Mougalian, Sarah S.

Background: Physical function (PF) is an important outcome that can inform cancer treatment tolerability from a clinical and regulatory perspective. PF can be assessed through different modalities: patient-reported (PRO), clinician-reported (ClinRo), performance tests (PerfO), and digital sensors (wearables). No standard approach for PF measurement has been defined, and each modality bears unique implementation challenges. The Integrating 4 Measures to Assess Physical Function study (In4M, NCT05214144) characterized the performance of these PF modalities in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, with a goal of guiding an assessment strategy in future cancer trials. Here we present feasibility results of the In4M study in patients with lymphoma. Methods: In4M is a prospective observational study with longitudinal PF assessment of PROs, ClinRo, PerfO, and wearable sensor data for over 9 months in patients initiating chemotherapy for lymphoma or breast cancer at Mayo Clinic and Yale University. Patient-reported PF was assessed using several validated ePRO instruments, ClinRo utilized clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, PerfO was measured via 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and digital sensor data was obtained from a wearable (Fitbit) provided to all participants. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing these PF modalities through compliance outcomes and a study-specific exit survey. Descriptive statistics included medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. We used a mixed model to estimate mean number of Fitbit compliant days per week. Results: Among 66 patients with lymphoma in the study (median age was 57 years; 52% were male), 90% self-reported as White, 4.9% as Black, 1.6% as Asian, 1.6% as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.6% as multiple races. Ethnicity was reported as non-Hispanic/Latino by 93% of patients. Education status was reported as more than high school by 92% of patients, and 49% reported full-time employment at time of enrollment. The overall ePROs completion rate was 80.7% for the entire study period. Baseline ePRO completion rate was 93.9%. Completion rate while undergoing chemotherapy was 91.3% and 75.4% in the post-treatment follow-up. The median time to complete ePROs was 4.1 minutes (IQR 2.8-5.9), ranging from 3.1 minutes for surveys with 37 questions to 5.6 minutes for surveys with 55 questions (survey length varied by timepoint). The baseline 6MWT was completed by 91% of patients. The most common reasons for not completing the baseline 6MWT were: patient refusal (50%, 3/6), patient not physically present (33%, 2/6), and unable to complete due to fatigue (17%, 1/6). The 3-month 6MWT was completed by 66% (40/61) of patients, with the most common reasons for missingness being: patient not physically present (38%, 8/21) and unable to complete due to fatigue (14%, 3/21). When considering the days when Fitbit was used, the median wear time was 21.3 hours (IQR 18.9-22.5) per day. The proportion of compliant days (>10 hours of wear time during waking hours) was 53% (IQR 20-84). The median of participants' average compliant days per week was 5.4 (IQR 4.3-6.1) days/week after enrollment, with a slight downward trend over time (-0.017 compliant days per week [95% CI: -0.021, -0.012, p <0.001] over each consecutive week in the study). The exit survey was completed by 39 (59%) patients. Most participants (85%) indicated they did not find the ePRO surveys burdensome to complete. Using the Fitbit (charging and syncing) was found to be manageable by most patients (87% and 84%, respectively). 60.8% of patients did not find the wearable bothersome to use, while the main themes reported by the remaining patients were related to the operation of the wearable itself (functions, small text size, forgetting login information) or discomfort (band material, wearing at night). Conclusion: Multi-modal assessment of PF with PRO, ClinRo, PerfO and wearable sensor data in patients with lymphoma undergoing treatment is feasible. Designing lymphoma therapeutic trials that incorporate at least one PF assessment modality, or assessment with a parsimonious combination of modalities, is achievable and may yield valuable insights into treatment tolerability for clinical and regulatory purposes.

1564 Background: Physical function (PF) is a core outcome in cancer trials that can inform treatment tolerability. PF can be assessed across modalities including by patient (pt) report, clinician (clin) report, performance tests and digital sensors. The optimal approach for PF measurement has not been defined. Methods: In4M is a prospective observational study evaluating PF in pts initiating chemotherapy for breast cancer or lymphoma followed over 9 months. We used an electronic platform (Hugo) to aggregate serially assessed pt-reported PF, clin- and pt-reported ECOG performance status (PS), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and wearable (Fitbit) data. We evaluated feasibility in all pts; associations among PF measures and the ability of PF measures to detect change were evaluated in pts with both baseline (BL) and 3-month (3M) data. We used Pearson correlations to assess the relationship of average daily steps with measures of PF. To assess change, we compared each PF measure from BL to 3M using a 2-sided α=.05 paired t-test. Results: Of the208 pts enrolled, 193 (93%) and 159 (76%) completed surveys, and 121 (58%) and 124 (60%) provided wearable data (evaluable: ≥1 day data) at BL and 3M, respectively. When requiring a stringent BL with 4+ days of data with ≥1 weekend day to be evaluable, 88 (42%) and 120 (58%) provided wearable data at BL and 3M. At both BL and 3M, pt-reported PF was generally more highly correlated with wearable-derived daily steps than clin-reported PF and 6MWT were (Table). Significant declines in PF were observed for pt- and clin-reported PF (all p<0.05), but not other modalities. Conclusions: Longitudinalassessment of multi-modal PF data including pragmatic wearable data collection was feasible in pts receiving chemotherapy. Pt-reported PF was the only modality that was both correlated with step count and able to detect change. Additional wearable metrics, correlations among PF measurements and outcomes, and clinically meaningful change scores will be reported. Optimal PF measurement may improve future reporting of treatment tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT05214144 . [Table: see text]

6531 Background: Annual mammography is recommended to screen residual breast tissue for new cancers and recurrent disease after treatment for early stage breast cancer. This study aimed to assess mammography rates over time in breast cancer survivors. Methods: We used administrative claims data from a large U.S. commercial insurance database, OptumLabs, to retrospectively identify privately- and Medicare Advantage-insured women with operable breast cancer who had residual breast tissue after definitive breast surgery between 2006 and 2015. We required coverage for at least 13 months following surgery. For each subsequent 13-month time period, we only included women without a loss of coverage, bilateral mastectomy, metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, or non-breast cancer diagnosis. We calculated the proportion of patients who had a mammogram during each 13-month period following breast surgery. We used multivariable logistic regression to test for factors associated with mammography in the first 13 months. Results: The cohort included 26,011 women followed for a median of 2.9 years (IQR 1.9-4.6) after surgery; 63.1% were less than 65 years of age, and 74.4% were white. In their first year of follow-up, 86% underwent mammography, but by year 7, this decreased to 73%. Fewer than 1% underwent MRI instead of mammography. In multivariable analysis, mammograms were less likely during the first year after surgery among women aged < 50 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 0.8), African Americans (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.7 to 0.8), patients who underwent mastectomy (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.7), and patients residing in the Western part of the country (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7 to 0.9). Those with 1-2 comorbidities were more likely (OR, 1.1; 95% CI 1.1-1.2) than those with none to have a mammogram during that period. Mammography use did not differ significantly by year of diagnosis (2006-2015). Conclusions: Even in an insured cohort, a substantial proportion of breast cancer survivors do not undergo annual surveillance mammography. Mammography use falls as the time from the early stage breast cancer diagnosis increases. Understanding factors associated with lack of mammographic screening may help improve survivorship care.