: Perceived benefits and barriers to PRS-based testing varied by sociodemographic and personal risk factors, with concerns about stigma, psychological burden, and privacy shaping attitudes. Given participants’ emphasis on clear, actionable results, strategies to enhance uptake should improve risk communication, ensure data privacy, and provide guidance on risk-reducing actions. Tailored approaches addressing subgroup-specific concerns may improve diverse patient engagement and equitable access to PRS.

Purpose: Parental or spousal cohabitating relationships are often targeted in behavioral interventions, but the contribution of cohabitation is poorly understood. This study explored whether cohabitation status moderated the impact of social cognitive theory constructs on adiposity, diet, and exercise in a dyadic, web-based weight loss intervention among cancer survivors and their chosen partners. Methods: The 24-week weight loss intervention was conducted among 56 dyads, comprised of a cancer survivor and their chosen partner (n = 112). Baseline and 6-month data on social cognitive theory constructs (self-efficacy, social support, and perceived barriers), and study outcomes of adiposity (weight and waist circumference), diet (calories and diet quality), and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were used to perform moderated-mediation analyses among cohabitating (n = 25) versus non-cohabitating (n = 31) dyads. Results: The intervention was positively associated with dietary social support (path a₁: 0.36, 95% CI [0.083, 0.659]) and inversely associated with perceived dietary barriers (path a₁: − 10.57, 95% CI [− 19.109, − 3.091]) and perceived exercise barriers (path a₁: − 11.29, 95% CI [− 22.098, − 3.500]) among those who did not cohabitate (effects not observed among cohabitating pairs). The intervention’s mediating effects through perceived barriers on weight (indirect effect (ab): − 2.21, 95% CI [− 4.794, − 0.548]), waist circumference (ab: − 1.13, 95% CI [− 2.452, − 0.171]), caloric intake (ab: − 5.09 (2.86), 95% CI [− 12.602, − 0.709]), and self-reported MVPA (ab: 0.29 (0.18), 95% CI [0.019, 0.754]) also were stronger among non-cohabitating pairs. Conclusions: These findings suggest that social support partners outside the home substantially enhance intervention impact, though relationship quality and gender dynamics warrant further exploration. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04132219.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop and validate FinTox, a concise tool for screening and managing financial toxicity in oncology settings.Methods: Development involved qualitative interviews with healthcare providers and patients, and feedback from a 7‐member expert panel resulting in a 5‐item measure that evaluates financial strain, psychological responses, and care modifications. Psychometric evaluations examined factor structure, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and concurrent and convergent validity. Associations between FinTox scores and sociodemographic/medical factors were also analyzed using univariate and multivariable regression models.Results: Twelve healthcare providers and 20 patients were interviewed, and 268 patients (69.8% female, 47.4% non‐Hispanic White) completed surveys including FinTox, the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) measures, and sociodemographic questions. FinTox demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.90) and test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.95). Significant correlations with the COST (r = −0.62, p < 0.001) and HRQOL measures corroborated content and convergent validity. Diagnostic accuracy was evidenced by a sensitivity of 72.3%, specificity of 85.2%, positive predictive value of 83.2%, and negative predictive value of 70.3%. Higher FinTox scores were also associated with receiving care at a safety‐net hospital, Black race, household income <600% of the federal poverty level, and Stage 4 cancer.Conclusion: FinTox's robust psychometric properties and diagnostic accuracy position it as a reliable tool for detecting financial toxicity. Future research should evaluate its responsiveness to changes over time and integration into clinical workflows.

Background: Ovarian cancer ranks 12th in cancer incidence among women in the United States and 5th among causes of cancer-related death. The typical treatment of ovarian cancer focuses on disease management, with little attention given to the survivorship needs of the patient. Qualitative work alludes to a gap in survivorship care; yet, evidence is lacking to support the delivery of survivorship care for individuals living with ovarian cancer. We developed the POSTCare survivorship platform with input from survivors of ovarian cancer and care partners as a means of delivering patient-centered survivorship care. This process is framed by the chronic care model and relevant behavioral theory. Objective: The overall goal of this study is to test processes of care that support quality of life (QOL) in survivorship. The specific aims are threefold: first, to test the efficacy of the POSTCare platform in supporting QOL, reducing depressive symptom burden, and reducing recurrence worry. In our second aim, we will examine factors that mediate the effect of the intervention. Our final aim focuses on understanding aspects of care platform design and delivery that may affect the potential for dissemination. Methods: We will enroll 120 survivors of ovarian cancer in a randomized controlled trial and collect data at 12 and 24 weeks. Each participant will be randomized to either the POSTCare platform or the standard of care process for survivorship. Our population will be derived from 3 clinics in Texas; each participant will have received some combination of treatment modalities; continued maintenance therapy is not exclusionary. Results: We will examine the impact of the POSTCare-O platform on QOL at 12 weeks after intervention as the primary end point. We will look at secondary outcomes, including depressive symptom burden, recurrence anxiety, and physical symptom burden. We will identify mediators important to the impact of the intervention to inform revisions of the intervention for subsequent studies. Data collection was initiated in November 2023 and will continue for approximately 2 years. We expect results from this study to be published in early 2026. Conclusions: This study will contribute to the body of survivorship science by testing a flexible platform for survivorship care delivery adapted for the specific survivorship needs of patients with ovarian cancer. The completion of this project will contribute to the growing body of science to guide survivorship care for persons living with cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05752448; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05752448 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/48069