Advertisement

The validation of the Italian version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST)

  • Carla Ida Ripamonti
  • Francesca ChiesiEmail author
  • Patricia Di Pede
  • Mauro Guglielmo
  • Luisa Toffolatti
  • Laura Gangeri
  • Elena Allocca
Original Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Financial toxicity (FT) is the unintended, potential economic harm or damage of oncologic treatments that has become a medical problem with political implications. To assess FT, the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) questionnaire was developed. Since an Italian version is not available yet, we aimed to validate the Italian version of the COST questionnaire in a population of cancer patients during oncologic treatments or follow-up.

Methods

A sample of Italian native outpatients were asked to fill the Italian version of the COST and five other self-administered questionnaires to assess quality of life, treatment-related symptoms, hope, distress, and unmet needs. Additionally, a subsample of patients was asked to retake the COST after 2–6 weeks.

Results

A single factor better represents the scale structure. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were good. Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity was provided and criterion validity was established, showing that financial toxicity predicts the patient’s distress. Finally, known-groups validity was confirmed, testing the differences related to treatment-related expenses, sociodemographic characteristics, stage of the disease, and performance status.

Conclusion

The current findings suggest the Italian version of the COST is a psychometrically sound scale that potentially offers an added value in assessing FT in patients with cancer.

Keywords

Toxicity Financial burden Oncologic treatments Cancer patients Distress Psychometric validation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Barbara Bachtiary, MD, MSc, Paul Scherrer Institute Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland; and Emily Parks-Vernizzi, MFA; Jason Bredle, MFA; and Benjamin J. Arnold, MA, FACIT.org, Ponte Vedra, FL, for their contribution in producing the Italian version of the COST.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Patients’ recruitment, material preparation, and data collection were performed by Carla Ida Ripamonti, Patricia Di Pede, Mauro Guglielmo, Luisa Toffolatti, and Laura Gangeri. Data analysis and interpretation of results were performed by Francesca Chiesi. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Carla Ida Ripamonti, Francesca Chiesi, and Elena Allocca, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Ethic Committee of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy, protocol number: INT 41/19) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

