ABSTRACT
Importance
Pancreatic cancer patients face varying medical expenses at different stages of treatment, resulting in dynamic changes in their financial toxicity. Longitudinal data collection is necessary to characterize the trajectory of these financial toxicity changes.
Objective
To Explore Potential Trajectories and Influencing Factors of Financial Toxicity among Pancreatic Cancer Patients.
Design
This was a prospective observational research study performed according to STROBE Checklist.
Setting and Participants
From August 2022 to August 2023, we conducted inpatient data collection from pancreatic cancer patients in three hospitals in Jiangsu Province.
Main Outcomes and Measures.
The COST scale was employed to investigate financial toxicity at four time points: upon admission (T0), at discharge (T1), 3 months post‐discharge (T2), and 6 months post‐discharge (T3). A latent growth model was utilized to classify the trajectories of financial toxicity and explore its influencing factors.
Results
The identification of financial toxicity trajectories among pancreatic cancer patients revealed three potential categories: a high‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group (19.69%), a moderate‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group (56.37%), and a low‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group (23.94%). Logistic regression analysis showed that, compared to the low‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group, the primary influencing factors for the high‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group were self‐efficacy and total out‐of‐pocket medical expenses. In contrast to the low‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group, the moderate‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group was influenced by self‐efficacy and total monthly household income. When comparing the moderate‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group to the high‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group, factors such as ACCI, employment status, total out‐of‐pocket medical expenses, and distance to healthcare facilities emerged as significant.
Conclusions and Relevance
The financial toxicity among pancreatic cancer patients has been categorized into three distinct trajectory patterns, each exhibiting significant population heterogeneity. It is imperative that we acknowledge the profound impact of financial toxicity on pancreatic cancer patients and strengthen relevant preventive and control measures to enhance their quality of life and therapeutic outcomes.
Keywords: financial toxicity, influencing factors, latent category growth model, pancreatic cancer
1. Introduction
Pancreatic cancer (PC), a highly aggressive malignancy with complex treatment protocols and severe postoperative complications, imposes substantial financial burdens globally [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. In China, PC accounts for 2.3% of all cancers, with treatment costs escalating due to surgery, chemoradiation, and novel therapies [8, 9]. According to Article 28 of the “Social Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China”, eligible medical expenses, including those for drugs, diagnostics, treatments, and medical services listed in the essential medical insurance, can be reimbursed from the basic medical insurance fund. This reimbursement covers a portion of the diagnostic, treatment, and medication costs for pancreatic cancer patients. Despite medical insurance reforms under Article 28 of China's Social Insurance Law—covering 95% of the population—many patients face persistent financial toxicity (FT) [10], defined as financial strain from direct medical expenses (e.g., out‐of‐pocket costs) and indirect losses (e.g., unemployment) [11]. Studies report a 91% FT incidence among PC patients, significantly higher than other cancers, exacerbated by productivity declines and prolonged unemployment [12, 13, 14, 15, 16].
Treatment costs peak during the initial 6 months, particularly in surgical and early treatment phases, before declining in stable periods. Hospitalization costs correlate with disease severity, comorbidities, and complications [9, 17, 18, 19]. To address gaps in understanding dynamic FT trajectories, this longitudinal study employs Latent Class Growth Modeling (LCGM) to integrate subjective (e.g., psychological distress) and objective (e.g., expenses) FT dimensions, guided by Jones'Model of Financial Burden [20, 21].
Aligned with national efforts to optimize insurance policies, this research highlights the need for tailored cost‐management strategies, especially during high‐expense phases, to mitigate catastrophic spending and improve care continuity. Findings may inform broader policies addressing financial challenges in oncology and other high‐cost medical fields.
2. Method
2.1. Participant Recruitment and Recruitment Procedure
This prospective observational research has been conducted according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Checklist. The study has conformed with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Medical University, China [(2022)797]. The convenience sampling method has been adopted to recruit the patients. Data collection for the study has been conducted from August 2022 to August 2023. The data has been collected by two designated members of the research team, who have administered the financial toxicity survey to pancreatic cancer patients at four time points: at admission (T0), at discharge (T1), 3 months after discharge (T2), and 6 months after discharge (T3). The study has followed patients for financial toxicity from admission to hospital until 6 months after discharge. Additionally, information on influencing factors has been gathered. The follow‐up data collection has been conducted via telephone, following a unified methodology and standards to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the measurements.
A minimum sample of 125 was required (25 predictors × 5). Accounting for 30% attrition, 163 participants were targeted. In various studies on latent variable models, the calculation methods of sample size are different. Some studies have shown that at least 250 samples are needed when the number of categories is 5 [22]. To enhance robustness, we enrolled 340 patients, exceeding thresholds for multivariate analysis. The inclusion, exclusion, and withdrawal criteria for this study are as follows: (1)Inclusion criteria: (1) confirmed PC diagnosis via imaging/histopathology, (2)cognitive capacity to consent, (3) expected survival > 6 months (assessed by oncologists using ECOG performance status). Exclusion criteria: concurrent malignancies or severe cognitive impairment. (3)Withdrawal criteria: Participants who refuse to complete the questionnaire; invalid questionnaires due to incomplete responses, patterned answering, etc.; participants who withdraw midway; and participants who die due to their illness and are unable to complete the survey.
2.2. Measures
Setting: From August 2022 to August 2023, we conducted inpatient data collection from pancreatic cancer patients in three hospitals in Jiangsu Province.
