Noble, Brie N.

Background: QOL can be affected by disease burden, side effects of treatment, and psychosocial effects of living with cancer. Although MZL is considered incurable, we previously found that patients diagnosed from 2002-2015 had a good QOL both at baseline (BL) and the first decade after diagnosis, regardless of treatment choice (Bommier et al., submitted). Here, we evaluate whether these findings can be extended to the 2015-2020 treatment era and a more diverse US cohort. Methods: Adults with newly diagnosed MZL from 8 academic centers were prospectively enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis from 2015-2020 in the LEO cohort (NCT02736357). Participants were actively followed for disease progression/relapse, retreatment and death. QOL was measured at BL, and at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years after diagnosis using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) scale (range 0-164), which consists of the FACT-General (FACT-G, range 0-104) plus a lymphoma-specific scale (range 0-60). Total FACT-G measures 4 QOL domains (range): physical (0-28), social/family (0-28), emotional (0-24), and functional (0-28) well-being (WB). We also used the Trial Outcome Index (TOI; range 0-112), which consists of FACT-G physical and functional WB plus the lymphoma-specific scale and is commonly used as an endpoint in treatment trials. All MZL patients with both BL and at least one follow-up QOL questionnaire were eligible for analysis. Patients were grouped by initial management: active surveillance (observation), local/antibiotic therapy (radiation, surgery, or anti- H. pylori therapy), or systemic therapy (chemotherapy, targeted agents, or antibody therapy). Change in QOL scores over time was analyzed using mixed models for repeated measurements, and initial treatment groups were compared. Results: Of 384 patients, 60% were female, 91% were White, 6.6% were Black/African American, and 13% were Hispanic (all races). The median age was 64 years (range 19-94). For initial management, 28% (N=106) were observed, 31% (N=118) received local/antibiotic therapy, and 42% (N=160) received systemic therapy. Across treatment groups, there were no significant differences by age, gender, race, or performance status, while there were differences by Hispanic ethnicity (p=0.006), Ann Arbor stage (p<0.001) and MALT-IPI score (p<0.001) (Table). At BL, patients receiving systemic therapy had lower physical WB (p=0.008), emotional WB (p=0.04), functional WB (p=0.03), FACT-G total score (p=0.008), lymphoma subscale (p<0.001), FACT-Lym (p=0.001) and TOI (p<0.001) compared to observation and local/antibiotic therapy (Table). While FACT-G total scores were largely stable through 5 years after diagnosis, social/family WB declined from BL for patients initially receiving either local/antibiotic therapy (mean at 1-year -1.4, p<0.05; 2-year -2.1, p<0.05; 3-year -1.6, p<0.05; 5-year-2.9, p<0.05) or systemic therapy (mean at 2-year -1.2 , p<0.05; 3-year -1.4, p<0.05; and 5-year -1.2, p<0.05), while this was stable for observed patients. In patients receiving initial systemic therapy, there was a transient improvement in the lymphoma-specific scale (mean +1.7, p<0.05) and TOI (mean +3.7, p<0.05). Otherwise, QOL remained stable over time and global QoL (FACT-G, FACT-Lym), TOI, Lymphoma-specific scale (Figure), and the other FACT-G subscales (physical, emotional, or functional WB) did not differ by initial treatment strategy. Conclusions: In the diverse LEO cohort from the recent treatment era, we confirm our prior findings for newly diagnosed MZL patients that QOL is globally stable over the first 5 years after diagnosis; emotional WB is not associated with initial treatment type, providing evidence that being initially observed does not negatively impact emotional health; and there is a decline in social/family WB (support from friends and family, family acceptance of illness, family communication, close to partner), which supports the need to consider interventions for patients to address these unmet needs. In addition, this study extends these findings to the lymphoma-specific scale, FACT-Lym, and TOI, which all showing largely stable trends in the 5 years after diagnosis and suggest that recent MZL treatment strategies, including systemic therapies, neither impair nor improve QOL.

