El‐Jawahri, Areej

Background: Aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aNHL) commonly occurs in older adults. However, geriatric assessments (GAs), which are associated with both survival and treatment-related toxicity, are infrequently performed due to logistical constraints. In this study, we examined how the brief, self-reported Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) screening tool and a comprehensive GA relate to clinical outcomes in this population. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study of 105 adults aged ≥65 years who were initiating upfront chemoimmunotherapy for aNHL at 2 academic medical centers and their community affiliates between September 2020 and January 2023. Baseline frailty was evaluated using the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL) GA, which classifies patients as fit, unfit, or frail. The VES-13 was assessed both continuously and by categorizing patients as vulnerable (score ≥3). Using logistic regression controlling for covariates, we examined the association of VES-13 with grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicity (toxicity), unplanned hospitalization within 6 months of treatment initiation, decline in quality of life (QoL) 1 year after therapy initiation, and death within 1 year of treatment initiation. In addition, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of both the VES-13 and the FIL GA in identifying patients at risk for these outcomes. Results: The median patient age was 73 years (range, 64–99 years), with 42% aged ≥75 years. GA classified 40% of patients as fit, 10% as unfit, and 51% as frail, while 46% of patients had a VES-13 score ≥3, indicating vulnerability. VES-13 score was significantly associated with toxicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; P =.026), unplanned hospitalization (OR, 1.16; P =.043), QoL decline at 1 year (OR, 1.22; P =.027), and death within 1 year (OR, 1.49; P =.010). Using the VES-13 to define vulnerability (score ≥3), sensitivity and specificity were 59% and 61% for predicting toxicity, and 100% and 59% for predicting death within 1 year, respectively. FIL GA frailty had a sensitivity of 63% and specificity of 56% for predicting toxicity, and 100% sensitivity and 54% specificity for predicting death within 1 year. Conclusions: We found that VES-13 score was associated with survival, toxicity, health care utilization, and QoL decline, demonstrating similar sensitivity and specificity to the FIL GA. These findings underscore the potential utility of VES-13 as a screening instrument to identify older patients with aNHL at risk for adverse clinical outcomes.

Abstract Background: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is a leading cause of non-relapse mortality following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Further investigation is needed to understand cGVHD risk, diagnostic features, and outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important for characterizing the direct and indirect impact of cGVHD on patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system. THRIVE (NCT05919511) is a prospective, longitudinal observational study of patients at risk for cGVHD to describe the clinical course, burden, and practice patterns for cGVHD. THRIVE uses a novel app-based platform designed for rigorous collection of PROs related to symptoms, quality of life, and indirect costs to the healthcare system. We report preliminary patient demographics and clinical characteristics at study enrollment. Methods: THRIVE includes adults aged ≥18 years in the United States who were enrolled 90–180 days after allo-HCT. Follow-up is for 36 months at intervals determined by clinician standard practice; a virtual site is available for patients who return to community sites for follow-up. Presence or absence of GVHD symptoms, cGVHD therapies when applicable, and adverse events are captured in medical records at clinical visits every ~3 months. In all, 13 PROs are assessed (Cutaneous GVHD Questionnaire [CuGQ], General Anxiety Disorder [GAD-7], Lee Total Symptom Scale [TSS; 7-day], modified Frenchay Activities Index [mFAI], modified Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment [mPG-SGA], Oral Health Impact Profile [OHIP-14], Ocular Surface Disease Index [OSDI-12], Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], Patient-Reported Baseline Data [PRBD], Patient-Reported Caregiver Assessment [PRCA], Patient-Reported Economic, Income, and Insurance Data [PREIID], Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System–Sexual Function [PROMIS-SF], and Pulmonary GVHD Questionnaire [PulmGQ]). Patients are randomized to sequence groups to complete rotating sets of 4–5 PRO measures via digital platform, monthly (Year 1) then every 2 months (Years 2–3). Recruitment is ongoing (target, 1500 patients). Results: This interim report includes the first 340 patients enrolled in THRIVE (data cutoff: June 17, 2025) at 22 sites across the United States since August 1, 2023. Median (range) age was 60.5 (19–83) years (>70 years, n=60 [18%]). Most patients were male (n=190, 56%), White (n=276, 81%), and had college/graduate education (n=219, 64%). Underlying disease was malignant in 328 (96%) patients; most common malignancies requiring allo-HCT were acute myeloid leukemia (n=129, 38%), myelodysplastic syndrome (n=50, 15%), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (n=37, 