Thompson, Carrie A.

Summary This study aimed to describe the patterns of care and outcomes of diffuse large B cell lymphoma ( DLBCL ) after failure of front line anthracycline‐based immunochemotherapy ( IC ). Patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were prospectively enrolled in Molecular Epidemiology Resource ( MER ) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellzence. All DLBCL and primary mediastinal B‐cell lymphoma ( PMBL ) patients treated with front‐line anthracycline‐based IC were followed for relapse. Patients with relapse on follow‐up and subsequently retreated were included in this analysis. 1039 patients received anthracycline‐based IC between 2002 and 2012, of which 244 relapsed and were subsequently retreated. Across all therapies, overall survival at 4 years ( OS 4) from relapse was 28% and 103 patients ultimately underwent autologous haematopoietic cell transplant (auto HCT ) with OS 4 from auto HCT of 51%. Patients relapsing after 12 months from initial diagnosis had OS 4 of 47% but those with a transient or no response to initial therapy had OS 4 of only 13%. Outcomes of relapsed or refractory DLBCL differ substantially when categorized by response to initial therapy, timing of relapse and opportunity to undergo auto HCT . The design and interpretation of uncontrolled trials should account for this heterogeneity in patients with relapsed DLBCL .

193 Background: National standards recommend distress screening as part of cancer care. While many patients report improved quality of life after cancer treatment concludes there remains a population who experience ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms. We sought to describe psychosocial distress in lymphoma survivors and frequency of visits to mental health providers (MHP). Methods: Lymphoma patients were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource and systematically followed. Brief Profile of Mood States (POMS) and State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were administered 3 yrs after diagnosis. Lower scores on POMS indicated more distress. A higher score on STAI indicated more anxiety, and a score ≥ 40 was considered clinically significant. Pts were asked if they ever saw a MHP due to their lymphoma. Results: Between 2002-2012, 2465 lymphoma pts age 18-91 (10% 18-40, 54% 41-65, and 36% > 65) were enrolled, met survivor definition, and completed 3-yr POMS and STAI questionnaires. 57% were male. 40% had aggressive and 60% had indolent lymphoma. The median score on STAI 1 (state) was 32 (range 20-76) and on STAI 2 (trait) was 31 (range 20-77). Median POMS total mood disturbance (TMD) score was 88 (range 1-100). 8% of pts reported seeing a MHP. 609 pts (25%) had clinically significant anxiety by STAI 1, 73 (12%) of whom saw a MHP. Those who reported clinically significant anxiety on STAI were more likely to be younger, unemployed, unmarried, and less likely to have seen a MHP. Anxiety levels were similar between those with aggressive lymphoma and indolent lymphoma regardless of treatment. Higher distress levels, measured by TMD, were more often reported by those who were unemployed or over age 65 while there was no association with lymphoma subtype, marital status, or choice of therapy. Conclusions: Clinically significant anxiety was reported in 25% of 3-yr survivors of lymphoma and was associated with younger age, unmarried status, and unemployment. Higher distress levels were associated with older age, and unemployment. However, only 8% of our cohort was seen by a MHP. Identifying distress and appropriately referring to a MHP is important for the optimal care of lymphoma survivors.

164 Background: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors have distinctive and often unmet needs, may lead long lives after treatment, and are a population for whom targeted health supports are limited. Exercise in particular has become increasingly recognized as a vital part of cancer survivors’ health needs, yet, little is known about what interventions would be most appropriate for this population. This ongoing study reports early data on barriers and facilitators to exercise in AYA lymphoma survivors. Methods: We conducted a focus group with five young adult lymphoma survivors. Participants completed questionnaires to assess quality of life, exercise habits, and knowledge about evidence for exercise after cancer treatment. Charts were abstracted for demographic and treatment-related details. The focus group was audio recorded and transcribed. Data is being analyzed thematically to generate applied findings and identify areas for action. Results: Participants were 24-35 years old, 60% male, and an average of 2.97 years from the time of diagnosis. All reported some form of physical activity, with 80% active and 20% moderately active. Preliminary analysis identified fatigue, weight gain, and lack of time as barriers to exercise. Participants identified fatigue particularly in the early survivorship period, and discussed the issue of non-cancer survivor peers not relating with or recognizing fatigue after treatment. 100% of participants reported that someone from their doctor’s office had talked with them about exercise, but indicated during the focus group that this recommendation did not motivate them to exercise. Other themes revolve around the relationship between healthy diet and physical activity. In terms of an intervention, survivors were interested in activity trackers and fitness apps, exercise variety, and fitness groups targeted specifically for AYA survivors. Conclusions: Fatigue, weight gain, and time are barriers to exercise for AYA survivors. Interventions that incorporate fitness tracking technology, provide variety, and/or include other AYA survivors may be successful in this unique population.