Background: Marginal Zone Lymphoma (MZL) is considered indolent but incurable, with a variety of initial treatment strategies including observation. Quality of life (QOL) can be affected by disease burden, side effects of treatment, and psychosocial effects of living with an incurable cancer. However, little is known about long-term QOL in patients with MZL. We investigated QOL at baseline (BL), and up to nine years after a diagnosis of MZL. Methods: Newly diagnosed MZL patients aged 18 years and older were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource from 9/2002 - 6/2015. Pathology was reviewed by a hematopathologist. All MZL participants with both BL and at least one follow-up (FU) QOL questionnaire were eligible for this analysis. QOL was measured at BL and years 1-, 2-, 3-, 6- and 9-year FU with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale (range 0-108), which measures 4 QOL domains (range): physical (0-28), social/family (0-28), emotional (0-24), and functional (0-28) well-being (WB). Clinical data were abstracted according to a standard protocol and patients were systematically followed for events (progression, re-treatment, and death). Patients were grouped into initial management with active surveillance (observation), local/antibiotic therapy (including radiation, surgery, and anti- H. pylori therapy), or systemic therapy (including chemotherapy, targeted agents, or antibody therapy). Change in QOL scores over time was analyzed using mixed models for repeated measurements, and comparisons were made according to initial treatment group. Results: Of 324 participants in the analysis, 59% were female, 98% were White and the median age was 63 years. For initial management, 36% (N=118) were observed, 30% (N=96) received local/antibiotic therapy and 34% (N=110) received systemic therapy. Across the initial treatment groups, there were no statistically significant differences by age, gender, or performance status, while there were differences for Ann Arbor Stage IV (observation 50%, local/antibiotic 27%, systemic 67%, p<0.001) and MALT-IPI score 2+ (observation 23%, local/antibiotic 18%, systemic 28%, p<0.001). At BL, mean FACT-G total score was 85.7 (SD 13.1), and physical, social/family, emotional, and functional WB scores were 20.3 (SD 4.2), 24.4 (SD 3.9), 18.9 (SD 3.5), 22.1 (SD 5.3); these scores were similar across initial treatment groups (all p>0.05). FACT-G total score was largely stable over time by treatment group (Panel 1). However, it declined at years 6 (mean -4.0, p<0.05) and 9 (mean -3.7, p<0.05) in the observation group (Panel 2), driven by a decline in functional WB, although this change was not significantly different from the other treatment groups. Further, in comparison with other treatment groups, local therapy was associated with a short-term 1-year improvement of FACT-G total score (mean +2.8, p=0.04), driven by improvements in both functional and emotional WB. For the subscales, we identified two major trends irrespective of treatment group: an overall improvement from BL of emotional WB at years 1 (mean +0.6, p<0.05), 2 (mean +0.7, p<0.05), 3 (+1.3, p<0.05), 6 (+1, p<0.05), and 9 (+1.3, p<0.05) and an overall decline of social/family WB at years 1 (mean -1.1, p<0.05), 2 (mean -1.7, p<0.05), 3 (-2.1, p<0.05), 6 (-2.7, p<0.05), and 9 (-2.2, p<0.05). There was no notable change from BL for physical or functional WB. Conclusions: This analysis is the first to provide prospective real-world QOL data on a longitudinal cohort of MZL patients with long follow-up. At BL, initial treatment was associated with stage and MALT-IPI score, but not QOL. Except for the transient 1-year QOL improvement in patients under local/antibiotic therapy, initial treatment groups had no impact on QOL over time. Irrespective of treatment group, emotional WB showed improvement over time, suggesting psychosocial adaptation by the patient, as it was found in aggressive lymphomas (Thompson et al., 2018). Further, emotional WB over time did not vary across treatment groups, suggesting that being initially observed did not lead to more emotional stress than being actively treated. Finally, decline in social/family WB (support from friends, family, family acceptance of illness, family communication, close to partner) suggests a need to consider interventions to patients and families to address these needs.