2.2.1. Model of Financial Burden After Cancer Diagnosis(FBCD)
This study was guided by the “Model of Financial Burden after Cancer Diagnosis” proposed by Jone et al. in 2020 [21]. This model was divided into components of financial toxicity, its causes, moderating factors, and the adverse consequence arising therefrom. Compared with other models, the content was more comprehensive [23, 24].
2.2.2. Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics
The sociodemographic characteristics encompass gender, age, profession, employment status, monthly household income (yuan/month), quantity of children, primary caregiver, education level, marital status, housing type, distance to hospital (km), payment methods, commercial insurance, loan, and the main breadwinner of the family. The clinical characteristics comprise cancer staging, operation history, treatment on initial admission, treatment after discharge, entering ICU or not, number of complications, and length of stay (days).
2.2.3. Financial Toxicity
This study intends to adopt the COST‐PROM scale, developed by scholars from the University of Chicago in 2014, to measure the severity of financial toxicity among cancer patients [25]. The COST‐PROM scale comprises 11 items, divided into three dimensions: financial expenditure (1 item), financial resources (2 items), and psychological reactions (8 items). The scale has a high reliability; Cronbach's α coefficient is 0.90. Factor analysis showed that the scale extracted a common factor that could explain 93% of the total variation, indicating that the scale had high structural validity. This study utilizes this scale to track the financial toxicity of pancreatic cancer patients at admission, discharge, 3 months post‐discharge, and 6 months post‐discharge. Financial toxicity was determined when the scale score was < 26 [26].
2.2.4. Age‐Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index
Age‐adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) is a quantitative assessment tool that comprehensively considers the impact of patient age and comorbidities on disease prognosis [27, 28, 29, 30]. Previous studies investigating factors influencing patients' financial toxicity often included the presence or absence of comorbidities as independent variables in the model analysis [31]. However, this approach may not fully capture the complex effects of comorbidities on financial toxicity. ACCI takes into account not only the number of comorbidities but also their severity in influencing financial toxicity.
2.2.5. The General Perceived Self‐Efficacy Scale (GSES)
The GSES was developed by Schwarze in Germany [32]. This scale consists of 10 items, with a 4‐point rating scale ranging from “not at all true” to “exactly true,” assigned scores of 1 to 4 respectively. The total score is calculated as the sum of the ratings multiplied by the number of items (ranging from 10 to 40), with higher scores indicating a higher level of self‐efficacy. The Chinese version was Sinicized by Wang Caikang. The scale has been widely verified in Chinese population and has high reliability and validity [33].
2.3. Data Analysis
The sociodemographic and disease‐related data of pancreatic cancer patients were analyzed using SPSS 26.0. Continuous variables were described by mean ± SD or median, and categorical variables by frequency/percentage. Baseline characteristics were compared using t‐tests/ANOVA and Chi‐square/Fisher's exact tests. LCGM in Mplus 8.3 identified FT trajectories based on FT scores. Optimal model fit was achieved using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Sample Size‐Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (aBIC), Entropy, Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test(BLRT), Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test(BLRT) [22]. Significant factors were identified via univariate analysis and further examined via multivariate logistic regression (p < 0.05).
3. Results
3.1. Analysis of General Information and Lost‐To‐Follow‐Up Cases Among Pancreatic Cancer Patients
The enrollment of pancreatic cancer patients began in August 2022 and concluded in August 2023, with follow‐up initiated immediately after enrollment. On the day of admission (T0), a general information survey was conducted. This study collected 340 incident pancreatic cancer patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and provided informed consent to participate. Three follow‐up surveys were conducted: at discharge (T1), 3 months post‐discharge (T2), and 6 months post‐discharge (T3). In total, 259 patients completed all follow‐up visits, while 81 patients were lost to follow‐up, resulting in an overall loss to follow‐up rate of 23.82%. The main reasons for loss to follow‐up were: incorrect phone number in 5 cases (6.17%), multiple rejections or refusals to participate in the survey in 14 cases (17.28%), and patient death in 62 cases (76.55%). A comparative analysis of the data from the 259 patients who completed follow‐up and the 81 patients lost to follow‐up revealed no statistically significant difference in the distribution between the two groups (p > 0.05), as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1.
Analysis of general information and lost‐to‐follow‐up cases among pancreatic cancer patients.