520_2019_5286_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (94 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 93 kb)
520_2019_5286_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (103 kb)
ESM2 (PDF 102 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Zafar SY, Abernethy AP (2013) Financial toxicity, Part I: a new name for a growing problem. Oncology (Williston Park) 27(2):80–84Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yabroff KR, Lawrence WF, Clauser S, Davis WW, Brown ML (2004) Burden of illness in cancer survivors: findings from a population-based national sample. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1322–1330.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh255 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carrera PM, Olver I (2015) The financial hazard of personalized medicine and supportive care. Support Care Cancer 23:3399–3401.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2922-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang Y, Hueser HC, Hernandez I (2017) Comparing the approval and coverage decisions of new oncology drugs in the United States and other selected countries. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 23:247–254.  https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.2.247 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zafar SY, McNeil RB, Thomas CM, Lathan CS, Ayanian JZ, Provenzale D (2015) Population-based assessment of cancer survivors’ financial burden and quality of life: a prospective cohort study. J Oncol Pract 11:145–150.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2014.001542 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lathan CS, Cronin A, Tucker-Seeley R, Zafar SY, Ayanian JZ, Schrag D (2016) Association of financial strain with symptom burden and quality of life for patients with lung or colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:1732–1740.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.2232 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neugut AI, Subar M, Wilde ET, Stratton S, Brouse CH, Hillyer GC, Grann VR, Hershman DL (2011) Association between prescription co-payment amount and compliance with adjuvant hormonal therapy in women with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:2534–2542.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.33.3179 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ramsey SD, Bansal A, Fedorenko CR, Blough DK, Overstreet KA, Shankaran V, Newcomb P (2016) Financial insolvency as a risk factor for early mortality among patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:980–986.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.64.6620 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordon LG, Walker SM, Mervin MC et al (2017) Financial toxicity: a potential side effect of prostate cancer treatment among Australian men. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 26:e12392.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bestvina CM, Zullig LL, Yousuf Zafar S (2014) The implications of out-of-pocket cost of cancer treatment in the USA: a critical appraisal of the literature. Future Oncol 10:2189–2199.  https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.14.130 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Souza JA, Wong Y-N (2013) Financial distress in cancer patients. J Med Person 11:77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12682-013-0152-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Souza JA, Yap BJ, Hlubocky FJ et al (2014) The development of a financial toxicity patient-reported outcome in cancer: the COST measure. Cancer.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Souza JA, Yap BJ, Wroblewski K, Blinder V, Araújo FS, Hlubocky FJ, Nicholas LH, O'Connor JM, Brockstein B, Ratain MJ, Daugherty CK, Cella D (2017) Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome: the validation of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST). Cancer 123:476–484.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30369 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sprangers MAG, Cull A, Bjordal K et al The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer approach to quality of life assessment: guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. Qual Life Res 2:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tamburini M, Gangeri L, Brunelli C et al (2000) Assessment of hospitalised cancer patients’ needs by the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol 11:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herth K (1992) Abbreviated instrument to measure hope: development and psychometric evaluation. J Adv Nurs 17:1251–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ripamonti CI, Pessi AM, Stefania B (2012) Supportive Care in Cancer Unit at the National Cancer Institute of Milan. Curr Opin Oncol 24:391–396.  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0b013e328352eabc CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ (2005) A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Heal Prof 28:212–232.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278705275342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mosconi P, Apolone G, Barni S et al Quality of life in breast and colon cancer long-term survivors: an assessment with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and SF-36 questionnaires. Tumori 88:110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chiesi F, Bonacchi A, Primi C, Miccinesi G (2017) Assessing unmet needs in patients with cancer: an investigation of differential item functioning of the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire across gender, age and phase of the disease. PLoS One 12:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ripamonti CI, Buonaccorso L, Maruelli A et al Hope Herth Index (HHI): a validation study in Italian patients with solid and hematological malignancies on active cancer treatment. Tumori 98:385–392.  https://doi.org/10.1700/1125.12409
  22. 22.
    Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K (1991) The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care 7:6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moro C, Brunelli C, Miccinesi G, Fallai M, Morino P, Piazza M, Labianca R, Ripamonti C (2006) Edmonton symptom assessment scale: Italian validation in two palliative care settings. Support Care Cancer 14:30–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-005-0834-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chochinov HM, Hassard T, McClement S, Hack T, Kristjanson LJ, Harlos M, Sinclair S, Murray A (2008) The patient dignity inventory: a novel way of measuring dignity-related distress in palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manag 36:559–571.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.12.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ripamonti CI, Buonaccorso L, Maruelli A et al Patient dignity inventory (PDI) questionnaire: the validation study in Italian patients with solid and hematological cancers on active oncological treatments. Tumori 98:491–500.  https://doi.org/10.1700/1146.12645
  26. 26.
    Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH (1949) The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod CM (ed) Eval Chemother Agents. Columbia Univ Press, New York, p 196Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ (2013) FACTOR 9.2. Appl Psychol Meas 37:497–498.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621613487794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moshagen M, Musch J (2014) Sample size requirements of the robust weighted least squares estimator. Methodology 10:60–70.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U (2011) Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods 16:209–220.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muthen B, Kaplan D (1992) A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: a note on the size of the model. Br J Math Stat Psychol 45:19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marcoulides GA, Hershberger SL (1997) Multivariate statistical methods: a first course.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315805771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    de Boeck P, Elosua P (2016) Reliability and validity: history, notions, methods, and discussion. In: Leong FTL, Bartram D, Cheung FM, Geisinger KF, Iliescu D (eds) The ITC international handbook of testing and assessment. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 408–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (1990) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Lindell & Whit-ney.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oncology Supportive Care in Cancer UnitFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei TumoriMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug, and Child’s Health (NEUROFARBA), Section of PsychologyUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.Clinical Psychology UnitFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei TumoriMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations