Sloan, Jeff A.

6572 Background: Cancer patients (pts) receive complex care that may cause physical, emotional, & financial sequelae. Current practice limits clinician time to address patient concerns. The Patient Reported Outcome Quality Of Life (PROQOL) system was developed as a self-reported electronic questionnaire to assess symptoms, QOL and provide data about bothersome issues. Our aim was to determine if the PROQOL system improves QOL without negatively impacting routine clinic workflow. Methods: Eligible pts had multiple myeloma, amyloidosis, head & neck or gynecologic cancer seen in Hematology/Oncology clinics at Mayo Clinic, and were stratified by stem cell transplant and active treatment status. Pts were randomized 2:1 to PROQOL system or usual care. PROQOL system was offered prior to every visit. Pts select from various categories about their single biggest concern, and receive a printed list of actionable resources based on selected concern. Clinicians also receive the PROQOL results to review with pts. Providers and pts randomized to PROQOL completed a “was it worth it survey” (WIWI). An 8 item Linear Analogue Self-Assessment was used to assess QOL. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference in QOL between groups. Herein we report the planned results of first 6 months. Results: Among the first 118 pts accrued, 55% were female, median age was 63 (32-86), & 93% were on therapy. Median time from diagnosis to PROQOL was 26 months. The PROQOL system took 3.6 minutes to complete. Baseline median QOL (range) was 7 (3-10) for both groups. The most common PROQOL issue selected was “cancer & diagnosis” (36.5%) followed by “physical health” (35.3%). Specific concerns were related to treatment plan, prognosis, fatigue, sleep, and neuropathy. WIWI showed: 71% of pts thought it was worthwhile, 83% would participate again, 80% would recommend it, & 65% used resources provided. 80% of providers reported the PROQOL did not interfere with care & 75% believed the pt wellbeing may improve. Conclusions: Notably treatment plan & prognosis remain pts' greatest concern despite being over 2 year from diagnosis.The PROQOL system demonstrates integrated PRO reporting in clinic is quick & worthwhile to pts & providers.

6523 Background: Treatment for most types of cancer results in work disruptions. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors for not working during cancer therapy using a patient-reported outcome tool. Methods: Patients of all cancer types, who were undergoing treatment with curative or palliative intent, were enrolled in a survey-based study at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the North Carolina Cancer Hospital from 1/2014 to 7/2015. All patients working full- or part- time at the time of cancer diagnosis were included in this analysis. Patient reported outcomes were collected using a survey tool at any time during active cancer treatment. The primary outcome of this analysis was self-reported work status at the time of survey completion. Results: Of 119 patients who were working before their cancer diagnosis, 68% were working at the time of survey completion. The mean age was 52.9 (range 20-80). Younger age was associated with working: 82% of patients age < 40 were working during treatment vs. 31% of patients age > 65 (p=0.01). The number of days patients reported being completely unable to work in the past month was significantly associated with work status; only 26% of patients who missed > 10 days continued to work compared to 69% who missed ≤ 10 days (p<0.01). Patients who report having a flexible work schedule were 23% more likely to continue to work during treatment (69% vs. 46%, p=0.01). In a multivariable model controlling for having an employer contingent health plan, and household income > 200% of the federal poverty level (fpl), only age, having a flexible work schedule, and inability to work > 10 days were independently associated with work status during treatment (Table). Conclusions: Having a flexible work schedule allowed for more work interruptions without job loss. Patients who are likely to miss more than 10 days of work and who have inflexible work schedules are at high risk of unemployment and should be targeted for employment retention initiatives. [Table: see text]

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

174 Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including physical function and quality of life (QOL), are important outcomes in cancer patients. Emoji are a near-universal, popular form of communication, understandable by diverse populations, including those with low health literacy. We aimed to explore whether emoji could be a valid, reliable scale for assessing PROs in cancer patients. Methods: To develop the emoji scale, 5 emoji faces were selected from the Apple emoji dictionary by study authors. 20 cancer patients participated in a card-sorting exercise to rank the emoji from negative to positive; 19 out of 20 selected the same order, which exceeded Coomb’s criteria for being a valid ordinal scale. Patients were recruited from Mayo Clinic practices. Eligibility included: adult patients with a diagnosis of lymphoma, multiple myeloma, brain, pancreatic, breast, and ovarian cancer within the past 5 years; life expectancy of > 6 months; and own an iPhone version ≥ 5.0. All patients were provided with an Apple Watch and downloaded the study app. Baseline PRO data was collected on the iPhone, including single-item linear analog self-assessments (LASA) and emoji scales for fatigue, physical function, emotional well-being, and overall QOL. Results: From 2/2017-8/2017, 294 eligible patients were recruited. 25% were male, and median age was 53 years (range 20-79). The median time since diagnosis was 8.4 months (range 0-60); 63% were on active therapy, 27% were in observation post-treatment, and 10% had not been treated. All patients were “extremely” confident filling out forms, 99% had used a computer in the past 12 months, and 27% had ever used a smart watch. Emoji responses were significantly associated with validated measures of PROs; the Spearman correlations between the ordinal emoji scales and LASAs were -0.83 for fatigue, 0.72 for physical well-being, 0.72 for emotional well-being, and 0.77 for overall QOL (all p < 0.0001). Of the 75 patients who have completed the study thus far, 92% reported they would use emoji scales again and 89% would recommend that others use emoji scales. Conclusions: A novel ordinal emoji scale is strongly associated with accepted measures of PROs in cancer patients and should be studied further.

