Validation of Korean Version of the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) among Breast Cancer Survivors

Sungkeun Shim; Danbee Kang; Nayeon Kim; Gayeon Han; Jihyun Lim; Hyunsoo Kim; Jeonghyun Park; Mankyung Lee; Jeong Eon Lee; Seok Won Kim; Jonghan Yu; Byung Joo Chae; Jai Min Ryu; Seok Jin Nam; Se Kyung Lee; Juhee Cho

doi:10.4143/crt.2021.784

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 54(3); 2022 > Article

Original Article Breast cancer Validation of Korean Version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) Among Breast Cancer Survivors: Sungkeun Shim^1,2, Danbee Kang^2,3, Nayeon Kim^3,4, Gayeon Han², Jihyun Lim², Hyunsoo Kim^1,2, Jeonghyun Park³, Mankyung Lee^1,2, Jeong Eon Lee⁵, Seok Won Kim⁵, Jonghan Yu⁵, Byung Joo Chae⁵, Jai Min Ryu⁵, Seok Jin Nam⁵, Se Kyung Lee⁵, Juhee Cho^2,3,4,6; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2022;54(3):834-841.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2021.784
Published online: October 13, 2021

¹Department of Digital Health, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea

²Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Clinical Research Design and Evaluation, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea

⁴Cancer Education Center, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

⁵Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁶Departments of Epidemiology and Medicine, and Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

Correspondence: Juhee Cho, Department of Clinical Research Design and Evaluation, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, 115 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06355, Korea.
Tel: 82-2-3410-1448, Fax: 82-2-3410-6639, E-mail: jcho@skku.edu

Co-correspondence: Se Kyung Lee, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea,
Tel: 82-2-3410-0051, Fax: 82-2-3410-6982, E-mail: sekyung.lee@samsung.com

• Received: July 4, 2021 • Accepted: October 11, 2021

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

7,208 Views
184 Download
9 Web of Science
11 Crossref
10 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
Little is known about the impact of financial toxicity in disease-free breast cancer survivors. We aim to validate the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity in Korean (COST-K) and evaluate financial toxicity among disease-free breast cancer survivors.
Materials and Methods
We conducted linguistic validation following a standardized methodology recommended by Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy multilingual translation (FACITtrans). For psychometric validation, we conducted a cross-sectional survey with 4,297 disease-free breast cancer survivors at a tertiary hospital in Seoul, Korea between November 2018 and April 2019. Survivors were asked to complete the COST-K and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaires. The test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity of the COST-K were assessed using standard scale construction techniques.
Results
The COST-K demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.81. The test-retest analysis revealed an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.78. The COST-K had moderate correlation (r=−0.60) with the financial difficulty item of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and week correlation with the items on acute and chronic symptom burdens (nausea/vomiting, −0.18; constipation, −0.14; diarrhea, −0.14), showing good convergent and divergent validity. The median COST-K was 27 (range, 0 to 44; mean±standard deivation [SD], 27.1±7.5) and about 30% and 5% of cancer survivors experienced mild and severe financial toxicity, respectively. Younger age, lower education, lower household income was associated with higher financial toxicity.
Conclusion
The COST-K is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring financial toxicity in disease-free breast cancer survivors. Considering its impact on the health-related quality of life, more studies need to be conducted to evaluate financial toxicity in cancer survivors and design interventions.
Key words: Financial stress, Quality of life, Breast neoplasms, Cancer survivors, Validation study

Introduction

Cancer is one of the costliest medical conditions to treat, and individuals with cancer are at a higher risk of experiencing financial problems than those without cancer [1–3]. Financial toxicity is defined as the adverse economic consequence of medical treatment. The objective financial consequences of cancer as well as subjective financial distress are broadly termed as “financial toxicity.” However, studies on the individual financial effects of cancer treatment have largely focused on quantifying objective financial burdens, such as out-of-pocket expenses [4]. Recently, there has been increasing interest in subjective financial distress due to cancer treatment because it could lead to adverse health outcomes, both physical and mental [5–7].

To measure financial toxicity, the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) was developed and validated with patients with cancer in the United States [8,9]. This instrument contains 11 questions that are categorized into three themes: (1) two resource items, (2) one financial item, and (3) eight affect items specifically asking objective financial burden and subjective financial distress due to cancer care. The COST had involved patients with advanced and metastatic cancer undergoing active cancer treatment when it was developed [10–12]. Recently, there has been an increasing awareness about long-term financial burden and distress among cancer survivors [13]. The COST has been used in several studies to assess financial toxicity of cancer survivors as well as insured patients [9,14,15].

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women. Early detection and advanced treatment have dramatically improved survival rates, which might result in high level and long-term financial burdens [3,13,16]. Considering that female sex and younger age are risk factors for financial toxicity [17], it is important to evaluate financial toxicity among breast cancer survivors. In addition, little is known about the impact of financial toxicity in disease-free breast cancer survivors [18]. Thus, we aimed to validate the COST in Korean (COST-K) and evaluate financial toxicity among disease-free breast cancer survivors.