| Variable | Groups | Completed follow‐up patients(n = 259) | Lost patient (n = 81) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%)/ ± SE | n (%)/ ± SE | |||
| Age | < 60 | 94 (36.3%) | 26 (32.1%) | 0.494 |
| 60–80 | 156 (60.2%) | 50 (61.7%) | ||
| > 80 | 9 (3.5%) | 5 (6.2%) | ||
| Gender | Male | 146 (56.4%) | 41 (50.6%) | 0.373 |
| Female | 113 (43.6%) | 40 (49.4%) | ||
| Profession | Farmer | 59 (22.8%) | 22 (27.2%) | 0.506 |
| Work | 138 (53.3%) | 46 (56.8%) | ||
| Cadre | 6 (2.3%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
| Others | 56 (21.6%) | 12 (14.8%) | ||
| Employment status | Full‐time job | 54 (20.8%) | 13 (16.0%) | 0.801 |
| Part‐time job | 8 (3.1%) | 3 (3.7%) | ||
| Retried | 125 (48.3%) | 43 (53.1%) | ||
| Unemployed | 72 (27.8%) | 22 (27.2%) | ||
| Payment methods | New rural cooperative medical (NCM) | 96 (37.1%) | 30 (37.0%) | 0.880 |
| Medical insurance for urban employees | 130 (50.2%) | 39 (48.1%) | ||
| The medical insurance for urban residents | 31 (12.0%) | 12 (14.8%) | ||
| Poverty relief insurance | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Self‐paying | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Monthly household income (yuan/month) | < 5000 | 44 (17.0%) | 12 (14.8%) | 0.869 |
| 5000–9999 | 117 (45.2%) | 36 (44.4%) | ||
| 10,000–14,999 | 74 (28.6%) | 23 (28.4%) | ||
| ≥ 15,000 | 24 (9.3%) | 10 (12.3%) | ||
| Quantity of children | 0 | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (2.5%) | 0.566 |
| 1 | 112 (43.2%) | 37 (45.7%) | ||
| ≥ 2 | 144 (55.6%) | 42 (51.9%) | ||
| Education level | Primary and below | 88 (34.0%) | 30 (37.0%) | 0.085 |
| Junior high school | 76 (29.3%) | 27 (33.3%) | ||
| Junior high school | 54 (20.8%) | 11 (13.6%) | ||
| University | 40 (15.4%) | 13 (16.0%) | ||
| Postgraduate and above | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Marital status | Spinsterhood | 1 (0.4%) | 2 (2.5%) | 0.642 |
| Married | 227 (87.6%) | 67 (82.7%) | ||
| Divorced | 6 (2.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Widowed | 25 (9.7%) | 12 (14.8%) | ||
| Primary caregiver | Wife/husband | 112 (43.2%) | 29 (35.8%) | 0.486 |
| Sons and daughters | 133 (51.4%) | 46 (56.8%) | ||
| Nursing workers | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
| Others | 11 (4.2%) | 4 (4.9%) | ||
| Housing type | Live with spouse | 131 (50.6%) | 42 (51.9%) | 0.737 |
| Live with children | 125 (48.3%) | 39 (48.1%) | ||
| Others | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Cancer stage | 1 ~ 2 | 146 (56.4%) | 43 (53.1%) | 0.604 |
| 3 ~ 4 | 113 (43.6%) | 38 (46.9%) | ||
| Operation history | ≥ 1 | 107 (41.3%) | 42 (51.9%) | 0.098 |
| 0 | 152 (58.7%) | 39 (48.1%) | ||
| Distance to hospital (Km) | < 100 | 110 (42.5%) | 36 (44.4%) | 0.944 |
| 100–500 | 127 (49.0%) | 39 (48.1%) | ||
| > 500 | 22 (8.5%) | 6 (7.4%) | ||
| The main breadwinner of the family | Yes | 114 (44.0%) | 30 (37.0%) | 0.303 |
| No | 145 (56.0%) | 51 (63.0%) | ||
| Loan | Yes | 22 (8.5%) | 10 (12.3%) | 0.382 |
| No | 237 (91.5%) | 71 (87.7%) | ||
| Commercial insurance | Yes | 42 (16.2%) | 21 (25.9%) | 0.070 |
| No | 217 (83.8%) | 60 (74.1%) | ||
| ACCI | 2.67 ± 0.08 | 3.52 ± 0.14 | 0.351 |
3.2. Characteristic Analysis of Three Categories of Financial Toxicity in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer
3.2.1. Potential Category Analysis of Financial Toxicity Development Trajectory in Pancreatic Cancer Patients
Based on the LCGM, we analyzed the potential development trajectories of financial toxicity in pancreatic cancer patients. We initiated the fitting process with one latent class and progressively increased the number of classes. A total of five models were fitted in this study, with the specific fitting indicators detailed in Table 2. Through comparison and analysis, we ultimately determined that the three‐latent‐class model provided the best fit. The specific reasons are as follows: Firstly, BIC and aBIC values for the three‐latent‐class model were lower compared to those for the one‐ and two‐latent‐class models, indicating that the three‐latent‐class model had an advantage in fitting the data. Secondly, the entropy value of the three‐latent‐class model was ≥ 0.80, indicating a significant degree of discrimination between the classes. Additionally, this study employed the LMR and BLRT likelihood ratio tests to further validate the fit of the three‐latent‐class model. The results showed that both test indicators were statistically significant (p < 0.05), further confirming the superiority and stability of the three‐latent‐class model. Finally, considering that the LMR values for the four and five‐latent‐class models were > 0.05, indicating poor model fit, we conclude that the three‐latent‐class model provides the best fit for the development trajectory of Financial toxicity in pancreatic cancer patients.
TABLE 2.
Potential category model fitting results of financial toxicity development trajectory in 259 patients with pancreatic cancer.