123 Background: Lymph node dissection, axillary or sentinel, often results in restrictions of arm movement, including range of motion (ROM), either temporarily or permanently. The objective of this secondary analysis was to determine if a lymphedema (LE) prevention program would also impact ROM in both the affected arm as well as the unaffected arm. Methods: As part of the Lymphedema Education and Prevention study (CALGB 70305), women from participating sites (N=41) were randomized to either the “education only” (n=253) arm (information about LE signs and symptoms and risk reduction strategies) or “education + exercise” (n=315) arm (education plus arm stretching and breathing exercises and a visit with a physical therapist). Self-administered surveys asking for how high the patient can reach with each arm at pre-surgery, 12 and 18 months after surgery were used to assess self-reports of ROM for each arm (5 categories in total: very little, about half, nearly full, overhead, and full). Differences in ROM between study groups for each arm were compared using chi-square tests before surgery, and 12 and 18 months after surgery. Results: Before surgery, women in the “education + exercise” group were less likely to report full ROM for both arms (left: 58% vs 75%; right: 57% vs 76%; p=0.0004 for both arms) compared to women in the “education only” group, while at 12 months, women in the “education + exercise” group reported greater ROM (left: 91% vs 84% p=0.16; right: 90% vs 83%; p=0.02) compared to women in the “education only” group. By 18 months, both groups approached 93% with full ROM for both arms. Conclusions: Women who participated in a LE prevention intervention that included exercise and a visit to a physical therapist regained full ROM in both arms sooner than women who did not receive the exercise intervention. All women receiving lymph node dissection should receive physical therapy to regain ROM quickly after surgery and to help maintain physical functioning. Support: UG1CA189823, UG1CA189817, UG1CA189819, U10CA180790, U10CA180836, U10CA180850, and UL1TR001409; Clinical trial information: NCT00376597.

Purpose: To evaluate a healthy eating and physical activity intervention for immigrant families, derived through community-based participatory research. Design: The Healthy Immigrant Families study was a randomized controlled trial with delayed intervention control group, with families as the randomization unit. Setting: US Midwest city. Participants: Participants were recruited by community partners from Hispanic, Somali, and Sudanese immigrant communities. Intervention: Family health promoters from participating communities delivered 6 healthy eating modules, 4 physical activity modules, and 2 modules synthesizing information in 12 home visits (60-90 minutes) within the first 6 months. Up to 12 follow-up phone calls to each participant occurred within the second 6 months. Measures: Primary measures were dietary quality measured with weekday 24-hour recall and reported as Healthy Eating Index score (0-100) and physical activity measured with accelerometers (14 wear days) at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months. Results: In total, 151 persons (81 adolescents and 70 adults; 44 families) were randomly assigned. At 12 months, significant improvement occurred in Healthy Eating Index scores for adults in the intervention group compared with controls (change, +8.6 vs −4.4; P < .01) and persisted at 24 months (+7.4 from baseline; P < .01). No differences were observed for adolescents and no significant differences occurred between groups for physical activity. Conclusion: This intervention produced sustained dietary quality improvement among adults but not among adolescents. Program outcomes are relevant to communities working to decrease cardiovascular risk among immigrant populations.