Materials and Methods

1. Linguistic validation

To validate the COST-K, we conducted linguistic validation before psychometric validation. First, we obtained copyright permission from the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy multilingual translation (FACITtrans) and translated the COST measure using a standardized methodology recommended by FACITtrans. All documentation pertaining to the COST-K translation, including the item history and decisions about item rephrasing, were reviewed by FACITtrans before being finalized for cognitive testing. No translation issues related to the response options, linguistics, and conceptual equivalence to the original COST measure, as intended, were reported. The participants subsequently underwent cognitive debriefing for 30 minutes to evaluate comprehension; ease of response; and acceptability of the terminology, phrasing, and response options. Cognitive interviews were conducted by one oncology nurse and a behavioral scientist. We recruited cancer patients until saturation; 10 cancer patients with various types of cancers (three, hepatocellular carcinoma; two, lung cancer; two, colon cancer; two, gastric cancer; two, breast cancer) participated in the cognitive interviews; 50% of the patients were male, 60% were over 50 years old, and 50% had an education level of high school or lower.

Overall, the cognitive debriefing revealed that the participants generally comprehended the COST-K well. About 20% of the participants experienced comprehension difficulty for item 4 and item 11, possibly due to cultural differences. Item 4, “I feel I have no choice about the amount of money I spend on care,” queried about the feeling of helplessness due to the financial burden. However, most of our study participants perceived that the item queried about the level of acceptance or willingness to pay for medical costs. It can be understood that patients have to accept treatment decisions regardless of their financial burden. Korean breast cancer survivors’ attitudes toward cancer treatment or treatment cost might be different from those of Western survivors who live in different social and healthcare environments. In addition, item 4 contained a negative expression, which made the phrasing awkward when translated into Korean. Our participants might have been confused and did not know the correct way to answer. About 20% of the participants experienced comprehension difficulty in the phrasing of “I feel in control of my financial situation” (item 11). A survivor in our studies believed that she could control the financial situation as she had enough money to pay for the cost of treatment; however, she did not feel she could manage the future financial situation well because she was not the main source of household income. In conclusion, we did not change any item, and the final version of the COST-K was reviewed and approved by the study team and FACITtrans.

2. Psychometric validation

1) Study participants

We conducted a cross-sectional study of consecutive breast cancer survivors who visited the outpatient breast cancer/oncology clinic at the Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, Republic of Korea, between November 2018 and April 2019. We included breast cancer patients aged above 19 years at the time of diagnosis who had completed active treatment with curative intent within the last 5 years. The exclusion criteria were the presence of secondary cancer, metastasis, and recurrence.

2) Measures

We asked study participants’ socio-demographic characteristics, including marital status, education level, monthly family income, and current working status. Clinical information was obtained from electronic medical records. Linguistically validated COST-K scores of the study participants were evaluated. Low COST-K scores indicated higher financial toxicity.

3) Reliability and validity

To assess the reliability of the COST-K, we calculated the internal consistency of each domain using Cronbach’s α and the item-total correlation of each domain. An α value of 0.8 or higher indicates very good reliability [19]. We invited 250 study participants to participate in the retest, of whom 223 survivors participated (response rate, 89.2%). The survivors who participated in the retest took the COST-K survey again 7 days after the initial survey. For the final test-retest analysis, we excluded 21 participants who had experienced financial events between the test and retest periods, resulting in the inclusion of 202 patients. The test-retest analysis was performed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 1-way random-effects model [9].

Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed to determine the underlying structure of the COST-K [20]. Convergent and divergent validities were assessed by determining Pearson’s correlations between the COST-K and relevant and irrelevant domains of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire. We used the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, which has been validated and used in many studies [21,22]. We hypothesized that the COST-K will have moderate or strong correlation with the financial difficulty item of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire (during the past week: Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties?) and a weak correlation with items on acute symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea. We also evaluated the association between the COST-K and socio-demographic and clinical factors that were found to be significantly associated with financial toxicity, such as age, marital status, education, employment status, and time since surgery, to confirm the construct validity (“known groups”).

3. Statistical analysis

Data analyses included descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, and standard deviations) and statistics for assessing the questionnaire’s psychometric properties. Correlations between 0.30 and 0.50 were defined as mild; 0.50 and 0.70, moderate; and 0.70 and 0.90, strong. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate the association between financial toxicity and socio-demographic and clinical factors, adjusting for age, sex, marital status, education level, employment status, monthly family income, disease stage at diagnosis, time since surgery, and type of surgery. For logistic regression, a cutoff of 14 indicated moderate and severe financial toxicity, as suggested by the original developer [23]. All significance tests were two-sided, and a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. All data analyses were performed using STATA ver. 15 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).

Results

1. Study participants

Among the 4,366 eligible participants, 69 did not answer the COST-K survey (missing rate, 1.5%); thus, the final analysis included 4,297 participants. The mean age of the participants was 50.4 (range, 20 to 84 years; mean±SD, 8.6). About 82.7% of the participants were married, 61.2% had a job, and 51.0% had a monthly family income of < US$4,000. The median COST-K was 27 (range, 0 to 44; mean±SD, 27.1±7.5). Breast cancer survivors who were not married, had a low education level, were unemployed, and had a low household income were more likely to report financial toxicity than those who were married, had a high education level, were employed, and had a high household income, respectively (Table 1).