11%). Most patients (n=212, 62%) were in complete remission at time of allo-HCT, 282 (83%) enrolled after their first allo-HCT, and median (range) time from allo-HCT to enrollment was 111 (77–211) days. Transplant source was most commonly peripheral blood stem cells (n=272, 80%) from unrelated (n=229, 67%) donors, of whom 169 (50%) were male. Overall, 188 (55%) patients had human leukocyte antigen identical HCT, 72 (21%) had mismatched HCT, and 55 (16%) had haploidentical HCT. Conditioning regimens were myeloablative for 177 (34%) patients, reduced intensity for 164 (48%), and non-myeloablative for 16 (5%). At data cutoff, 296 (87%) patients were continuing in THRIVE; 18/44 (41%) patients who discontinued were alive at discontinuation. There were 107 patients (31%) who developed acute GVHD before enrollment (grade I, n=52; grade II, n=35; grade III, n=9; grade IV, n=0; missing/unknown, n=11); 85 (79%) received systemic treatment for acute GVHD. Overall, 28 (8%) patients had cGVHD at enrollment (mild, n=25; moderate/severe, n=3). Organs affected by cGVHD were skin (n=13), eyes (n=4), and gastrointestinal tract (n=3). Conclusions: THRIVE aims to report on clinical practice for managing risk and treatment of cGVHD after allo-HCT in a prospective cohort of ~1500 patients in the United States for ≤3 years. Although real-world assessment of PROs can be associated with challenges including willingness to participate in an observational study and the collection of data without routine clinical visits, the virtual hybrid design is intended to improve patient access and facilitate data collection. In the 22 months since initiation, 340 patients have been enrolled at 22 sites, and the discontinuation rate is low.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) provide expert, multidisciplinary recommendations for autologous and allogeneic HCT based on current evidence. The NCCN Guidelines focus on pretransplant recipient evaluation, hematopoietic cell mobilization, conditioning, and the diagnosis and management of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a common complication of allogeneic HCT that is associated with significant morbidity. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for HCT focuses on the diagnosis, workup, and management of acute and chronic GVHD, as well as important supportive care considerations.

1649 Background: Findings from our prior large-scale comparative effectiveness trial showed the equivalent effect of delivering early palliative care via video versus in-person on quality of life among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We now report on whether the two care delivery modalities were equivalent with respect to patient-reported communication with clinicians about their end-of-life (EOL) care preferences and hospice utilization. Methods: Between 6/14/2018 and 5/4/2023, we enrolled 1250 patients with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC in a randomized trial of early palliative care across 22 US cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to meet with a palliative care clinician every 4 weeks from enrollment through the course of the disease, either via video or in the outpatient clinic. Participants completed self-report surveys at baseline and weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48, including an item asking if they had discussed with their clinicians the care they would want to receive if dying (yes/no); patients’ final assessments prior to death or last follow up were analyzed. We reviewed patients’ health records to collect data on hospice referral and length of stay. To test the equivalence in these outcomes, we used a binomial generalized linear model with the identity link function (pre-specified equivalence margin of ±8% for patient-reported communication about EOL care) and linear regression (pre-specified equivalence margin of ±6 days for mean length of stay in hospice). P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Results: Of the 1250 enrolled participants, 888 (71.0%) completed at least one survey post baseline regarding whether they communicated with clinicians about EOL care preferences. Among those, 29.1% of the video group and 26.0% of the in-person group reported “yes,” indicating that they recalled such EOL care discussions (difference = 3.1%, 95% CI: -1.8%, 8.1%; p = 0.26 for equivalence). During the course of the trial, 733/1250 (58.6%) patients died, of whom 537/733 (73.3%) were referred to hospice. Mean lengths of hospice stay were 25.3 days for the video group versus 25.1 days for the in-person group (difference = 0.2, 95% CI: -7.0, 7.4; p = 0.46 for equivalence). When excluding outlying patients receiving hospice services > 180 days (n = 13), the mean lengths of hospice stay were 19.1 (video group) versus 19.7 (in-person group) days (difference = -0.6, 95% CI: -4.6, 3.3; p = 0.06 for equivalence). Conclusions: Although thresholds were not met to confirm equivalence statistically, the two modalities for delivering early palliative care demonstrate very similar outcomes with respect to patient-clinician communication about EOL care and hospice utilization. These findings provide further evidence of the utility of video visits for providing high quality palliative and EOL care. Clinical trial information: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier ( NCT03375489 ) .