Introduction: The treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has evolved over the past two decades, from finite duration chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) to an era of targeted agents such as Bruton Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitors, BCL2 inhibitors, and anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. Little is known about how initial management strategy (watch and wait [W&W] vs. treatment) at diagnosis impacts patient reported outcomes (PROs) in CLL survivors over time, particularly in light of therapeutic advances over the last decade. Methods: Newly diagnosed CLL patients were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER1) study between 9/1/02 and 6/30/15, and within 6 months of diagnosis in the MER Phase 2 (MER2) study between 7/1/15 and 5/1/20. PROs were measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scale (FACT-G), which generates Physical (PWB, range 0-28), Social/Family (SFWB, 0-28), Emotional (EWB, 0-24), and Functional Well-Being (FWB, 0-28) scores and a Total Score (0-108), with higher scores indicating better WB. In both cohorts, FACT-G was measured at enrollment and at years 1, 2, and 3 after diagnosis, while the timing of later assessments varied slightly by study (MER1: 6 yrs and 9 yrs; MER2: 5 years). We employed a generalized linear mixed model to evaluate change from baseline between groups with groups defined by each participant's initial management strategy (W&W vs. upfront systemic treatment). Initial management strategy was determined by the treating physician. The study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. Results: A total of 722 patients were identified in MER1 and 256 patients in MER2. The median age at diagnosis was 63 years in MER1 and 66 years in MER2 (P<0.05); 66% were male in MER1 and 68% were male in MER2 (P>0.05). More patients initiated upfront systemic therapy in MER1 (n=380, 53%) than in MER2 (n=110, 43%). Other baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the cohorts ( Table 1). There was no statistical difference in the mean FACT-G total score at baseline between MER1 (85.0, SD 12.5) and MER2 (85.2, SD 12.7). In the MER1 cohort, statistically significant lower baseline QOL scores were observed in patients initiating upfront treatment compared to W&W on the FACT-G total score (P=0.002) as well as the PWB (P=0.01), EWB (P=0.03), and FWB (P=0.006) subscales. We also observed that over time, EWB and FWB scores were consistently lower amongst those treated upfront compared to W&W. Further, EWB scores steadily improved over time regardless of initial management ( Figure 1), whereas the FWB and PWB subscales were largely stable over time. Mean SFWB scores dropped amongst patients who received upfront therapy at 3 years, which then steadily improved through year 9 but did not recover back to baseline. SFWB scores were stable among W&W patients. In the MER2 cohort, no statistically significant differences in any of the baseline QOL scores were noted between the W&W vs. initial treatment groups. Despite this, we observed consistently lower mean EWB scores among patients who initiated upfront treatment compared to W&W pts over time. No other statistically significant differences in mean QOL scores over time were observed between groups. Similar to MER1, we did observe a drop in mean SFWB scores amongst patients initiating upfront therapy at 3 years of follow-up that remained decreased at year 5. Conclusion: This is the largest longitudinal study of CLL survivors that spanned over 18 years and two treatment eras. We demonstrated that in the novel treatment era, QOL metrics were similar between initial management strategies (W&W vs. treatment), suggesting that initial management had little to no impact on QOL at baseline or over time. In contrast, in the CIT era, we observed differences in QOL metrics at baseline between groups. In both treatment eras, patients with CLL who required upfront therapy demonstrated a decrease in SFWB from baseline at year 3 of follow-up, and the mean EWB scores were lowest at baseline regardless of initial management strategy (W&W vs. upfront treatment) or treatment era (CIT vs. novel agents), but steadily improved over time. These findings suggest opportunities for interventions to improve QOL in patients with CLL, and additional analyses are ongoing. Further follow-up in the era of novel agents is needed.

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.