| Model | LL | AIC | BIC | aBIC | Entropy | LMR | BLRT | Sample proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class1 | −2400.61 | 4813.23 | 4834.57 | 4815.54 | / | / | / | / |
| Class2 | −2200.92 | 4419.84 | 4451.85 | 4423.32 | 0.81 | 0.0075 | < 0.05 | 60.62/39.38 |
| Class3 | −2060.06 | 4144.12 | 4186.80 | 4148.76 | 0.91 | 0.0001 | < 0.05 | 19.69/56.37/23.94 |
| Class4 | −2023.13 | 4076.27 | 4129.62 | 4082.06 | 0.86 | 0.2549 | < 0.05 | 42.09/14.67/25.87/17.37 |
| Class5 | −1984.67 | 4005.35 | 4069.37 | 4012.30 | 0.89 | 0.1351 | < 0.05 | 25.10/13.51/40.93/3.48/16.98 |
3.2.2. Characteristic Analysis of Three Categories of Financial Toxicity in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer
The model fitting results revealed three distinct development curves for financial toxicity among pancreatic cancer patients, corresponding to three categorical trajectories as shown in Figure 1. Based on the variation in patients' financial toxicity scores at different time points across these three categorical trajectories, they were named accordingly. The blue curve (Category 1) was designated as the High‐Risk‐Financial toxicity increasing group (19.69%). The orange curve (Category 2) was named the Moderate‐Risk‐Financial toxicity stable group (56.37%). Lastly, the gray curve (Category 3) represented the Low‐Risk‐Financial toxicity stable group (23.94%). Based on the results of this model fitting, it can be seen that the financial toxicity for some pancreatic cancer patients remains relatively stable in its development trend. However, there is a portion of pancreatic cancer patients who urgently require attention, as they have a lower financial toxicity score at the T0 time point and show a trend of continuous decline.
FIGURE 1.
Trajectory of Financial toxicity in pancreatic cancer patients.
3.3. Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development Trajectory of Financial Toxicity in Pancreatic Cancer Patients
3.3.1. Single Factor Analysis of Financial Toxicity Trajectory in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer
Based on univariate analysis, it was found that sociodemographic factors, disease‐related factors, medical expenditure factors, and self‐efficacy of pancreatic cancer patients all influenced the development of their financial toxicity. The statistically significant independent variable indicators include: age, employment status, monthly household income, quantity of children, marital status, ACCI, length of stay, loan, the main breadwinner of the family, total out‐of‐pocket medical expenses, distance to hospital, self‐efficacy (T3), as shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3.
Results of single factor analysis of socio‐demographic data of patients with different financial toxicity development tracks.
| Variable | High‐risk‐financial toxicity increasing group (n = 51) | Moderate‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group (n = 146) | Low‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group (n = 62) | Test value | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 33 (64.7%) | 84 (57.5%) | 29 (46.8%) | 3.843 | 0.146 |
| Female | 18 (35.3%) | 62 (42.5%) | 33 (53.2%) | ||
| Age | |||||
| < 60 | 32 (62.7%) | 62 (42.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 77.276 | < 0.001 |
| 60–80 | 19 (37.3%) | 83 (56.8%) | 54 (87.1%) | ||
| > 80 | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.7%) | 8 (12.9%) | ||
| Profession | |||||
| Farmer | 9 (17.6%) | 37 (25.3%) | 13 (21.0%) | 5.463 | 0.467 |
| Work | 29 (56.9%) | 79 (54.1%) | 30 (48.4%) | ||
| Cadre | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (2.1%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
| Others | 13 (25.5%) | 27 (18.4%) | 16 (21.6%) | ||
| Employment status | |||||
| Full‐time job | 19 (37.3%) | 32 (21.9%) | 3 (4.8%) | 24.894 | < 0.001 |
| Part‐time job | 0 (0.0%) | 6 (4.1%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
| Retried | 16 (31.4%) | 68 (46.6%) | 41 (66.1%) | ||
| Unemployed | 16 (31.4%) | 40 (27.4%) | 16 (25.8%) | ||
| Monthly household income (yuan/month) | |||||
| < 5000 | 26 (50.1%) | 18 (12.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 102.299 | < 0.001 |
| 5000–9999 | 22 (43.1%) | 82 (56.2%) | 13 (21.0%) | ||
| 10,000–14,999 | 3 (5.9%) | 34 (23.3%) | 37 (59.7%) | ||
| ≥ 15,000 | 0 (0.0%) | 12 (8.2%) | 12 (19.4%) | ||
| Quantity of children | |||||
| 0 | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (0.7%) | 1 (1.6%) | 10.505 | 0.017 |
| 1 | 27 (52.9%) | 68 (46.6%) | 17 (27.4%) | ||
| ≥ 2 | 23 (45.1%) | 77 (52.7%) | 44 (71.0%) | ||
| Primary caregiver | |||||
| Wife/husband | 27 (52.9%) | 66 (45.2%) | 19 (30.6%) | 10.941 | 0.056 |
| Sons and daughters | 20 (39.2%) | 73 (50.0%) | 40 (64.5%) | ||
| Nursing workers | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (2.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Others | 4 (7.8%) | 4 (2.7%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
| Education level | |||||
| Primary and below | 13 (25.5%) | 57 (39.0%) | 18 (29.0%) | 8.854 | 0.355 |
| Junior high school | 22 (43.1%) | 35 (24.0%) | 19 (30.6%) | ||
| Junior high school | 9 (17.6%) | 31 (21.2%) | 14 (22.6%) | ||
| University | 7 (13.7%) | 22 (15.1%) | 11 (17.7%) | ||
| Postgraduate and above | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Marital status | |||||