32 Background: The link between patient concerns and clinical systems delivery is often suboptimal. We developed a case management system for palliative care which transforms the patient’s greatest concerns into actionable clinical pathways. Methods: The system collects patients’ single greatest and second greatest concern plus Quality of Life (QOL) data (pain, fatigue and overall QOL single-items scored 0-10 with 10 representing worst pain/fatigue, or best QOL) and produces a report to guide the physician and patient. The system presents ten “buttons” in a xylophone-like grid: Personal Relationships, Monitoring Health, Emotional Health, Money, Health Behaviors, Medication Troubles, Care Access, Work Worries, Physical Health and Care Planning. We performed a quality improvement study at Mayo Clinic sites. Results: 409 patients participated in at least one survey from 11/04/2015 to 9/22/2016 (620 total surveys). The most common Main Concern was Physical Health 265/620 (43%) followed by Monitoring Health (17%), Medication (8%), and Emotional Health, Money, and Health Behaviors (7% each), Personal Relationships (6%). Future Care Planning, Work, and Care Access/Coordination were rarely chosen ( < 5%). The most common Second greatest concern was Health Behaviors 73/409 (18%) followed by Physical Health (17%). 93/122 (67%) patients changed their greatest concern from baseline to subsequent visits. The mean QOL, fatigue and pain at baseline were 4.8, 6.0 and 4.8 respectively, indicating substantial clinically significant deficits. Post baseline mean scores improved by a maximum of 0.8, 1.1, and 0.9 points respectively, representing clinically meaningful effects. On average it took 8 minutes for patients to use the system. Conclusions: The system was quick and easy to utilize. The personal impact concerns (physical/emotional health, medications) were most often cited as the greatest concern, while care issues were de-emphasized by patients. Patients and physicians praised the system for making visits more efficient and raising issues that otherwise might not have been addressed. This system has the potential to improve patient well-being and clinical outcomes, as well as to reduce burden on clinicians and optimize case management activities.

177 Background: Dignity Therapy (DT) is a psychosocial intervention used primarily at the end of life to improve quality of life and promote patient dignity, but many individuals are unable to complete it due to health decline/death. In addition, when individuals face potential mortality, they evaluate life plans to determine tasks and behaviors most important to them. Consistent with guidelines to provide palliative care interventions simultaneously with cancer treatment, the purpose of this study was to evaluate initial patient-reported outcomes of an intervention combination (Dignity Therapy + Life Plan [DT/LP]) for those with advanced pancreatic or lung cancer receiving treatment within a year of diagnosis. Methods: This was a single-arm, Phase I/II pilot study, conducted in the outpatient setting at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Dignity Therapy consisted of a focused life review intervention delivered during three outpatient oncology encounters for each patient. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and edited to produce a legacy document. Participants scribed a list of 3-6 life goals for the LP intervention. Outcomes measured at baseline, immediately post DT/LP, and 3 months later were distress (Distress Thermometer), quality of life (FACT and LASA), spirituality (FaCIT-Sp-12), dignity (Patient Dignity Inventory), and purpose in life (Purpose in Life Test- Short Form). Data were analyzed with one-sample, two-sided t-tests (alternate: Wilcoxan). Results: Eighteen advanced pancreatic or lung cancer patients enrolled, mean age 64. There were no significant differences among all variables from baseline to post-DT/LP and 3 months later, with the exception of less distress experienced between baseline and 3 months after DT/LP ( p= 0.04). Conclusions: The DT/LP intervention did not show improvements in these psychosocial outcomes, but patients with advanced cancer typically experience worsening physical and psychosocial symptoms with active treatment. Therefore, maintaining these outcomes from baseline is a worthy goal, as we may be preventing further morbidity in an advanced cancer population. Further research is needed, however, given this small sample size. Clinical trial information: NCT02132325.

Background In view of the large number of families engaged in caregiving, this study was initiated to describe informal cancer care provision from the perspective of the caregiver. Methods A professional data collection site was used to convene focus groups in four cities. Participants included 63 caregivers, 87% of whom were female, mean age of 56 years. Caregivers responded to an open-ended question regarding the challenges of providing care. The study utilized qualitative analysis of verbatim transcripts. Transcript coding with four independent raters, using an iterative process, achieved a high inter-rater reliability. Results The project elucidates self-reported concerns confronted in cancer caregiving. Five primary themes emerged: supportive care demands, emotional toll, impact on health status, coping strategies, and rewards and affirmation. Providing supportive care introduced a balancing act in caregivers’ lives as they attempted to address complex and overlapping roles. They felt alone in their decisions, were under-prepared for tasks they assumed, and tried to shield the care recipient. Conclusions This qualitative approach confirmed past research while identifying novel concepts related to maintaining well-being and a sense of purpose despite caregiving hardships. Some aspects of caregiver suffering were identified. Caregiver self-regulation strategies revealed by this work suggest ideas for psychosocial interventions caregivers could use to protect themselves and the care recipient from impending distress.