Abstract Background Hospitalized patients are frequently discharged to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) for parenteral antibiotic therapy (PAT). While there are studies describing the healthcare utilization and outcomes of individuals receiving post-hospital PAT in non-institutional settings, characterization of the PAT experience among SNF patients remains limited. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients discharged to a SNF on antimicrobial therapy. Methods Health records of patients (age ≥18 years) hospitalized in a single hospital who were discharged on systemic antibiotics to a SNF from 1/1/2016 - 12/31/2018 were reviewed. Subjects who received an inpatient ID consultation and were discharged on PAT were included. Information captured included patient demographics, diagnoses, discharge antibiotic regimen and timing, post-discharge encounters, 90-day hospital readmissions, and losses to follow-up. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board with a waiver for informed consent. Results 155 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Post-discharge follow-up with the ID Service was not recommended for 19 patients (12.3%). Patients who followed-up post-discharge had a total of 264 sub-specialty provider (mean: 2.8/patient; range: 0-13) and 170 ID provider (mean: 1.7/patient; range: 0-5) face-to-face encounters within 90 days of discharge. Average time to ID clinic follow-up was 3.2 weeks (range: 1-6 weeks). ID clinic nursing staff conducted 1373 telephone encounters (mean: 13.9/patient; range, 3-40) with SNF nursing staff within 90 days of discharge. The 90-day hospital readmission rate was 37% (36/101 patients) and 47% of readmissions were ID-related. The 90-day mortality rate was 9%; 2 patients died before and 7 after outpatient follow-up was established. Conclusion ID clinic follow-up of patients discharged to a SNF on PAT was infrequent, but their care entailed a higher volume of telephone care coordination, and they experienced higher readmission rates relative to patients receiving PAT in ambulatory settings. Further studies to better understand if these findings are driven by patient factors or issues related to SNF care practices are needed. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

AbstractBackgroundPrevention of skin cancer includes early diagnosis and photoprotection, such as by physician‐performed total skin examination (TSE) and patient‐performed self‐skin examination (SSE). Hypothesizing that 90% of our patients receive an annual TSE, photoprotection counseling, and SSE instruction, we assessed the extent to which this was documented in patients' records. We also sought to identify differences in documentation of TSE, photoprotection counseling, and instruction on SSE with or without use of a dictation template prompting documentation.Materials and methodsRetrospective review of a random sample of 400 patients in an outpatient dermatology practice of a tertiary care academic medical center for any dermatology appointment between May 1 and July 31, 2007. Exclusion criteria included refusal to undergo TSE, lack of access to skin (e.g. wheelchair‐bound or in cast), or inappropriate visit type (e.g. for acne, psoriasis, or lupus).ResultsOf 400 randomly selected patients, 313 met inclusion criteria. The dictation template was used in 133; of these, 89% (119/133) had documentation in their clinical note of a TSE (exclusive of the buttocks or groin area), and 98% (130/133) had documentation of instruction on sun protection and SSE. Without use of the dictation template, these percentages dropped to 78% (140/180) and 20% (36/180), respectively. Physicians using a dictation template were more likely to document having conducted a TSE and instructed patients on photoprotection and SSE.ConclusionsA dictation template aids documentation of annual TSE and patient education efforts on photoprotection and SSE.

Background and Purpose— ResolutionMD mobile application runs on a Smartphone and affords vascular neurologists access to radiological images of patients with stroke from remote sites in the context of a telemedicine evaluation. Although reliability studies using this technology have been conducted in a controlled environment, this study is the first to incorporate it into a real-world hub and spoke telestroke network. The study objective was to assess the level of agreement of brain CT scan interpretation in a telestroke network between hub vascular neurologists using ResolutionMD, spoke radiologists using a Picture Archiving and Communications System, and independent adjudicators. Methods— Fifty-three patients with stroke at the spoke hospital consented to receive a telemedicine consultation and participate in a registry. Each CT was evaluated by a hub vascular neurologist, a spoke radiologist, and by blinded telestroke adjudicators, and agreement over clinically important radiological features was calculated. Results— Agreement ( κ and 95% CI) between hub vascular neurologists using ResolutionMD and (1) the spoke radiologist; and (2) independent adjudicators, respectively, were: identification of intracranial hemorrhage 1.0 (0.92–1.0), 1.0 (0.93–1.0), neoplasm 1.0 (0.92–1.0), 1.0 (0.93–1.0), any radiological contraindication to thrombolysis 1.0 (0.92–1.0), 0.85 (0.65–1.0), early ischemic changes 0.62 (0.28–0.96), 0.58 (0.30–0.86), and hyperdense artery sign 0.40 (0.01–0.80), 0.44 (0.06–0.81). Conclusions— CT head interpretations of telestroke network patients by vascular neurologists using ResolutionMD on Smartphones were in excellent agreement with interpretations by spoke radiologists using a Picture Archiving and Communications System and those of independent telestroke adjudicators using a desktop viewer. Clinical Trial Registration Information— www.clinicaltrials.gov unique identifier NCT00829361.