| Spinsterhood | 1 (2.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 15.164 | 0.006 |
| Married | 48 (94.1%) | 132 (90.4%) | 47 (75.8%) | ||
| Divorced | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (2.7%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
| Widowed | 2 (3.9%) | 10 (6.8%) | 13 (21.0%) | ||
| Housing type | |||||
| Live with spouse | 23 (45.1%) | 76 (52.1%) | 32 (51.6%) | 5.387 | 0.201 |
| Live with children | 26 (50.1%) | 70 (47.9%) | 29 (46.8%) | ||
| Others | 2 (3.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
| Distance to hospital (km) | |||||
| < 100 | 3 (5.9%) | 67 (45.9%) | 40 (64.5%) | 97.318 | < 0.001 |
| 100–500 | 28 (54.9%) | 77 (52.7%) | 22 (35.5%) | ||
| > 500 | 20 (39.2%) | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Payment methods | |||||
| New rural cooperative medical(ncm) | 18 (35.3%) | 55 (37.7%) | 23 (37.1%) | 8.507 | 0.353 |
| Medical insurance for urban employees | 25 (49.0%) | 70 (47.9%) | 35 (56.5%) | ||
| The medical insurance for urban residents | 8 (15.7%) | 20 (13.7%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
| Poverty relief insurance | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Self‐paying | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
| Commercial insurance | |||||
| Yes | 7 (13.7%) | 21 (14.4%) | 14 (22.6%) | 2.442 | 0.295 |
| No | 44 (86.3%) | 125 (85.6%) | 48 (77.4%) | ||
| Loan | |||||
| Yes | 11 (21.6%) | 11 (7.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 17.145 | < 0.001 |
| No | 40 (78.4%) | 135 (92.5%) | 62 (100.0%) | ||
| The main breadwinner of the family | |||||
| Yes | 35 (68.6%) | 79 (54.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 67.319 | < 0.001 |
| No | 16 (31.4%) | 67 (45.9%) | 62 (100.0%) | ||
| Cancer staging | |||||
| 1–2 | 29 (56.9%) | 82 (56.2%) | 35 (56.5%) | 0.008 | 0.996 |
| 3–4 | 22 (43.1%) | 64 (43.8%) | 27 (43.5%) | ||
| Operation history | |||||
| Yes | 19 (37.7%) | 56 (38.4%) | 32 (51.6%) | 3.586 | 0.166 |
| No | 32 (62.7%) | 90 (61.6%) | 30 (48.4%) | ||
| Treatment on initial admission | |||||
| DP | 16 (31.4%) | 38 (26.0%) | 14 (22.6%) | 5.307 | 0.505 |
| WP | 20 (39.2%) | 60 (41.1%) | 24 (38.7%) | ||
| TP | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (2.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Others | 15 (29.4%) | 45 (30.8%) | 24 (33.9%) | ||
| Treatment after discharge | |||||
| 0 ~ 1 (chemotherapy/radiotherapy/immunology/targeting/tcm only) | 49 (96.1%) | 142 (97.3%) | 60 (96.8%) | 0.175 | 0.916 |
| ≥ 2 | 2 (3.9%) | 4 (2.7%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
| Enter ICU or not | |||||
| Yes | 12 (23.5%) | 36 (24.7%) | 14 (22.6%) | 0.109 | 0.947 |
| No | 39 (76.5%) | 110 (73.5%) | 48 (24.4%) | ||
| Number of complications | |||||
| 0 | 24 (47.1%) | 77 (52.7%) | 37 (59.7%) | 6.057 | 0.186 |
| 1 ~ 2 | 23 (45.1%) | 60 (41.1%) | 25 (40.3%) | ||
| > 2 | 4 (7.8%) | 9 (6.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Length of stay (days) | 18.76 ± 1.051 | 16.70 ± 0.524 | 15.10 ± 0.970 | 3.953 | 0.020 |
| ACCI | 3.10 ± 0.173 | 2.26 ± 0.108 | 3.27 ± 0.144 | 17.943 | < 0.001 |
| Total out‐of‐pocket medical expenses (yuan) | |||||
| < 50,000 | 1 (2.0%) | 32 (21.9%) | 20 (32.3%) | 67.608 | < 0.001 |
| 50,000–100,000 | 27 (52.9%) | 107 (73.3%) | 39 (62.9%) | ||
| > 100,000 | 23 (45.1%) | 7 (4.8%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
| Self‐efficacy (t3) | 21.18 ± 0.232 | 22.93 ± 0.127 | 25.37 ± 0.340 | 94.147 | < 0.001 |
3.4. Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis of Financial Toxicity Trajectory in Pancreatic Cancer Patients
The categorical variables among the independent variables were assigned values, and the continuous variables were directly included in the model as covariates, as detailed in Table 4.
TABLE 4.
Variable assignment.
| Variable name | |
|---|---|
| Dependent variable | |
| Financial toxicity development trajectory is subcomponent type | 1 = High‐Risk‐Financial toxicity increasing group; 2 = Moderate‐Risk‐Financial toxicity stable group; 3 = Low‐Risk‐Financial toxicity stable group |
| Independent variable | |
| Age | 1 = < 60; 2 = 60–80; 3 = > 80 |
| Employment status | 1 = full‐time job; 2 = part‐time job; 3 = Retried; 4 = Unemployed |
| Monthly household income (yuan/month) | 1 = < 5000; 2 = 5000–9999; 3 = 10,000–14,999; 4 = ≥ 15,000 |
| Variable name | |
| Quantity of children | 1 = 0; 2 = 1; 3 = ≥ 2 |
| Marital status | 1 = spinsterhood; 2 = Married; 3 = divorced; 4 = widowed |
| Loan | 1 = yes; 2 = no |
| The main breadwinner of the family | 1 = yes; 2 = no |
| Total out‐of‐pocket medical expenses (yuan) | 1 = < 50,000; 2 = 50,000–100,000; 3 = > 100,000 |
| Distance to hospital (km) | 1 = < 100; 2 = 100–500; 3 = > 500 |
| Concomitant variable | |
| Self‐efficacy | Treated as the original value |
| ACCI | Treated as the original value |
| Length of stay | Treated as the original value |
In multivariate logistic regression analysis, it was found that self‐efficacy, total out‐of‐pocket medical expenses < 50,000 (yuan), total out‐of‐pocket medical expenses 50,000–100,000 (yuan), monthly household income (yuan):5000–9999, ACCI, employment status—full‐time, distance to hospital < 100 km, distance to hospital < 100–500 km influenced the development of their financial toxicity, as shown in Table 5 (only statistically significant indicators were reported).