2. Validity and reliability

The COST-K demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.81. The test-retest analysis revealed an ICC of 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.82). The PCA with 1-factor solution, while other items revealed high loadings (0.65 to 0.79), 3 items had loadings lower than 0.50 (item 2, 0.39; item 4, 0.04; item 11, 0.17) (Table 2). Without limiting the number of factors to be retained, the PCA with varimax rotation resulted in a 2-factor solution with an eigenvalue of > 1.0 (Table 3, Fig. 1). The first factor included item 3, item 5, item 8, item 9, and item 10, and the second factor included item 1, item 4, item 6, and item 7. However, item 2 was not related to factors 1 or 2.

The COST-K showed good convergence with the financial difficulty item of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire (r= −0.60, p < 0.01) (Table 4), and it was weakly correlated with the items on acute symptom burdens, such as nausea and vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea, showing good divergent validity (nausea/vomiting, −0.18; constipation, −0.14; diarrhea, −0.14) (Table 3).

3. Factors associated with financial toxicity

After adjusting for potential confounders, cancer survivors who were aged < 40 years (odds ratio [OR], 3.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.17 to 7.00), were single (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.39), had an education level of high school or lower (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.40 to 4.02), were unemployed (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.16), and had a monthly family income of ≤ $2,000 (OR, 8.39; 95% CI, 4.42 to 15.94) were more likely to experience financial toxicity than those who were aged ≥ 60 years, were married, had university education, were employed, and had a monthly family income of ≥ $6,000, respectively (Table 5).

Discussion

Here we described the COST-K was easily administered to and completed without discomfort by the breast cancer survivors. The COST-K was found to be a reliable and valid measure of financial toxicity among breast cancer survivors. It had good internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and the convergent and divergent validities were also good.

In a development study, all items had moderate or high loadings (> 0.5) with a 1-factor solution on PCA, supporting the factorability of the items [8]. However, in our study, three items revealed low loadings (items 2, item 4, and item 11). Therefore, we performed PCA without limiting the number of factors to be retained and found two factors, but item 2 did not belong to either factor. The items loaded on the first factor seemed to be related to psychological distress, and the items loaded on the second factor seemed to be related to perceived resource availability. Item 2 (“My out-of-pocket medical expenses are more than I thought they would be”) had low loading on PCA with varimax rotation, regardless of the number of factors retained. This may be due to the national healthcare system in Korea. South Korea has a national health insurance system that covers all people in the nation. In addition, all patients with cancer have special coverage programs and only pay 5%–10% of the total health expenditure. Thus, our study participants might have had relatively little concern about out-of-pocket medical expenses, and item 2 was not sensitive enough to assess financial toxicity. In addition, the low loading of item 2 might be due to the characteristics of the study population. We included breast cancer survivors who had completed their treatment and had no signs of recurrence. They might have little concern about out-of-pocket medical expenses. In fact, less than 5% of our study participants agreed or strongly agreed that their out-of-pocket medical expenses were more than they thought they would be (S1 Table). While the comprehension issues related to item 4 and item 11 were due to cultural differences during the linguistic validation process, we did not exclude these items to ensure consistency of the COST measure as a standardized instrument across the country for the psychometric analysis. Then, on PCA, item 4 and item 11 had much lower loadings than other items, confirming our findings with linguistic validation. However, the overall reliability and test-retest reliability of the COST-K were good. Further studies are necessary to modify these items and their responses.

Regarding convergent and divergent validities, there was a moderate correlation between the COST-K and the financial difficulty item of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, whereas weak correlations were noted between the acute symptom items and COST-K, confirming its divergent validity. In addition, the COST-K showed a mild correlation with the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, indicating that financial toxicity is an important patient-centered outcome that affects the survivors’ HRQoL. In particular, there was a mild correlation between physical symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and sleep disturbance. The results are similar to those of the previous studies. Financial toxicity was found to be related to symptom burden in both cancer patients and survivors [7,9,24,25]. Similar to other studies, we also found socio-demographic and clinical factors that were associated with financial toxicity on multivariate logistic regression, confirming the validity of the COST-K [5,9,13,26].

One study found that 14.8%–78.8% of cancer survivors experienced financial toxicity, especially in low-income populations [27]. In our study, over 30% and 5% of cancer survivors experienced mild and severe financial toxicity, respectively. Korean breast cancer survivors experience less financial toxicity than survivors in other countries due to relatively low medical costs in South Korea owing to coverage by the national health insurance system. However, survivors with low income were more likely to experience financial toxicity than those with high income. Survivors with low income would still experience substantial financial toxicity because of the various direct and indirect costs of cancer treatment [13]. For example, they would have more financial burden due to reconstruction surgery, additional expensive treatment on their own or having private insurance. They might experience high levels of financial toxicity because of a lack of savings and assets and unexpected medical expenditure [27]. Further study would be necessary to find factors associated with financial toxicity and develop interventions for these vulnerable populations as early as possible to minimize financial toxicity.