64 Background: The goals of our Lymphoma Survivorship Clinic (SC) are to coordinate care, educate patients, and create a survivorship care plan (SCP). The aim of this study was to determine if patient-centered outcomes are improved after a SC visit. Methods: From 11/13-5/15, surveys were mailed to recently-treated lymphoma patients who were within 4 weeks of their last visit and in remission. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with PROMIS and distress was measured with the Impact of Events scale. Responses between those who attended SC and those who were eligible but did not attend were analyzed. Results: There were 96 surveys sent to the SC group; 59 were returned (61% response rate). Of the non-SC group, 140 surveys were sent and 84 were returned (60% response rate). Mean age was 57 years (range 23-77) in the SC group and 59 years (23-88) in the non-SC group. There were more females in the SC group (52% vs 30%) but no differences in race, marital status, education, or health literacy. Those who attended the SC were more likely to recall receiving a summary of cancer treatment and recommendations for follow-up care (90% SC vs. 75% non-SC, p = 0.03). Furthermore, SC attendees were more likely to “definitely” recall discussion on improving health or preventing illness (89% vs. 53%), getting help in making changes in habits/lifestyle (76% vs. 50%), diet (80% vs. 31%), and exercise (82% vs. 51%), all p < 0.001. There were no differences in discussions regarding smoking, follow-up testing, and symptom monitoring. The SC group was less likely to need more information regarding sexuality (6% vs 20%, p = 0.045). There were no differences in need for information regarding anxiety, fitness, familial cancer risk, fertility, complementary therapies, and social issues. The SC group was slightly more confident that they could get information or advice related to cancer (completely confident 76% vs. 61%, p = 0.07). There were no differences in QOL or distress. Conclusions: A Lymphoma SC visit increased receipt of SCP and provided more information on survivorship issues, particularly health behaviors, but did not improve QOL or distress. Further study is needed to determine if this leads to long-term health benefits.

236 Background: Patients (pts) with aggressive lymphoma are generally treated with curative intent and many become long-term survivors. There is little data on health behaviors after lymphoma diagnosis and their effect on QOL and long-term outcomes. Methods: Lymphoma pts were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and systematically followed. We measured QOL (FACT-G) and health behaviors (tobacco/alcohol use; diet/exercise habits) 3 years after diagnosis. For this study, “survivor” was defined as alive at 3 years from diagnosis with no active disease or treatment within the previous year. Results: From 2002-2012, 671 patients with aggressive lymphoma were enrolled, met survivor definition, and completed 3-year QOL and health behavior questionnaires. At 3-years, 31% of female (F) and 48% of male (M) reported a history of tobacco use for 6+ months. Of these, 13% of F and 7% of M were still smoking; 52% reported decreased use from baseline. 66% reported no change in alcohol intake at 3-years while 25% of F and 34% of M reported decreased intake. 60% often chose whole grains and 65% get 2+ servings of vegetables daily. 42% of F and 38% of M “somewhat” believed diet could change the course of their lymphoma. Most pts endorsed no significant change in diet as a result of diagnosis. Those who made changes did so primarily out of concern for “health problems other than cancer”. Overweight/obese responders were 72% pre- and 66% post-treatment. A desire to lose weight was reported by 55% of pts. 14% of F and 23% of M often engaged in regular physical activity (PA). Nearly 50% reported a decrease in PA. Pts with advanced stage (p = 0.006), age > 60 (p = 0.001), ECOG PS > 2 (p = 0.04), and worse prognostic score (p = 0.006) were more likely to report decreased PA since diagnosis. 68% of F and 61% of M intend to become more active in the next months. Regular PA (p = < 0.0001) was associated with higher QOL, while increased alcohol intake was associated with lower QOL (p = 0.009) at 3 years. Conclusions: Many survivors of aggressive NHL strive to adopt healthy behaviors and these behaviors are associated with higher QOL. Interventions aimed at emphasizing these behaviors may have potential to improve long-term outcomes and QOL.