TABLE 5.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors influencing the development trajectory of financial toxicity in patients with pancreatic cancer.
| Variable | B | Wald | OR | 95% CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High‐risk‐financial toxicity increasing group a | |||||
| Self‐efficacy | −1.028 | 7.353 | 0.358 | 0.170–0.752 | 0.007 |
| Total out‐of‐pocket medical expenses < 50,000 (yuan) | −7.437 | 7.682 | 0.001 | 0.00003–0.113 | 0.006 |
| Moderate‐Risk‐Financial toxicity stable group a | |||||
| Self‐efficacy | −1.137 | 15.998 | 0.321 | 0.184–0.560 | < 0.001 |
| Monthly household income (yuan): 5000–9999 | 5.726 | 5.779 | 306.873 | 2.879–32710.005 | 0.016 |
| Moderate‐risk‐financial toxicity stable group b | |||||
| ACCI | −1.144 | 14.110 | 0.319 | 0.175–0.597 | < 0.001 |
| Employment status‐full‐time | −1.771 | 3.930 | 0.170 | 0.030–0.980 | 0.047 |
| Total out‐of‐pocket medical expenses 50,000‐100,000 (yuan) | 1.908 | 4.325 | 6.738 | 1.116–40.677 | 0.038 |
| Distance to hospital < 100 km | 4.689 | 11.688 | 108.778 | 7.396–1599.792 | 0.001 |
| Distance to hospital < 100–500 km | 2.605 | 5.285 | 13.529 | 1.468–124.663 | 0.022 |
The Low‐Risk‐Financial toxicity increasing group is taken as the reference class.
The High‐Risk‐Financial toxicity increasing group is taken as the reference class.
4. Discussion
Our study utilized the Latent Class Growth Mixture (LCGM) model to delineate heterogeneous trajectories of financial toxicity among pancreatic cancer patients in China, revealing critical insights into temporal financial stress patterns. The high‐risk group exhibited a progressive decline in COST‐PROM scores, aligning with trends observed in other low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) such as India and Vietnam, where cancer‐related financial toxicity intensifies over time due to fragmented healthcare financing systems [34, 35]. Notably, China's recent medical insurance reforms, including the expansion of critical illness insurance in 2020, have reduced out‐of‐pocket costs for some patients, yet gaps persist—particularly for high‐cost therapies like pancreatic cancer treatment. This mirrors challenges in countries like South Africa, where inequitable coverage exacerbates disparities in financial toxicity trajectories [36].
Multivariate analysis identified full‐time employment and travel distance to hospitals as key predictors of financial toxicity. In China, full‐time workers face substantial income loss during treatment due to limited sick leave policies [37]—a issue also documented in America's cancer workforce studies [38]. Comparatively, Thailand's universal coverage system mitigates employment‐related financial shocks through wage compensation schemes [39], suggesting policy refinements China could adopt. China's ongoing efforts to strengthen primary care (e.g., “Healthy China 2030”) aim to reduce cross‐regional care‐seeking, but implementation remains uneven, highlighting the need for region‐specific interventions [40].
Self‐efficacy emerged as a protective factor, consistent with global studies demonstrating its role in buffering financial stress [40]. For instance, US‐based interventions leveraging patient navigation programs improved self‐efficacy and reduced costs [41], offering a model for China. Additionally, our use of the ACCI score to stratify comorbidity risks underscores the value of standardized comorbidity assessment in LMICs [42]. Lower ACCI scores correlated with moderate‐risk trajectories, suggesting that healthier patients may better navigate financial challenges.
5. Strength and Limitation
Our research design—tracking patients at four time points (upon admission, at discharge, 3 months post‐discharge, and 6 months post‐discharge)—captured critical phases of financial toxicity evolution, reflecting China's treatment reimbursement cycles and regional reimbursement timelines. District‐level trajectory analysis revealed urban–rural divergences, consistent with China's uneven healthcare resource distribution. Future studies should compare outcomes across provinces with varying insurance policies (e.g., eastern vs. western China) and evaluate the impact of recent policies like DRG pilots on financial toxicity.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, financial toxicity in cancer patients is a complex and important issue that requires in‐depth study from multiple perspectives. Through continuous improvement of research methods and expansion of research scope, we can better understand the nature and influencing factors of this problem and provide better financial support and medical security for cancer patients.
Author Contributions
Li Xiaoxuan: data curation (equal), investigation (equal), project administration (equal), writing – original draft (equal). Zhang Shuo: investigation (equal). Li Shanshan: writing – review and editing (equal). Yu Mengxia: investigation (equal). Yao Tianying: writing – review and editing (equal). Shen Yuxin: data curation (equal). Li Jiang: methodology (equal), validation (equal). Chen Mingxia: software (equal), writing – original draft (equal), writing – review and editing (equal).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this study.
Contributor Information
Li Shanshan, Email: zhougeyu0909@163.com.