Our study had several limitations. First, given the cross-sectional design, participants would answer differently depending on time and environment. Therefore, we conducted a test-retest reliability test and confirmed the consistency of the COST-K in our population. Second, the convergent validity of the COST-K was not examined using a separate instrument for financial toxicity among cancer survivors. However, there was no standardized instrument for measuring subjective financial distress or financial toxicity in cancer survivors [5]. Instead, we tested the correlation between the COST-K and the financial difficulty item of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, which is a well-known, frequently used, and a validated measure [5,28,29] of financial toxicity in cancer patients. The findings of this study might not be generalizable to other populations in other settings because this study was conducted with breast cancer survivors at a single institution in Seoul, South Korea. Female cancer survivors might experience more psychological distress due to financial difficulties than male cancer survivors. Furthermore, survivors in other countries with health insurance systems different from the one in South Korea might experience different types or levels of financial toxicity.

Our study demonstrated that the COST-K is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring financial toxicity in disease-free breast cancer survivors. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first validation study of the COST involving disease-free cancer survivors. Considering its impact on the HRQoL, more studies are necessary to evaluate and intervene financial toxicity among breast cancer survivors who would experience more financial challenges due to younger age.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (https://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2021-784_S1_Table.pdf

NOTES

Ethical Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and informed consent was obtained from all study participants (IRB number: SMC-2018-08-070).

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Shim S, Kang D, Kim N, Park J, Lee SK, Cho J.

Collected the data: Shim S, Park J, Lee JE, Kim SW, Yu J, Chae BJ, Ryu JM, Nam SJ, Lee SK.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Shim S, Kang D, Kim N, Han G, Lim J, Kim H, Lee M, Lee JE, Kim SW, Yu J, Chae BJ, Ryu JM, Nam SJ, Lee SK, Cho J.

Performed the analysis: Shim S, Kang D, Han G, Lim J, Kim H, Lee M.

Wrote the paper: Shim S, Kang D, Lee SK, Cho J.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning (2017R1E1A1A0107764214).

Fig. 1

Scree plot of eigenvalues after exploratory factor analysis.

Table 1

Characteristics of the study participants (n=4,297)

Variable	Total, n (%)	COST-K (mean±SD)	p-value
Age (yr)	50.47 (8.6)
Age at diagnosis (yr)	48.05 (8.6)
Marital status
Single	724 (17.3)	24.75±8.33	< 0.01
Married	3,467 (82.7)	27.63±7.22
Education level
< High school	364 (8.5)	25.03±7.65	< 0.01
High school	1,463 (34.2)	26.11±7.41
≥ University	2,457 (57.3)	28.05±7.40
Employment status
Employed	1,663 (38.8)	27.48±7.26	0.01
Unemployed	2,628 (61.2)	26.91±7.64
Monthly family income ($)
Less than 2,000	987 (23.1)	23.54±7.74	< 0.01
2,000–4,000	1,193 (27.9)	26.15±7.24
4,000–6,000	1,039 (24.3)	27.74±6.58
More than 6,000	1,053 (24.7)	31.02±6.49
Disease stage at diagnosis
Stage 0	482 (11.6)	27.54±7.21	< 0.01
Stage I	2,009 (48.4)	28.06±7.25
Stage II	1,331 (32.0)	26.04±7.70
Stage III/IV	331 (8.0)	25.49±7.84
Time since surgery, median (IQR, mo)	29.0 (15.4–42.5)
Type of surgery
Mastectomy	1,472 (34.3)	26.60±7.59	< 0.01
Mastectomy without breast reconstruction	764 (53.0)	26.03±7.66	< 0.01
Mastectomy with breast reconstruction	679 (47.0)	27.23±7.46
Lumpectomy	2,816 (65.7)	27.39±7.45
Neoadjuvant therapy (yes)	660 (15.3)	25.85±7.78	< 0.01
Type of treatment
Chemotherapy (yes)	1,916 (44.6)	26.07±7.68	< 0.01
Radiation therapy (yes)	3,212 (74.8)	27.07±7.59	0.36
Hormone therapy (yes)	3,399 (79.2)	27.35±7.43	< 0.01

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity; IQR, interquartile range.

Table 2

Factor analysis of the COST-K with a 1-factor solution

No.	Item (theme)	1-Factor loading
Q1	I know that I have enough money in savings, retirement, or assets to cover the costs of my treatment (resource)	0.67^a)
Q2	My out-of-pocket medical expenses are more than I thought they would be (financial)	0.39
Q3	I worry about the financial problems I will have in the future as a result of my illness or treatment (affect)	0.76^a)
Q4	I feel I have no choice about the amount of money I spend on care (affect)	0.04
Q5	I am frustrated that I cannot work or contribute as much as I usually do (affect)	0.66^a)
Q6	I am satisfied with my current financial situation (affect)	0.70^a)
Q7	I am able to meet my monthly expenses (resources)	0.65^a)
Q8	I feel financially stressed (affect)	0.72^a)
Q9	I am concerned about keeping my job and income, including work at home (affect)	0.76^a)
Q10	My cancer or treatment has reduced my satisfaction with my present financial situation (affect)	0.79^a)
Q11	I feel in control of my financial situation (affect)	0.17

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity.

^a) The item which has at least 0.4 correlation with each principal component.