Importance Many older adults with advanced cancer never communicate goals of care or treatment preferences to their clinicians, raising the risk that care received will not match their values. Scalable models of care may help surmount this barrier. Objective To test whether a combined patient and clinician intervention increased the rate of advance care planning (ACP) documentation in large health care systems. Design, Setting, and Participants This stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial using an open cohort design included patients aged 65 years or older with advanced cancer seen at oncology clinics in 3 health care systems located in the US South, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions from April 1, 2020, to November 30, 2022. Data collection ended in 2024. Intervention The intervention involved delivering brief evidence-based patient-facing video decision aids available in 25 languages as well as goals-of-care communication training to oncology clinicians. Patients in the control period received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was ACP documentation, which included any electronic health record documentation of a goals-of-care conversation, palliative care, hospice, or limitation of life-sustaining treatments, identified via a validated natural language processing program. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results Twenty-nine practices, comprising 13 800 unique eligible patients with a total of 29 357 repeated measurements, were included (mean [SD] age, 74.5 [6.6] years; 52.3% men [15 344 of 29 357 measurements]). The proportion of patients with ACP documentation was greater in the intervention phase compared with the usual care phase (adjusted rate difference, 6.8% [95% CI, 2.8%-10.8%]; P < .001). ACP documentation in the intervention phase occurred among 3980 of 15 754 patients (25.3%) (goals-of-care conversation, 21.4% [3377 of 15 754]; palliative care, 9.6% [1517 of 15 754]; hospice, 5.4% [847 of 15 754]; and limitation of life-sustaining treatments, 7.2% [1128 of 15 754]). In comparison, ACP documentation in the usual care phase occurred among 2834 of 13 603 patients (20.8%) (goals-of-care conversation, 16.8% [2281 of 13 603]; palliative care, 9.5% [1287 of 13 603]; hospice, 5.3% [724 of 13 603]; and limitation of life-sustaining treatments, 8.4% [1149 of 13 603]). Conclusions and Relevance In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial for older adults with advanced cancer, a bundled evidence-based decision aid and communication training intervention increased the proportion of older patients with ACP documentation. This approach offers an innovative paradigm with a clinically meaningful increase in ACP documentation, a widely used quality metric that reflects high-quality patient-centered care delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03609177

Importance Numerous studies show that early palliative care improves quality of life and other key outcomes in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, although most lack access to this evidence-based model of care. Objective To evaluate whether delivering early palliative care via secure video vs in-person visits has an equivalent effect on quality of life in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, multisite, comparative effectiveness trial from June 14, 2018, to May 4, 2023, at 22 US cancer centers among 1250 patients within 12 weeks of diagnosis of advanced NSCLC and 548 caregivers. Intervention Participants were randomized to meet with a specialty-trained palliative care clinician every 4 weeks either via video visit or in person in the outpatient clinic from the time of enrollment and throughout the course of disease. The video visit group had an initial in-person visit to establish rapport, followed by subsequent virtual visits. Main Outcomes and Measures Equivalence of the effect of video visit vs in-person early palliative care on quality of life at week 24 per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire (equivalence