Main Session
Sep
29
PQA 06 - Genitourinary Cancer, Gynecological Cancer, and Health Care Access and Engagement
Presenter(s)
John Pottow, - Pioneer High School, Ann Arbor, MI
J. W. J. Pottow1, M. Gaonkar2, L. A. Gharzai1, A. Blake3, R. D. Jones3, N. Ali2, R. Bhatia4, P. R. Patel5, L. Harris6, S. Barrett7, W. G. Chin5, M. Heisler8, and P. Santos5; 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 3Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, 4Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 5Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 6Grady Hospital, Atlanta, GA, 7Grady Health System, Atlanta, GA, 8University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Purpose/Objective(s):
Financial toxicity of cancer care makes patients vulnerable to food insecurity. Rising grocery prices and recent funding cuts to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program may have heightened this risk; however, the US government stopped collecting data on food insecurity in 2025. We sought to assess patterns and factors related to food insecurity in a sample of patients who received radiation therapy (RT) in a large US city.Materials/Methods:
Between 12/2025-1/2026, we surveyed patients receiving cancer treatment or follow-up in radiation oncology at 4 sites: a university hospital (UH), community practice (CP), specialized cancer center (CC), and safety net hospital (SN). We describe food insecurity, as measured by the USDA Household Food Insecurity Survey (score of =2 on the 6-item USDA short-form after imputation, using USDA scoring guidelines), comparing risk by practice site and demographic characteristics.Results:
Of the 475 eligible patients who received surveys, 380 (80%) responded; 54% were currently receiving RT. Overall, 89/375 (23.7%) reported at least sometimes worrying about food running out, 79/371 (21.3%) that food they bought didn’t last and they didn’t have money to get more, and 79/361 (21.9%) being unable to afford balanced meals. Respondents indicated that a lack of enough money for food led 46/362 (12.7%) to cut meal size or skip meals, 29/344 (8.4%) to be hungry but not eat, and 20/344 (5.8%) to lose weight. Food insecurity was observed in 73/377 (19.6%) of the sample: 35/189 (18.5%) at UH, 5/33 (15.2%) at CP, 15/92 (16.3%) at CC, and 19/63 (30.2%) at SN (p=0.13). Food insecurity was more common among younger patients (31.4% vs 9.8% among those <50 years old vs >70, p<0.001), those with less education (28.5% vs 13.1% among those without vs with college degrees, p<0.001), those without spouses/partners (28.7% vs 12.6% among unmarried/unpartnered respondents vs those married/partnered, p<0.001), those with lower income (36.6% vs 8.3% among those with income <$50K/year vs $50K+/year, p<0.001), and those who received chemotherapy (25.4% vs 13.0% with IV chemo vs not, p=.01) or oral anticancer drugs (27.1% vs 15.2% with oral anti-cancer drugs vs without, p=.01). Food insecurity also varied significantly by employment status (p<0.001) and insurance status (p<0.001) but not sex, race, cancer type, surgery receipt, whether actively receiving RT, diagnosis year, or practice site.Conclusion:
Over one in five patients receiving radiation care in this sample indicated an inability to afford balanced meals. Given the need for adequate nutrition and sometimes special diets to optimize treatment tolerance and health outcomes after RT, recognizing the prevalence of food insecurity among patients with cancer is essential. These findings suggest that interventions like in-clinic food pantries, vouchers, and meal delivery services merit further investigation.