Tilburt, Jon C.

Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL) are incurable and disproportionately affect adults age >65 in whom frailty and functional impairment can impact disease management. The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) is a 13-item screening tool that incorporates age, self-rated health, physical function limitations, and functional disabilities to identify vulnerable older community-dwelling adults. Adults with a VES-13 score of >3 have a fourfold increased risk of death or functional decline over 2 years as compared to adults with a score <3 (Saliba et al, JAGS 2001). Our team previously showed that VES-13 >3 was associated with a higher risk of 1-year mortality in NHL (OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.15-4.96, Fama et al, ASH 2019), including in adults age <65. In this study, we determined whether VES-13 scores >3 were associated with quality of life (QOL) changes in adults with iNHL across the age spectrum. Methods: We used the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study to identify adults enrolled from 2015-2020 with grade 1-3A follicular and marginal zone lymphoma (FL, MZL) who completed the VES-13 at enrollment and QOL surveys at enrollment and follow-up. The LEO Cohort Study enrolls participants within 6 months of diagnosis and collects information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and patient-reported functional assessment. For this analysis we included QOL measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1 and 2 post-enrollment. The FACT-G total score was the sum of 4 subscales (range): physical (PWB, 0-28), social/family (SFWB, 0-28), emotional (EWB, 0-24), and functional (FWB, 0-28) well-being. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better overall QOL. VES-13 scores ranged from 0 (lowest risk for death or decline) to 10+ (highest risk). Generalized linear mixed models evaluated changes in QOL from baseline based on VES-13 score >3 (vulnerable) vs <3 (non-vulnerable), within groups by age at enrollment >65 and <65. Results: Our study included 1,186 participants: 42% age >65, 54% female, 84% non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic, 3.3% Black, and 1.4% Asian/Pacific Islander. Most (68%) were diagnosed with FL. FLIPI was high risk for 20%, and MALT-IPI was high risk for 23%. In the VES-13 <3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 86.5 (12.0), PWB 21.0 (3.5), SFWB 24.3 (4.3), EWB 18.8 (3.7), and FWB 22.3 (4.9). In the VES-13 >3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 70.4 (16.5), PWB 15.4 (5.6), SFWB 22.3 (5.5), EWB 17.5 (4.5), and FWB 15.3 (6.4); all significantly lower than the VES-13 >3 group (all p<0.01). In adults <65, 63 (9%) had a VES-13 >3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline in PWB at years 1 and 2 when compared to VES-13 <3 (changes in baseline PWB were 2.1, 2.9 for VES-13 >3 vs 0.2, 0.1 for VES-13 <3, all p<0.05). Similarly, we observed improvement in FWB from baseline at years 1 and 2 in the VES-13 >3 vs <3 group (2.4, 2.9 vs 0.4, -0.1, respectively all p<0.05). The VES-13 >3 group had a decline in their EWB at 1 year vs the VES <3 group (-0.5 vs 1.2, respectively, p=0.003). At year 2, total FACT-G improved from baseline in the VES-13 >3 group (5.6 for VES-13 >3 vs -0.5 for VES-13 <3, p=0.002). SFWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. In adults >65, 83 (17%) had a VES-13 >3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline PWB (1.3, 1.5 for VES-13 >3 vs. 0.1, -0.1 for VES-13 <3), FWB (3.3, 2.2 for VES-13 >3 vs. 0.5, 0.1 for VES-13 <3), and total FACT-G score (5.2, 3.4 for VES-13 >3 vs. 1.0, -0.4 for VES-13 <3) when compared to VES-13 <3 at years 1 and 2 (all p<0.05). SFWB and EWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. While there was improvement from baseline PWB and FWB in the VES-13 >3 group, QOL scores across all subscales remained below the VES-13 <3 group in the study period for both age groups. Statistical significance was maintained in models adjusted for baseline characteristics, including initial treatment strategy (observation, systemic, vs local) for both age groups. Conclusion: Although the vulnerable group reported worse QOL throughout the study period compared to the non-vulnerable group, survivors in the vulnerable group saw greater improvement in their physical and functional well-being at 1- and 2-years post-diagnosis. Additional analyses are underway to identify drivers of improvement in physical and functional well-being in vulnerable adults diagnosed with iNHL.