margin of ±4 points; score range: 0-136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life). Participants completed study questionnaires at enrollment and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. Results By 24 weeks, participants (mean age, 65.5 years; 54.0% women; 82.7% White) had a mean of 4.7 (video) and 4.9 (in-person) early palliative care encounters. Patient-reported quality-of-life scores were equivalent between groups (video mean, 99.7 vs in-person mean, 97.7; difference, 2.0 [90% CI, 0.1-3.9]; P = .04 for equivalence). Rate of caregiver participation in visits was lower for video vs in-person early palliative care (36.6% vs 49.7%; P < .001). Study groups did not differ in caregiver quality of life, patient coping, or patient and caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, or prognostic perceptions. Conclusions and Relevance The delivery of early palliative care virtually vs in person demonstrated equivalent effects on quality of life in patients with advanced NSCLC, underscoring the considerable potential for improving access to this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03375489

LBA3 Background: National guidelines recommend the early integration of palliative and oncology care for patients with advanced cancer, given robust evidence showing that this care model improves quality of life (QOL) and other important outcomes. However, most patients do not receive early palliative care (EPC) in the outpatient setting due to limited access and resources. To overcome these barriers, we conducted a large-scale comparative effectiveness trial of EPC delivered via secure video versus in person among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and their caregivers. Methods: Between 6/14/2018 and 5/4/2023, we enrolled 1250 patients with advanced NSCLC, diagnosed in the past 12 weeks, into a randomized trial of telehealth versus in-person EPC across 22 cancer centers in the US. Patients were randomly assigned to meet with a palliative care clinician every four weeks from enrollment through the course of disease either via video or in the outpatient clinic. Participants completed self-report measures at baseline and weeks 12 and 24. The primary aim was to evaluate the equivalence of the effect of telehealth versus in-person EPC on QOL at week 24, using regression modeling with an equivalence margin of ±4 points on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L, range = 0-136). We also compared rates of caregiver participation in EPC visits and patient-reported depression and anxiety symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), coping (Brief COPE), and perceptions of prognosis (Perceptions of Treatment and Prognosis Questionnaire) between groups. Study recruitment ceased for two months at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Participants (mean age = 65.5 years; 54.0% female; 82.1% White) had a mean of 4.75 and 4.92 palliative care encounters by week 24 in the telehealth and in-person groups, respectively. Due to the pandemic, the in-person group had 3.9% of visits occur via video. QOL scores at week 24 for patients assigned to the telehealth group were equivalent to those receiving in-person EPC (adjusted means: 99.67 versus 97.67, p < 0.043 for equivalence). The rate of caregiver participation in EPC visits was lower in the telehealth versus in-person group (36.6% versus 49.7%, p < 0.0001). Study groups did not differ in depression and anxiety symptoms, use of coping skills, or perceptions of the goal of treatment and curability of their cancer. Conclusions: The delivery of EPC via video versus in-person visits demonstrated equivalent effects on QOL in patients with advanced NSCLC. The two modalities also did not differ across a range of patient-reported outcomes, though caregivers attended more in-person versus video visits. The findings underscore the considerable potential for improving access to and broader dissemination of this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Clinical trial information: NCT03375489 .

