Risk factors for financial toxicity in patients with gynecologic cancer

Published:December 10, 2021DOI:


      The cost of cancer care is high and rising. Evidence of increased patient cost burden is prevalent in the medical literature and has been defined as “financial toxicity,” the financial hardship and financial concerns experienced by patients because of a disease and its related treatments. With targeted therapies and growing out-of-pocket costs, patient financial toxicity is a growing concern among patients with gynecologic cancer.


      This study aimed to determine the prevalence of financial toxicity and identify its risk factors in patients with gynecologic cancer treated at a large cancer center using objective data.

      Study Design

      Using institutional databases, we identified patients with gynecologic cancer treated from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients with a preinvasive disease were excluded. Financial toxicity was defined according to institutionally derived metrics as the presence of ≥1 of the following: ≥2 bills sent to collections, application or granting of a payment plan, settlement, bankruptcy, financial assistance program enrollment, or a finance-related social work visit. Clinical characteristics were gathered using a 2-year look-back from the time of the first financial toxicity event or a randomly selected treatment date for those not experiencing toxicity. Risk factors were assessed using chi-squared tests. All significant variables on univariate analysis were included in the logistic regression model.


      Of the 4655 patients included in the analysis, 1155 (25%) experienced financial toxicity. In the univariate analysis, cervical cancer (35%), stage 3 or 4 disease (24% and 30%, respectively), younger age (35% for age <30 years), nonpartnered marital status (31%), Black (45%) or Hispanic (37%) race and ethnicity, self-pay (48%) or commercial insurance (30%), clinical trial participation (31%), more imaging studies (39% for ≥9), ≥1 emergency department visit (36%), longer inpatient stays (36% for ≥20 days), and more outpatient clinician visits (41% for ≥20 visits) were significantly associated with financial toxicity (P<.01). In multivariate analysis, younger age, nonpartnered marital status, Black and Hispanic race and ethnicity, commercial insurance, more imaging studies, and more outpatient physician visits were significantly associated with financial toxicity.


      Financial toxicity is an increasing problem for patients with gynecologic cancer. Our analysis, using objective measures of financial toxicity, has suggested that demographic factors and healthcare utilization metrics may be used to proactively identify at-risk patients for financial toxicity.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Mariotto A.B.
        • Enewold L.
        • Zhao J.
        • Zeruto C.A.
        • Yabroff K.R.
        Medical care costs associated with cancer survivorship in the United States.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020; 29: 1304-1312
        • Kaiser Family Foundation
        Employer health benefits chart pack.
        (Available at:)
        • Gilligan A.M.
        • Alberts D.S.
        • Roe D.J.
        • Skrepnek G.H.
        Death or debt? National estimates of financial toxicity in persons with newly-diagnosed cancer.
        Am J Med. 2018; 131: 1187-1199.e5
        • Zafar S.Y.
        • Peppercorn J.M.
        • Schrag D.
        • et al.
        The financial toxicity of cancer treatment: a pilot study assessing out-of-pocket expenses and the insured cancer patient’s experience.
        Oncologist. 2013; 18: 381-390
        • Liang M.I.
        • Pisu M.
        • Summerlin S.S.
        • et al.
        Extensive financial hardship among gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2020; 156: 271-277
        • Bouberhan S.
        • Shea M.
        • Kennedy A.
        • et al.
        Financial toxicity in gynecologic oncology.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 154: 8-12
        • Gordon L.G.
        • Merollini K.M.D.
        • Lowe A.
        • Chan R.J.
        A systematic review of financial toxicity among cancer survivors: we can’t pay the co-pay.
        Patient. 2017; 10: 295-309
        • Claxton G.
        • Levitt L.
        • Rae M.
        • Sawyer B.
        Increases in cost-sharing payments continue to outpace wage growth. Health System Tracker.
        (Available at:)
        • Esselen K.
        • Sinno A.K.
        • Varughese J.
        • Wethington S.L.
        • Prendergast E.
        • Chu C.S.
        Social needs in gynecologic oncology: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) clinical practice statement.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2020; 158: 521-525
        • Ramsey S.D.
        • Bansal A.
        • Fedorenko C.R.
        • et al.
        Financial insolvency as a risk factor for early mortality among patients with cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 980-986
        • Rustin G.J.
        • van der Burg M.E.
        • Griffin C.L.
        • et al.
        Early versus delayed treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer (MRC OV05/EORTC 55955): a randomised trial.
        Lancet. 2010; 376: 1155-1163
        • Esselen K.M.
        • Cronin A.M.
        • Bixel K.
        • et al.
        Use of CA-125 tests and computed tomographic scans for surveillance in ovarian cancer.
        JAMA Oncol. 2016; 2: 1427-1433
        • Doshi J.A.
        • Li P.X.
        • Huo H.R.
        • Pettit A.R.
        • Armstrong K.A.
        Association of patient out-of-pocket costs with prescription abandonment and delay in fills of novel oral anticancer agents.
        J Clin Oncol. 2018; 36: 476-482
        • Lentz R.
        • Benson 3rd, A.B.
        • Kircher S.
        Financial toxicity in cancer care: prevalence, causes, consequences, and reduction strategies.
        J Surg Oncol. 2019; 120: 85-92
        • Schnipper L.E.
        • Davidson N.E.
        • Wollins D.S.
        • et al.
        American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options.
        J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 2563-2577