Chen Mingxia, Email: chenmingxia2000@126.com.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
- 1. Pu X. and Zhang Z., “Research Progress on the Application of Nutritional Therapy in the Perioperative Period of Pancreatic Cancer Patients,” Chongqing Medicine 50, no. 2 (2021): 328–332, 10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2021.02.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R. L., et al., “Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 71, no. 3 (2021): 209–249, 10.3322/caac.21660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Smits F. J., Henry A. C., van Eijck C. H., et al., “Care After Pancreatic Resection According to an Algorithm for Early Detection and Minimally Invasive Management of Pancreatic Fistula Versus Current Practice (PORSCH‐Trial): Design and Rationale of a Nationwide Stepped‐Wedge Cluster‐Randomized Trial,” Trials 21, no. 1 (2020): 389, 10.1186/s13063-020-4167-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Smits F. J., van Santvoort H. C., Besselink M. G., et al., “Management of Severe Pancreatic Fistula After Pancreatoduodenectomy,” JAMA Surgery 152, no. 6 (2017): 540–548, 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Harnoss J. C., Ulrich A. B., Harnoss J. M., Diener M. K., Büchler M. W., and Welsch T., “Use and Results of Consensus Definitions in Pancreatic Surgery: A Systematic Review,” Surgery 155, no. 1 (2014): 47–57, 10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Peluso H., Jones W. B., Parikh A. A., and Abougergi M. S., “Treatment Outcomes, 30‐Day Readmission and Healthcare Resource Utilization After Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Malignancies,” Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences 26, no. 5 (2019): 187–194, 10.1002/jhbp.621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Chang S., Long S. R., Kutikova L., Bowman L., Crown W. H., and Lyman G. H., “Burden of Pancreatic Cancer and Disease Progression: Economic Analysis in the US,” Oncology 70, no. 1 (2006): 71–80, 10.1159/000091312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Zhu B., Wu X., Guo T., Guan N., and Liu Y., “Epidemiological Characteristics of Pancreatic Cancer in China From 1990 to 2019,” Cancer Control 28 (2021): 10732748211051536, 10.1177/10732748211051536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R. L., Torre L. A., and Jemal A., “Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 68, no. 6 (2018): 394–424, 10.3322/caac.21492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Xu Y., Zhu J., Jiang N., et al., “An Investigation on the Impact of Tianjin's Inclusion of 17 Nationally Negotiated Anticancer Drugs in Medical Insurance Policies on Cancer Patients,” Chinese Primary Health Care 34, no. 9 (2020): 9–12, 10.3969/j.issn.1001-568X.2020.09.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Kuang Y., Sun Y., Jing F., et al., “Conceptual Analysis of Cancer‐Related Financial Toxicity,” Nursing Research 35, no. 20 (2021): 3695–3700, 10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2021.20.025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Farooq A., Merath K., Hyer J. M., et al., “Financial Toxicity Risk Among Adult Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery in the United States: An Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample,” Journal of Surgical Oncology 120, no. 3 (2019): 397–406, 10.1002/jso.25605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Jing J., Feng R., Zhang X., Li M., and Gao J., “Financial Toxicity and Its Associated Patient and Cancer Factors Among Women With Breast Cancer: A Single‐Center Analysis of Low‐Middle Income Region in China,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 181, no. 2 (2020): 435–443, 10.1007/s10549-020-05632-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Finkelstein E. A., Tangka F. K., Trogdon J. G., Sabatino S. A., and Richardson L. C., “The Personal Financial Burden of Cancer for the Working‐Aged Population,” American Journal of Managed Care 15, no. 11 (2009): 801–806. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Dowling E. C., Chawla N., Forsythe L. P., et al., “Lost Productivity and Burden of Illness in Cancer Survivors With and Without Other Chronic Conditions,” Cancer 119, no. 18 (2013): 3393–3401, 10.1002/cncr.28214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Kent E. E., Forsythe L. P., Yabroff K. R., et al., “Are Survivors Who Report Cancer‐Related Financial Problems More Likely to Forgo or Delay Medical Care,” Cancer 119, no. 20 (2013): 3710–3717, 10.1002/cncr.28262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Tramontano A. C., Chen Y., Watson T. R., et al., “Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Costs, Including Patient Liability, by Phase of Care and Treatment Modality, 2000–2013,” Medicine (Baltimore) 98, no. 49 (2019): e18082, 10.1097/MD.0000000000018082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Tingstedt B., Andersson E., Flink A., Bolin K., Lindgren B., and Andersson R., “Pancreatic Cancer, Healthcare Cost, and Loss of Productivity: A Register‐Based Approach,” World Journal of Surgery 35, no. 10 (2011): 2298–2305, 10.1007/s00268-011-1208-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Jiang N., Bai J., Wei S., et al., “Research Progress on Influencing Factors and Management Strategies of Economic Toxicity in Cancer Patients,” Nursing Journal of Chinese People's Liberation Army 37, no. 9 (2020): 62–64, 10.3969/j.issn.1008-9993.2020.09.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Terrill D. R., Dellavella C., King B. T., Hubert T., Wild H., and Zimmerman M., “Latent Classes of Symptom Trajectories During Partial Hospitalization for Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder,” Journal of Affective Disorders 331 (2023): 101–111, 10.1016/j.jad.2023.03.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Jones S. M., Henrikson N. B., Panattoni L., Syrjala K. L., and Shankaran V., “A Theoretical Model of Financial Burden After Cancer Diagnosis,” Future Oncology 16, no. 36 (2020): 3095–3105, 10.2217/fon-2020-0547. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Wang M. and Bi X., Qianliang Bianliang Jianmo Yu Mplus Yingyong: Jinjie Pian [Latent Variable Modeling and Mplus Application: Advanced Topics] (Chongqing University Press, 2023). [Google Scholar]