Background: Understanding the symptoms and quality of life (QOL) over time of adults with follicular lymphoma (FL) is important for treatment decision-making and clinical management. However, there are limited population-level data on the long-term QOL of adults with FL. We aim to describe the real-world, long-term QOL of adults with newly diagnosed FL up to 5/6 years after diagnosis. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic/Iowa Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the multi-institutional Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) to identify adults with grade 1-3A FL who completed QOL surveys at baseline and follow-up. Participants with lymphoma were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the MER cohort from 2002-2015 and within 6 months of diagnosis in the multi-institutional LEO cohort study across 8 cancer centers from 2015-2020. The LEO/MER cohort studies systematically collected information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and functional assessment. Treatments, disease relapses, and deaths were verified by medical record review. Treating physicians determined clinical management. QOL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1, 2, 3, and 5/6 post-diagnosis. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better QOL across 4 subscales (range): physical (0-28), social/family (0-28), emotional (0-24), and functional (0-28) well-being. We categorized participants based on their frontline management at time of diagnosis: “observation” (surveillance), “treatment” (systemic treatment with immunotherapy +/- chemotherapy), and “local” (radiation) groups. We employed a generalized linear mixed model to evaluate and compare the changes in QOL scores (as a continuous variable) from baseline for the observation, treatment, and local groups, adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age, FLIPI risk, and cohort (i.e., LEO or MER). We also evaluated QOL changes by FLIPI risk. Results: Our study included 1,544 participants with FL and QOL data. At the time of enrollment, median age was 61 years (range 19-91), 88% were non-Hispanic White, and 49% were female. Based on initial management, 529 (34%) were in the observation group, 880 (57%) were in the treatment group, and 135 (9%) were in the local group. FLIPI risk was high for 17% in the observation group, 29.3% in the treatment group, and 3% in the local group. The mean (standard deviation) baseline FACT-G total score was lowest in the treatment group with the following baseline scores: 86 (13) for the observation group, 83 (14) for the treatment group, and 88 (12) for the local group (Table 1). The observation and local groups reported a greater worsening of their baseline FACT-G total score vs the treatment group at both the 2-year (-1.2, -0.8 vs +1.8, respectively) and 5/6 year (-5.4, -6 vs. -1.6, respectively) timepoints (Figure 1). This appeared to be driven by worsened physical and functional well-being in the observation (-1.3, -2.2, respectively) and local (-0.9, -2.4, respectively) groups vs the treatment group (0, -0.3, respectively). These differences were statistically significant between the observation vs treatment groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the other subscales, i.e., social/family and emotional well-being, by frontline management. Social/family well-being decreased across all groups by 5/6 years (-2.3 in observation, -2.2 in treatment, and -3 in local, p<0.05). Regardless of FLIPI risk, the total FACT-G scores decreased within each FLIPI risk group at 5/6 years (-4.4 for low, -3.8 for intermediate, and -4.9 for high, p<0.05). This was primarily due to worsened social/family well-being (-2.4 for low, -2.2 for intermediate, and -3 for high, p<0.05) at 5/6 years. There was no statistically significant difference in QOL between FLIPI risk groups. Conclusion: This is one of the first and largest studies with real-world longitudinal QOL data for FL. Our study suggests that frontline systemic treatment initially improved QOL and resulted in a lower degree of QOL decline over time. Social/family well-being decreased over time regardless of frontline management or FLIPI risk. Further research is warranted to explore the impact of timing and specific systemic treatments on QOL, incorporate the patient/caregiver experience to address social/family well-being, and identify the clinical significance of our findings.

572 Background: The DEFeNDR (Decreasing the burden of Febrile Neutropenia through Dynamic RPM) program leverages in-home technology and centralized nurse monitoring to facilitate ambulatory management as an alternative to hospital-based care for cancer patients with neutropenic fever (NF). The objective of this study is to assess 30-day care utilization outcomes and patient satisfaction at 12 months after program implementation. Methods: Adult cancer patients hospitalized with NF were assessed daily for DEFeNDR program eligibility including MASCC score ≥21 (per ASCO guidelines) and no cellular therapy (CAR-T, BMT) in the prior 100 days. Patients agreeing to participate in the 30-day program received a cellular-enabled tablet with pre-connected devices for twice-daily vital signs and symptom assessments. Patient generated data were EHR-integrated in real-time. Embedded decision trees facilitated alerts for adverse trends. Virtual RPM nurses responded to alerts and utilized predefined care pathways. The primary endpoint was the mean proportion of evaluable days spent inpatient (mPEDI) within 30 days of eligibility comparing those who participated in the program (RPM) with those who declined (no RPM). Results: Of 85 eligible patients, 62 were offered DEFeNDR participation. Of those, 34 (54.8%) participated and 28 (45.2%) declined. Baseline characteristics and care utilization outcomes are summarized in Table 1. RPM patients experienced significantly lower mPEDI compared with unmonitored patients [5.1% (Standard Error [SE], 1.9%) vs 12.4% (SE, 2.1%); Wilcoxon Rank Sums p-value, 0.032]. RPM patients also experienced a trend toward fewer total hospital days and lower 30-day readmission rate, as well as shorter mean length of stay and lower rate of ICU utilization when readmitted. Non-visit care activities (EHR clinical communications, documentation, and patient messaging) were decreased from pre-hospital baseline for 58.8% of RPM patients versus 46.6% of those unmonitored. All RPM patients completing a patient satisfaction survey (n=9) indicated that they would recommend the program to patients with a similar condition. Conclusions: Cancer patients with NF participating in the DEFeNDR program experienced a significant reduction in mPEDI and care utilization compared with those who declined. Further studies are warranted to assess comparative effectiveness of this model vs usual care.[Table: see text]