229 Background: Modern clinical practice places time restrictions on the amount of information and processing that can be done in a typical office visit. Meeting patient needs within the healthcare system is often inefficient and ineffective, contributing to patient and clinician dissatisfaction and suboptimal outcomes. We developed a point-of-care case management system for oncology clinical practices adapted from an algorithm initially designed for patients with diabetes. The system’s goal is to obtain patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes and provide clinicians with information regarding QOL issues to address. Methods: Literature review and focus groups of oncology patients were used to identify key patient concerns. The program was adapted for cancer patients to collect the identified patient concern including QOL, fatigue, pain and other cancer-specific issues scored on a scale of 0-10. Suggested actions and available resources were identified for the patient/clinician based on the issue selected. We performed a pilot study involving 20 cancer patients to assess feasibility, and administered a “was it worth it survey” (WIWI). Results: The resultant hematology/oncology electronic system includes a set of eight primary “buttons”: Personal Relationships, Emotional health, Physical healthy, Cancer diagnosis and treatment, Health behaviors, Money, Care planning and Something else. Every “button” was selected, most commonly Cancer diagnosis and treatment 6/20 (30%). The median (range) reported QOL, fatigue and pain were 7 (1-10), 4 (0-8), 2 (0-8), respectively. The average completion of the tool took 4 minutes. One hundred percent of patients who took the survey thought it was worth it, would participate again and recommend it to others. Conclusions: The system was quick and easy to utilize in a small pilot of patients. All of the identified categories were chosen and relevant to our patient population. This tool has the potential to improve patient well-being and clinical outcomes, reduce the burden on clinicians and distribute case management activities to the most appropriate providers. Next steps include initiating a larger prospective protocol to assess if this tool improves QOL over time.

147 Background: The Institute of Medicine recommends development of cancer survivorship care models that are patient centered. We designed a cross-sectional survey to determine the medical and psychosocial needs and preferences of breast cancer survivors. Methods: We identified a random sample, stratified by age and chemotherapy usage, of 600 women from MN, WI, and IA, ages 18-99, within 1-5 years of diagnosis of stage 0-3 breast cancer and seen at our institution. Results: We received 329 surveys (response rate 55%). Respondents were a mean age of 58 years (range 26-89) and a mean of 3.3 years from cancer diagnosis (range 1.2-5.4). 96% were white and stage distribution was: 15% stage 0, 35% stage 1, 32% stage 2, 15% stage 3, and 3% missing. Treatment included mastectomy (60%), lumpectomy (40%), radiation (61%), chemotherapy (55%) and hormonal therapy (50%). Most common treatment-related sequelae were neuropathy (38%), chest wall or arm pain (27%), and lymphedema (26%). Over half (52%) report worry and 45% report fatigue as a problem in the past week. 74% stated that their medical needs were met, whereas 49% said their psychological and spiritual needs were met (p<0.01). 68% understood the follow-up plan after treatment was complete. Perceived barriers to follow up care were anxiety (30%) and lack of coordination (10%). When queried about post-treatment care, the following aspects were considered important (% of patients ranking ≥7 on scale 0-10: 0=not important, 10=very important): breast/chest wall exam (88%); screening for osteoporosis (71%), colorectal cancer (69%), and heart disease (65%); educational materials (64%); mammography (63%); physical therapy (61%); diet and exercise counseling (60%); and complementary/alternative medicine information (53%). Less important were psychology (44%), gynecology (43%), chaplain services (35%), support groups (32%), social work (20%), and infertility experts (4%). 60% expressed interest in attending a survivorship clinic. Conclusions: This survey provides unique data on breast cancer survivors, and efforts should be made to optimize medical and psychosocial care in line with their needs and preferences. These results will be imperative in designing a wellness and survivorship clinic.