Search

11032 Background: The open access (OA) publishing model represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. In contrast to many traditional models, which require readers to pay subscription fees or rely upon institutional subscriptions for article access, the OA model grants free access to all consumers. However, OA publication is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication. In this investigation, we aimed to identify journal-level factors associated with OA publication costs in oncology journals. Methods: We identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. All journals under the “Oncology” category that offer an OA publishing option with APC data openly available were included. For all journals, we searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (USD), OA model (hybrid vs full), journal 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, primary treatment modality (surgery, radiation, medical, non-specific), treatment site (e.g. breast, etc), and continent of origin. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate univariate linear relationships between variables; for variables with significant correlation, we generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. Results: Of 367 oncology journals screened, 266 met final inclusion criteria. The median APC was 2810 USD (range 0 – 5200). On univariate linear correlation regression testing, journals with the full OA model (p < 0.001), higher journal IF (p < 0.001), higher H-index (p < 0.001), greater number of published articles (p < 0.001), and those from North America or Europe (p < 0.001) tended to have higher OA publishing costs. When these co-variates were analyzed in a multiple regression model, only full OA status (p < 0.001), higher IF (p < 0.001), and North American or European origin (p < 0.001) persisted as independently associated with greater OA APC. Conclusions: Large APCs may serve as a barrier to OA publication and therefore create or exacerbate disparities among scientific investigators seeking to share their research. In this investigation, we find that OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that utilize the hybrid OA model, have higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science.

e18826 Background: New cancer treatments have the potential to cause economic stress at the personal and societal level. Little is known on the evaluation of financial outcomes in clinical trials. We hypothesized that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are unlikely to have pre-planned analyses to look at economic outcomes that address financial toxicity to patients and cost-effectiveness to society. Methods: Interventional therapeutic-intent phase 3 cancer-specific RCTs were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov. Pre-planned economic outcomes addressing financial toxicity or cost-effectiveness were identified. Results: We identified 1,069 interventional phase 3 oncology RCTs. Overall, 101 (9.4%) had pre-planned to evaluate quality of life using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (QOL) Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) instrument, of which a single question (Q28) relates to financial toxicity. However, only ten (0.94%) trials included pre-planned financial/economic endpoints; all were secondary endpoints. Among those planning to evaluate economic outcomes, 6/10 planned to collect data and report on financial distress using Q28 on EORTC QLQ-C30 and 3/10 pre-planned performing cost-effectiveness analyses. One study planned to perform an economic evaluation, including health utilities, as measured by the EuroQol-Five Dimension (EQ-5D) Questionnaire. All ten trials were industry–sponsored, and two were co-sponsored by a National Cancer Institute (NCI) cooperative group. The majority (8/10) were superiority-designed trials, and 6/10 included progression-free survival as the primary endpoint. The majority (6/10) assessed targeted therapy as the primary intervention. Multinational enrollment was predominant (8/10). Of the 10 trials, nine had a published manuscript. One was closed because of accrual issues. Among the six trials that had pre-specified reporting on financial distress, two published on financial toxicity. Of the two trials that had a priori planned to do a cost-effective analysis, one was published. However, overall 3/9 had published a cost-effective analysis. Conclusions: Less than one percent of oncology RCTs have pre-specified plans to evaluate economic outcomes associated with personal financial distress or cost-effectiveness. For the trials that had pre-planned reporting on financial toxicity, the instrument used to evaluate financial toxicity is a single question which has not been validated as a standalone assessment. Cost-effectiveness analyses were more likely to be published than on financial toxicity and were often completed as a post-hoc analysis. Given that many newly investigated therapies increase the financial burden on patients and add cost to the healthcare system more broadly, pre-planned evaluation of economic outcomes in RCTs is imperative in order to create a value-based framework in assessing new therapies.

5519 Background: Survival for most cancers is typically reported as a 5-yr percentage from the time of diagnosis. Surviving patients e.g., desire to know if their likelihood for survival has improved, given that they have lived X-years since diagnosis. Conditional survival (CS) is a calculated probability of survival that demonstrates the changing likelihood of demise during a span of intervals after diagnosis. The specific aim of this study is to assess the CS for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Methods: The study population included HNSCC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER 11) Program. Cumulative survival rates were calculated using JMP v6 (SAS, Cary, NC) with the product-limit method, and derived on the basis of the subsequent annual survival data. Results were also sub-stratified by site of disease. Results: 90,526 patients with histologically confirmed HNSCC diagnosed from 1973 to 2001 were included. The cumulative HNSCC crude cohort 5-year CS at diagnosis is 33%, and 38% at one-year after diagnosis. 5-year CS is 43% at 2 years post-diagnosis, where it plateaus for the next 8 one-year intervals. Sub-site analysis reveals similar CS trends for all HNSCC sites except the nasopharynx. Nasopharynx cancer CS, in contrast, progressively increases over all intervals. Conclusions: HNSCCC 5-year mortality risk stabilizes within 2–3 years after diagnosis, and with the exception of nasopharyngeal cancers, does not substantially improve thereafter. The SEER data represent the largest pooled dataset for HNSCC, but do not necessarily address all relevant issues contributing to risk for death. These data, however, do provide useful estimates for HNSCC patients with known survival after diagnosis, and may have utility in the design of clinical trials which incorporate survival modeling. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.