- 23. Altice C. K., Banegas M. P., Tucker‐Seeley R. D., and Yabroff K. R., “Financial Hardships Experienced by Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 109, no. 2 (2016): djw205, 10.1093/jnci/djw205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Francoeur R. B., “Cumulative Financial Stress and Strain in Palliative Radiation Outpatients: The Role of Age and Disability,” Acta Oncologica 44, no. 4 (2005): 369–381, 10.1080/02841860510029761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. de Souza J. A., Yap B. J., Hlubocky F. J., et al., “The Development of a Financial Toxicity Patient‐Reported Outcome in Cancer: The COST Measure,” Cancer 120, no. 20 (2014): 3245–3253, 10.1002/cncr.28814. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Friedes C., Hazell S. Z., Fu W., et al., “Longitudinal Trends of Financial Toxicity in Patients With Lung Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study,” Jco Oncology Practice 17, no. 8 (2021): 496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Lu H., Zhao B., Zhang J., et al., “Does Delayed Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Following the Curative Resection Affect the Survival Outcome of Gastric Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology 46, no. 6 (2020): 1103–1110, 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Maezawa Y., Aoyama T., Kano K., et al., “Impact of the Age‐Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index on the Short‐ and Long‐Term Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Curative Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer,” Journal of Cancer 10, no. 22 (2019): 5527–5535, 10.7150/jca.35465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Lin J. X., Huang Y. Q., Xie J. W., et al., “Age‐Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) is a Significant Factor for Predicting Survival After Radical Gastrectomy in Patients With Gastric Cancer,” BMC Surgery 19, no. 1 (2019): 53, 10.1186/s12893-019-0513-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Wang W. J., Li H. T., Chen P., et al., “A Propensity Score‐Matched Comparison of Laparoscopic Distal Versus Total Gastrectomy for Middle‐Third Advanced Gastric Cancer,” International Journal of Surgery 60 (2018): 194–203, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Cha R., Liu S., Zeng M., et al., “Investigation and Analysis of the Current Situation and Influencing Factors of Economic Toxicity in Patients With Colorectal Cancer,” Journal of Nursing Science 38, no. 10 (2023): 70–74, 10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2023.10.070. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Schwarzer R., Babler J., Kwiatek P., Bäßler J., Schröder K., and Zhang J. X., “The Assessment of Optimistic Self‐Beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese Versions of the General Self‐Efficacy Scale,” Applied Psychology 46, no. 1 (1997): 69–88, 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01096.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Wang C., Hu Z., and Liu Y., “Research on Reliability and Validity of the General Self‐Efficacy Scale,” Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology 7, no. 1 (2001): 37–40, 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6020.2001.01.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Hoang V. M., Pham C. P., Vu Q. M., et al., “Household Financial Burden and Poverty Impacts of Cancer Treatment in Vietnam,” BioMed Research International 2017 (2017): 9350147, 10.1155/2017/9350147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Mohanty S. K., Wadasadawala T., Sen S., Maiti S., and E J., “Catastrophic Health Expenditure and Distress Financing of Breast Cancer Treatment in India: Evidence From a Longitudinal Cohort Study,” International Journal for Equity in Health 23 (2024): 145, 10.1186/s12939-024-02215-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Basavaiah G., Rent P. D., Rent E. G., et al., “Financial Impact of Complex Cancer Surgery in India: A Study of Pancreatic Cancer,” Journal of Global Oncology 4 (2018): 1–9, 10.1200/JGO.17.00151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Shi r. and Hu J., “A Meta‐Synthesis of Qualitative Studies on the Experience of Financial Toxicity and Coping Strategies Among Cancer Patients,” Chinese Journal of Nurses Education 39, no. 23 (2024): 2485–2493, 10.16821/j.cnki.hsjx.2024.23.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Pandya B. J., Young C., Packnett E. R., et al., “Work Absenteeism, Disability, and Lost Wages Among Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Their Caregivers: A Cohort Study Using US Administrative Claims and Productivity Data,” Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 24, no. 4 (2024): 521–532, 10.1080/14737167.2024.2311305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Yogyorn D., Slatin C., Siriruttanapruk S., et al., “Estimating of the Costs of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in Agricultural Works in Thailand,” Journal of Public Health Policy 42, no. 1 (2021): 71–85, 10.1057/s41271-020-00251-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Zeng Z. and Liu J., “The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council Issued the “Healthy China 2030” Planning Outline,” Middle School Politics, History, Geography (Senior High School Comprehensive Liberal Arts) 12 (2016): 9–11. [Google Scholar]
- 41. Chien C. H., Chuang C. K., Liu K. L., Pang S. T., Wu C. T., and Chang Y. H., “Exploring the Positive Thinking of Patients With Prostate Cancer: Self‐Efficacy as a Mediator,” Cancer Nursing 45, no. 2 (2022): E329–E337, 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000868. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Bell‐Brown A., Watabayashi K., Delaney D., et al., “Assessment of Financial Screening and Navigation Capabilities at National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Clinics,” JNCI Cancer Spectrum 7, no. 5 (2023): pkad055, 10.1093/jncics/pkad055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.