Table 3

Principle component analysis with the COST-K

No.	Item (theme)	1-Factor loading	2-Factor loading
Q1	I know that I have enough money in savings, retirement, or assets to cover the costs of my treatment (resource)	0.34	0.71^a)
Q2	My out-of-pocket medical expenses are more than I thought they would be (financial)	0.46	0.00
Q3	I worry about the financial problems I will have in the future as a result of my illness or treatment (affect)	0.77^a)	0.20
Q4	I feel I have no choice about the amount of money I spend on care (affect)	0.38	0.53^a)
Q5	I am frustrated that I cannot work or contribute as much as I usually do (affect)	0.72^a)	0.08
Q6	I am satisfied with my current financial situation (affect)	0.35	0.77^a)
Q7	I am able to meet my monthly expenses (resources)	0.26	0.81^a)
Q8	I feel financially stressed (affect)	0.74^a)	0.17
Q9	I am concerned about keeping my job and income, including work at home (affect)	0.79^a)	0.16
Q10	My cancer or treatment has reduced my satisfaction with my present financial situation (affect)	0.80^a)	0.21
Q11	I feel in control of my financial situation (affect)	0.20	0.66^a)

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity.

^a) The item which has at least 0.4 correlation with the first principal component.

Table 4

Correlation of the COST-K with EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire items

Domain	Correlation coefficient with the COST-K
Function scale
Global health status	0.36
Physical functioning	0.30
Role functioning	0.32
Emotional functioning	0.37
Cognitive functioning	0.30
Social functioning	0.44
Symptom scale
Fatigue	−0.30
Nausea and vomiting	−0.18
Pain	−0.26
Dyspnea	−0.21
Sleep disorder	−0.21
Appetite loss	−0.16
Constipation	−0.14
Diarrhea	−0.14
Financial difficulty	−0.60

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity; EORTC QLQ-C30, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core.

Table 5

Factors associated with financial toxicity

	Unadjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)
Age (yr)
< 40	1.81 (1.12–2.93)	3.90 (2.17–7.00)
40–50	1.05 (0.69–1.58)	2.85 (1.72–4.73)
50–60	1.03 (0.68–1.56)	1.85 (1.16–2.95)
≥ 60	Reference	Reference
Marital status
Single	2.62 (1.96–3.51)	1.72 (1.23–2.39)
Married	Reference	Reference
Education level
< High school	2.74 (1.81–4.13)	2.37 (1.40–4.02)
High school	2.01 (1.50–2.69)	1.71 (1.22–2.39)
≥ University	Reference	Reference
Employment status
Employed	Reference	Reference
Unemployed	1.54 (1.15–2.06)	1.56 (1.13–2.16)
Monthly family income
Less than $2,000	10.17 (5.80–17.83)	8.39 (4.42–15.94)
$2,000–$4,000	4.34 (2.42–7.78)	3.96 (2.09–7.53)
$4,000–$6,000	2.05 (1.07–3.92)	1.84 (0.91–3.70)
More than $6,000	Reference	Reference
Disease stage at diagnosis
Stage 0	Reference	Reference
Stage I	1.22 (0.72–2.07)	1.30 (0.75–2.28)
Stage II	1.98 (1.16–3.36)	1.76 (1.00–3.07)
Stage III/IV	2.42 (1.30–4.53)	1.91 (1.00–3.77)
Time since surgery (mo)	0.92 (0.83–1.02)	0.97 (0.87–1.08)
Type of surgery
Mastectomy	1.4 (1.06–1.84)	1.34 (0.99–1.81)
Lumpectomy	Reference	Reference

CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.