Background and Significance: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) is a curative immunotherapy for patients with hematologic disorders. However, graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) is a major limitation to the success of alloHCT, with chronic GVHD (cGVHD) as the leading cause of morbidity and mortality. The pleomorphic nature of cGVHD makes the diagnosis and patient management challenging for clinicians; thus, patient-reported symptoms often guide in diagnosing and determining the severity of cGVHD. Our current understanding of cGVHD is largely based on data from registries, single-institution prospective studies, and the cGVHD Consortium with representation from tertiary care academic centers. Prospective studies including patient-reported outcomes and a focus on a more representative and generalizable sample of patients with cGVHD are needed to better understand cGVHD symptoms, disease burden, and practice patterns for management. This trial in progress focuses on broad patient-centered assessment of post-alloHCT medical and psychosocial complications and patient-reported caregiver involvement in a diverse and contemporary patient population. This study uses multiple organ- or system-directed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to help identify cGVHD symptoms, severity, and impact on patient quality of life including financial impact. The primary objective of THRIVE is to assess the clinical course and burden of cGVHD, including diagnosis and severity recorded in electronic case report forms (eCRFs) and PROMs. Secondary objectives include measuring healthcare resource utilization and patient economic and employment impact associated with cGVHD management, as well as patient-reported organ-specific symptoms. Study Design and Methods: THRIVE is a prospective, longitudinal, observational study (NCT05919511) of alloHCT recipients in the United States that uses a hybrid model designed to work with HCT centers and a virtual platform. Eligible patients are ≥18 years old, received alloHCT 90-180 days before enrollment, and are able to complete patient-assessment questionnaires provided in their preferred language either alone or with minimal caregiver assistance. Up to 1500 alloHCT recipients will be recruited at HCT sites (with the expectation that ~500 will have cGVHD symptoms at enrollment; ~500 are estimated to develop cGVHD during the course of the study; ~500 are estimated not to develop cGVHD during the study; Figure). Patients have the option to participate on a virtual platform. Patients will be followed for 36 months from date of enrollment or until the earliest of study termination, withdrawal, or death. Data from 13 PROMs (Table) divided into 3 groups will be collected every 3 months using a decentralized virtual platform. To reduce survey burden, patients will be randomized into 1 of 6 sequence groups to capture 4-5 PROMs per month in year 1 and every 2 months in years 2 and 3. Clinical data, including medications and adverse events, will be collected and abstracted into eCRFs every 3 months. In general, reporting of results will be descriptive for variables of interest. Summary statistics for continuous variables and for categorical variables will be calculated for all patients as well as for subgroups of interest. Whenever applicable, 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for endpoint estimates. Univariate, multivariate, or repeated-measurement analyses will be performed to assess factors associated with evolution of clinical manifestations of and complications from cGVHD. Recruitment for this study is ongoing.

Abstract Palliative care (PC) benefits patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but it remains underutilized. Although transplant physicians report concerns regarding how patients perceive PC, HSCT recipients’ perceptions about PC remain unaddressed. We conducted a multisite, cross-sectional survey of autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients 3 to 12 months after transplant to assess their familiarity, knowledge, and perception of PC, as well as their unmet PC needs. We computed a composite score of patients’ perceptions of PC and used a generalized linear regression model to examine factors associated with these perceptions. We enrolled 69.6% (250/359) of potential participants (median age = 58.1; 63.1% autologous HSCT). Overall, 44.3.8% (109/249) reported limited knowledge about PC and 52% (127/245) endorsed familiarity with PC. Most patients felt hopeful (54%) and reassured (50%) when they heard the term PC; 83% saw referral as a sign their doctor cared about what was happening to them. In multivariate analyses, patients who were more knowledgeable about PC were more likely to have positive perceptions of PC (B = 7.54, standard error = 1.61, P &lt; .001). Patients’ demographics, HSCT features, quality of life, and symptom burden were not significantly associated with perceptions of PC. HSCT recipients have positive perceptions of PC, though many have limited knowledge about its role. Patients who were more knowledgeable about PC were more likely to have positive perceptions of PC. These data do not support transplant physicians’ negative concerns about how patients perceive PC and underscore the need to further educate patients and transplant physicians about PC.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) provide an evidence- and consensus-based approach for the use of autologous and allogeneic HCT in the management of malignant diseases in adult patients. HCT is a potentially curative treatment option for patients with certain types of malignancies; however, recurrent malignancy and transplant-related complications often limit the long-term survival of HCT recipients. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance regarding aspects of HCT, including pretransplant recipient evaluation, hematopoietic cell mobilization, and treatment of graft-versus-host disease—a major complication of allogeneic HCT—to enable the patient and clinician to assess management options in the context of an individual patient’s condition. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of the important recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for HCT, including the incorporation of a newly developed section on the Principles of Conditioning for HCT.