Importance During the COVID-19 pandemic, many US states issued or revised pandemic preparedness plans guiding allocation of critical care resources during crises. State plans vary in the factors used to triage patients and have faced criticism from advocacy groups due to the potential for discrimination. Objective To analyze the role of comorbidities and long-term prognosis in state triage procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used data gathered from parallel internet searches for state-endorsed pandemic preparedness plans for the 50 US states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (hereafter referred to as states), which were conducted between November 25, 2021, and June 16, 2023. Plans available on June 16, 2023, that provided step-by-step instructions for triaging critically ill patients were categorized for use of comorbidities and prognostication. Main Outcomes and Measures Prevalence and contents of lists of comorbidities and their stated function in triage and instructions to predict duration of postdischarge survival. Results Overall, 32 state-promulgated pandemic preparedness plans included triage procedures specific enough to guide triage in clinical practice. Twenty of these (63%) included lists of comorbidities that excluded (11 of 20 [55%]) or deprioritized (8 of 20 [40%]) patients during triage; one state’s list was formulated to resolve ties between patients with equal triage scores. Most states with triage procedures (21 of 32 [66%]) considered predicted survival beyond hospital discharge. These states proposed different prognostic time horizons; 15 of 21 (71%) were numeric (ranging from 6 months to 5 years after hospital discharge), with the remaining 6 (29%) using descriptive terms, such as long-term. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of state-promulgated critical care triage policies, most plans restricted access to scarce critical care resources for patients with listed comorbidities and/or for patients with less-than-average expected postdischarge survival. This analysis raises concerns about access to care during a public health crisis for populations with high burdens of chronic illness, such as individuals with disabilities and minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

PURPOSE In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices rapidly adopted telehealth services. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ongoing telehealth visit utilization beyond this initial response. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in variables associated with telehealth visit utilization over time. METHODS This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective analysis of telehealth visits conducted across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice in the United States. Multivariable models examined the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization across outpatient visits conducted over three 8-week periods from July to August in 2019 (n = 32,537), 2020 (n = 33,399), and 2021 (n = 35,820). RESULTS The rate of telehealth utilization increased from <0.01% (2019) to 11% (2020) to 14% (2021). The most significant patient-level factors associated with increased telehealth utilization included nonrural residence and age ≤65 years. Among patients residing in rural settings, video visit utilization rates were significantly lower and phone visit utilization rates were significantly higher compared with patients from nonrural residences. Regarding provider-level factors, widening differences in telehealth utilization were observed at tertiary versus community-based practice settings. Increased telehealth utilization was not associated with duplicative care as per-patient and per-physician visit volumes in 2021 remained consistent with prepandemic levels. CONCLUSION We observed continuous expansion in telehealth visit utilization from 2020 to 2021. Our experiences suggest that telehealth can be integrated into cancer practices without evidence of duplicative care. Future work should examine sustainable reimbursement structures and policies to ensure accessibility of telehealth as a means to facilitate equitable, patient-centered cancer care.

1535 Background: Ambulatory management of select patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) may substantially decrease patients’ burden of illness and improve their quality of life, and is recommended by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. However, in the United States, inpatient management remains the universal standard. We hereby report the health care utilization associated with the DEFeNDR remote patient monitoring (RPM) program, which leverages technology and virtual centralized nurse monitoring to facilitate ambulatory management of FN as an alternative to hospital-based care. Methods: Adult patients with cancer hospitalized with FN were assessed daily for eligibility to participate in the DEFeNDR program. Eligibility criteria included MASCC score >21 (per ASCO guidelines), and clinical judgment of the attending provider. Patients receiving cellular therapy (CAR-T, BMT) in the prior 100 days were excluded. Eligible patients agreeing to participate in the 30-day program were provided a kit containing cellular-enabled, pre-connected devices to facilitate monitoring, including twice-daily vital signs and electronic symptom questionnaires. Data were EHR-integrated in real-time and embedded decision trees facilitated alerts for adverse trends. RPM nurses responded to alerts and escalated care as indicated by pre-specified care pathways. Program assessment was performed at 20 weeks after full implementation. The primary outcome was the mean proportion of evaluable days spent inpatient (mPEDI) within 30 days of eligibility compared between those who participated in the program vs. those who declined. Results: 35 patients were offered participation in the DEFeNDR program. Of these, 17 participated and 18 declined. Baseline characteristics are provided. Participating patients experienced mPEDI of 6.9% (Standard Error [SE], 3.7%), compared with 17.7% (SE, 3.6%) for patients who declined participation. Due to small sample size, this difference (10.8%) did not reach statistical significance (Wilcoxon Rank Sums p-value, 0.15). 30-day mortality did not differ between groups. Mean inpatient days were also lower for patients participating in the program. Additionally, when readmitted, patients participating in RPM experienced a trend toward shorter length of stay and lower rates of intensive care unit utilization. Conclusions: A trend towards decreased burden of inpatient care is evident among patients participating in the DEFeNDR program. Further studies are warranted to assess comparative effectiveness of this model vs usual care.[Table: see text]