REFERENCES

1. Bernard DS, Farr SL, Fang Z. National estimates of out-of-pocket health care expenditure burdens among nonelderly adults with cancer: 2001 to 2008. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2821–6. Article PubMed PMC
2. Davidoff AJ, Erten M, Shaffer T, Shoemaker JS, Zuckerman IH, Pandya N, et al. Out-of-pocket health care expenditure burden for medicare beneficiaries with cancer. Cancer. 2013;119:1257–65. Article PubMed
3. Guy GP Jr, Ekwueme DU, Yabroff KR, Dowling EC, Li C, Rodriguez JL, et al. Economic burden of cancer survivorship among adults in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3749–57. Article PubMed PMC
4. Bestvina CM, Zullig LL, Yousuf Zafar S. The implications of out-of-pocket cost of cancer treatment in the USA: a critical appraisal of the literature. Future Oncol. 2014;10:2189–99. Article PubMed
5. Witte J, Mehlis K, Surmann B, Lingnau R, Damm O, Greiner W, et al. Methods for measuring financial toxicity after cancer diagnosis and treatment: a systematic review and its implications. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1061–70. Article PubMed PMC
6. Carrera PM, Kantarjian HM, Blinder VS. The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:153–65. Article PubMed PMC
7. Delgado-Guay M, Ferrer J, Rieber AG, Rhondali W, Tayjasanant S, Ochoa J, et al. Financial distress and its associations with physical and emotional symptoms and quality of life among advanced cancer patients. Oncologist. 2015;20:1092–8. Article PubMed PMC
8. de Souza JA, Yap BJ, Hlubocky FJ, Wroblewski K, Ratain MJ, Cella D, et al. The development of a financial toxicity patient-reported outcome in cancer: The COST measure. Cancer. 2014;120:3245–53. Article PubMed
9. de Souza JA, Yap BJ, Wroblewski K, Blinder V, Araujo FS, Hlubocky FJ, et al. Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome: the validation of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST). Cancer. 2017;123:476–84. Article PubMed PMC
10. Huntington SF, Weiss BM, Vogl DT, Cohen AD, Garfall AL, Mangan PA, et al. Financial toxicity in insured patients with multiple myeloma: a cross-sectional pilot study. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2:e408–16. Article PubMed
11. Zafar SY, Pepercorn JM, Schrag D, Taylor DH, Goetzinger AM, Zhong X, 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;18:381–90. Article PubMed PMC
12. Allcott N, Dunham L, Levy D, Carr J, Stitzenberg K. Financial burden amongst cancer patients treated with curative intent surgery alone. Am J Surg. 2019;218:452–6. Article PubMed PMC
13. Altice CK, Banegas MP, Tucker-Seeley RD, Yabroff KR. Financial hardships experienced by cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109:djw205.Article PubMed PMC
14. Benedict C, Fisher S, Schapira L, Chao S, Sackeyfio S, Sullivan T, et al. Greater financial toxicity relates to greater distress and worse quality of life among breast and gynecologic cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2021;31:9–20. Article PubMed PMC
15. Mady LJ, Lyu L, Owoc MS, Peddada SD, Thomas TH, Sabik LM, et al. Understanding financial toxicity in head and neck cancer survivors. Oral Oncol. 2019;95:187–93. Article PubMed
16. Fenn KM, Evans SB, McCorkle R, DiGiovanna MP, Pusztai L, Sanft T, et al. Impact of financial burden of cancer on survivors’ quality of life. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10:332–8. Article PubMed
17. Gordon LG, Merollini KM, Lowe A, Chan RJ. A systematic review of financial toxicity among cancer survivors: we can’t pay the co-pay. Patient. 2017;10:295–309. Article PubMed
18. Jagsi R, Ward KC, Abrahamse PH, Wallner LP, Kurian AW, Hamilton AS, et al. Unmet need for clinician engagement regarding financial toxicity after diagnosis of breast cancer. Cancer. 2018;124:3668–76. Article PubMed PMC
19. Ursachi G, Horodnic IA, Zait A. How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Proc Econ Finance. 2015;20:679–86. Article
20. Gorsuch RL. Exploratory factor analysis. . In: Nesselroade JR, Cattell RB, editors. Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Boston, MA: Springer; 1988. p. 231–58. Article
21. Yun YH, Park YS, Lee ES, Bang SM, Heo DS, Park SY, et al. Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:863–8. Article PubMed
22. Fayers P, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A. EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. 3rd ed. Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.
23. De Souza JA, Wroblewski K, Proussaloglou E, Nicholson L, Hantel A, Wang Y. Validation of a financial toxicity (FT) grading system. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15_Suppl):6615.Article
24. Rosenzweig M, West M, Matthews J, Stokan M, Yoojin Kook YK, Gallups S, et al. Financial toxicity among women with metastatic breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2019;46:83–91. PubMed
25. Chan RJ, Gordon L, Zafar SY, Miaskowski C. Financial toxicity and symptom burden: what is the big deal? Support Care Cancer. 2018;26:1357–9. Article PubMed
26. Smith GL, Lopez-Olivo MA, Advani PG, Ning MS, Geng Y, Giordano SH, et al. Financial burdens of cancer treatment: a systematic review of risk factors and outcomes. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17:1184–92. Article PubMed PMC
27. Azzani M, Roslani AC, Su TT. The perceived cancer-related financial hardship among patients and their families: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:889–98. Article PubMed
28. de Souza JA, Kung S, O’Connor J, Yap BJ. Determinants of patient-centered financial stress in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:e310–8. Article PubMed
29. Gupta D, Lis CG, Grutsch JF. Perceived cancer-related financial difficulty: implications for patient satisfaction with quality of life in advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2007;15:1051–6. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Severity of Financial Toxicity for Patients Receiving Palliative Radiation Therapy
Jeremy P. Harris, Eric Ku, Garrett Harada, Sophie Hsu, Elaine Chiao, Pranathi Rao, Erin Healy, Misako Nagasaka, Jessica Humphreys, Michael A. Hoyt
American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®.2024; 41(6): 592. CrossRef
Financial Toxicity in Radiation Oncology: Impact for Our Patients and for Practicing Radiation Oncologists
Victoria S. Wu, Xinglei Shen, Janet de Moor, Fumiko Chino, Jonathan Klein
Advances in Radiation Oncology.2024; 9(3): 101419. CrossRef
Measures of financial toxicity in cancer survivors: a systematic review
L. B. Thomy, M. Crichton, L. Jones, P. M. Yates, N. H. Hart, L. G. Collins, R. J. Chan
Supportive Care in Cancer.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Validation of the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) in Vietnamese patients with cancer
Binh Thang Tran, Dinh Duong Le, Thanh Gia Nguyen, Minh Tu Nguyen, Minh Hanh Nguyen, Cao Khoa Dang, Dinh Trung Tran, Le An Pham
PLOS ONE.2024; 19(6): e0306339. CrossRef
Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Cancer and Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Stevanus Pangestu, Fanni Rencz
Value in Health.2023; 26(2): 300. CrossRef
Association between financial toxicity and health-related quality of life of patients with gynecologic cancer
Yusuke Kajimoto, Kazunori Honda, Shiro Suzuki, Masahiko Mori, Hirofumi Tsubouchi, Kohshiro Nakao, Anri Azuma, Takashi Shibutani, Shoji Nagao, Takahiro Koyanagi, Izumi Kohara, Shuko Tamaki, Midori Yabuki, Lida Teng, Keiichi Fujiwara, Ataru Igarashi
International Journal of Clinical Oncology.2023; 28(3): 454. CrossRef
Financial Toxicity Following Cancer in a Middle-Income Country with a Pluralistic Health System: Validation of the COST Questionnaire
Veni V. Sakti, Mahmoud Danaee, Cheng-Har Yip, Ros S. A. Bustamam, Marniza Saad, Gin Gin Gan, Jerome Tan, Yueh Ni Lim, Flora L.T. Chong, Murallitharan Munisamy, Farahida Mohd Farid, Boon Lui Sew, Yek-Ching Kong, Nishalini Muniandy, Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy
Cancer Care Research Online.2023; 3(3): e044. CrossRef
Financial Toxicity Among Breast Cancer Patients
Yi Kuang, Xiaoyi Yuan, Zheng Zhu, Weijie Xing
Cancer Nursing.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Heterogeneity of financial toxicity and associated risk factors for older cancer survivors in China
Mingzhu Su, Siqi Liu, Li Liu, Fang Wang, Jiahui Lao, Xiaojie Sun
iScience.2023; 26(10): 107768. CrossRef
Evaluation of financial toxicity and associated factors in female patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Yusuf Çeli̇k, Sevilay Şenol Çeli̇k, Seda Sarıköse, Hande Nur Arslan
Supportive Care in Cancer.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Validity of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) in patients with gynecologic cancer
Yusuke Kajimoto, Takashi Shibutani, Shoji Nagao, Satoshi Yamaguchi, Shiro Suzuki, Masahiko Mori, Hirofumi Tsubouchi, Kohshiro Nakao, Anri Azuma, Takahiro Koyanagi, Izumi Kohara, Shuko Tamaki, Midori Yabuki, Lida Teng, Kazunori Honda, Ataru Igarashi
International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.2022; : ijgc-2022-003410. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Validation of Korean Version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) Among Breast Cancer Survivors

Cancer Res Treat. 2022;54(3):834-841. Published online October 13, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2021.784

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Psychometric Validation of the Korean Version of the Cancer Survivors’ Unmet Needs (CaSUN) Scale among Korean Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Survivors

Validation of Korean Version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) Among Breast Cancer Survivors

Fig. 1 Scree plot of eigenvalues after exploratory factor analysis.

Fig. 1

Validation of Korean Version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) Among Breast Cancer Survivors

Table 1

Characteristics of the study participants (n=4,297)

Variable	Total, n (%)	COST-K (mean±SD)	p-value
Age (yr)	50.47 (8.6)
Age at diagnosis (yr)	48.05 (8.6)
Marital status
Single	724 (17.3)	24.75±8.33	< 0.01
Married	3,467 (82.7)	27.63±7.22
Education level
< High school	364 (8.5)	25.03±7.65	< 0.01
High school	1,463 (34.2)	26.11±7.41
≥ University	2,457 (57.3)	28.05±7.40
Employment status
Employed	1,663 (38.8)	27.48±7.26	0.01
Unemployed	2,628 (61.2)	26.91±7.64
Monthly family income ($)
Less than 2,000	987 (23.1)	23.54±7.74	< 0.01
2,000–4,000	1,193 (27.9)	26.15±7.24
4,000–6,000	1,039 (24.3)	27.74±6.58
More than 6,000	1,053 (24.7)	31.02±6.49
Disease stage at diagnosis
Stage 0	482 (11.6)	27.54±7.21	< 0.01
Stage I	2,009 (48.4)	28.06±7.25
Stage II	1,331 (32.0)	26.04±7.70
Stage III/IV	331 (8.0)	25.49±7.84
Time since surgery, median (IQR, mo)	29.0 (15.4–42.5)
Type of surgery
Mastectomy	1,472 (34.3)	26.60±7.59	< 0.01
Mastectomy without breast reconstruction	764 (53.0)	26.03±7.66	< 0.01
Mastectomy with breast reconstruction	679 (47.0)	27.23±7.46
Lumpectomy	2,816 (65.7)	27.39±7.45
Neoadjuvant therapy (yes)	660 (15.3)	25.85±7.78	< 0.01
Type of treatment
Chemotherapy (yes)	1,916 (44.6)	26.07±7.68	< 0.01
Radiation therapy (yes)	3,212 (74.8)	27.07±7.59	0.36
Hormone therapy (yes)	3,399 (79.2)	27.35±7.43	< 0.01

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity; IQR, interquartile range.

Table 2

Factor analysis of the COST-K with a 1-factor solution

No.	Item (theme)	1-Factor loading
Q1	I know that I have enough money in savings, retirement, or assets to cover the costs of my treatment (resource)	0.67^a)
Q2	My out-of-pocket medical expenses are more than I thought they would be (financial)	0.39
Q3	I worry about the financial problems I will have in the future as a result of my illness or treatment (affect)	0.76^a)
Q4	I feel I have no choice about the amount of money I spend on care (affect)	0.04
Q5	I am frustrated that I cannot work or contribute as much as I usually do (affect)	0.66^a)
Q6	I am satisfied with my current financial situation (affect)	0.70^a)
Q7	I am able to meet my monthly expenses (resources)	0.65^a)
Q8	I feel financially stressed (affect)	0.72^a)
Q9	I am concerned about keeping my job and income, including work at home (affect)	0.76^a)
Q10	My cancer or treatment has reduced my satisfaction with my present financial situation (affect)	0.79^a)
Q11	I feel in control of my financial situation (affect)	0.17

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity.

^a)The item which has at least 0.4 correlation with each principal component.

Table 3

Principle component analysis with the COST-K

No.	Item (theme)	1-Factor loading	2-Factor loading
Q1	I know that I have enough money in savings, retirement, or assets to cover the costs of my treatment (resource)	0.34	0.71^a)
Q2	My out-of-pocket medical expenses are more than I thought they would be (financial)	0.46	0.00
Q3	I worry about the financial problems I will have in the future as a result of my illness or treatment (affect)	0.77^a)	0.20
Q4	I feel I have no choice about the amount of money I spend on care (affect)	0.38	0.53^a)
Q5	I am frustrated that I cannot work or contribute as much as I usually do (affect)	0.72^a)	0.08
Q6	I am satisfied with my current financial situation (affect)	0.35	0.77^a)
Q7	I am able to meet my monthly expenses (resources)	0.26	0.81^a)
Q8	I feel financially stressed (affect)	0.74^a)	0.17
Q9	I am concerned about keeping my job and income, including work at home (affect)	0.79^a)	0.16
Q10	My cancer or treatment has reduced my satisfaction with my present financial situation (affect)	0.80^a)	0.21
Q11	I feel in control of my financial situation (affect)	0.20	0.66^a)

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity.

^a)The item which has at least 0.4 correlation with the first principal component.

Table 4

Correlation of the COST-K with EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire items

Domain	Correlation coefficient with the COST-K
Function scale
Global health status	0.36
Physical functioning	0.30
Role functioning	0.32
Emotional functioning	0.37
Cognitive functioning	0.30
Social functioning	0.44
Symptom scale
Fatigue	−0.30
Nausea and vomiting	−0.18
Pain	−0.26
Dyspnea	−0.21
Sleep disorder	−0.21
Appetite loss	−0.16
Constipation	−0.14
Diarrhea	−0.14
Financial difficulty	−0.60

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity; EORTC QLQ-C30, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core.

Table 5

Factors associated with financial toxicity

	Unadjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)
Age (yr)
< 40	1.81 (1.12–2.93)	3.90 (2.17–7.00)
40–50	1.05 (0.69–1.58)	2.85 (1.72–4.73)
50–60	1.03 (0.68–1.56)	1.85 (1.16–2.95)
≥ 60	Reference	Reference
Marital status
Single	2.62 (1.96–3.51)	1.72 (1.23–2.39)
Married	Reference	Reference
Education level
< High school	2.74 (1.81–4.13)	2.37 (1.40–4.02)
High school	2.01 (1.50–2.69)	1.71 (1.22–2.39)
≥ University	Reference	Reference
Employment status
Employed	Reference	Reference
Unemployed	1.54 (1.15–2.06)	1.56 (1.13–2.16)
Monthly family income
Less than $2,000	10.17 (5.80–17.83)	8.39 (4.42–15.94)
$2,000–$4,000	4.34 (2.42–7.78)	3.96 (2.09–7.53)
$4,000–$6,000	2.05 (1.07–3.92)	1.84 (0.91–3.70)
More than $6,000	Reference	Reference
Disease stage at diagnosis
Stage 0	Reference	Reference
Stage I	1.22 (0.72–2.07)	1.30 (0.75–2.28)
Stage II	1.98 (1.16–3.36)	1.76 (1.00–3.07)
Stage III/IV	2.42 (1.30–4.53)	1.91 (1.00–3.77)
Time since surgery (mo)	0.92 (0.83–1.02)	0.97 (0.87–1.08)
Type of surgery
Mastectomy	1.4 (1.06–1.84)	1.34 (0.99–1.81)
Lumpectomy	Reference	Reference

CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.

Table 1 Characteristics of the study participants (n=4,297)

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity; IQR, interquartile range.

Table 2 Factor analysis of the COST-K with a 1-factor solution

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity.

The item which has at least 0.4 correlation with each principal component.

Table 3 Principle component analysis with the COST-K

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity.

The item which has at least 0.4 correlation with the first principal component.

Table 4 Correlation of the COST-K with EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire items

COST-K, Korean version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity; EORTC QLQ-C30, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core.