Citations

Abstract Rural and low-socioeconomic status women face social determinants of health barriers leading to disproportionately low rates of breast cancer screening and markedly reduced participation in clinical trials. To address this gap, we developed the WeCARE (Women’s Engagement for Cancer Awareness, Resources, and Education) intervention using a community-engaged approach. This paper describes how Community Advisory Board feedback informed the development of Mayo Clinic Health System’s WeCARE intervention components. Their input was systematically analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) to identify determinants of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility and to guide actionable refinements to intervention content and delivery.

Importance Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) aim to increase trial access for underrepresented populations (URP) and ensure study outcomes, conclusions, and policy-related decisions are applicable to diverse populations. Objective To assess trends in the percentage of accrued participants from more than 120 miles from the research site upon DCT program implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants This descriptive quality improvement study was conducted from January 2024 to March 2025 at Mayo Clinic, a US multiregional, academic medical center (AMC) comprising 3 sites and an affiliated, community-based health care system. All individuals who consented and/or accrued to an institutional review board–approved clinical trial were included. Exposure DCTs are defined as trials with at least 1 decentralized capability beyond remote consent. DCT program development began July 2022. By January 2024, remote consent, video telehealth visits, remote phlebotomy, and device services were implemented across all sites and departments. Remote monitoring and oral medication delivery were available on a limited basis. Prospective automated program and DCT participant data collection and quarterly reporting began in January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures Percentage of all DCT accrued participants with a residential zip code more than 120 miles from 1 of 3 AMC sites. Results There were 7469 participants (median [IQR] age, 62 [51-70] years; 3594 [48.1%] female; 241 [3.2%] Asian, 391 [5.2%] Black or African American, and 6347 [85.0%] White individuals) accrued to 765 DCTs. During the study period, the percentage of DCT participants residing more than 120 miles from an AMC site ranged from 18.9% in the first quarter (Q1) of 2024 (383 of 2032 participants) to 29.6% in Q1 of 2025 (346 of 1170 participants). Of those accrued, 1147 (15.4%) were of a racial or ethnic URP, ranging from 12.5% in Q1 of 2024 (253 participants) to 17.4% in Q1 of 2025 (204 participants). There were 1554 (20.8%) participants from a rural location, ranging from 16.6% in Q1 of 2024 (338 participants) to 24.9% in Q1 of 2025 (291 participants). Additionally, by geospatial distance from an AMC site, the male-to-female ratio was nearly 50:50, and the age distribution appeared similar. Conclusions and Relevance In this quality improvement study of a DCT program implementation, DCT accruals trended favorably among those residing more than 120 miles from an AMC site and those of rural or URP populations. While these findings cannot be directly attributed to program implementation, they are reassuring that this strategy may address some barriers to clinical trial access. Future studies should assess the sustained effectiveness and scalability of DCT models in improving equitable trial access.

Introduction Women residing in rural areas or belonging to lower socioeconomic status (SES) strata experience disproportionately low rates of breast cancer screening, contributing to delayed diagnoses and poorer prognoses. In addition, their participation in clinical trials remains markedly limited, reducing opportunities to access preventive and screening interventions. Promoting research preparedness among women before disease onset may empower them to make informed decisions regarding their health and willingness to participate in clinical research with fewer emotional and logistical barriers. Methods and analysis This project applies a community-based participatory research approach to develop and refine the WeCARE (Women’s Engagement for Cancer Awareness, Resources and Education) intervention for women aged 50–74 years who have either never undergone breast cancer screening or have not received screening in the past 5 years and who reside in rural areas or belong to low SES groups. The intervention consists of two components. Component 1 is a single-day, in-person community forum that includes (a) an educational seminar led by an oncologist to address breast cancer risk and screening guidelines, (b) survivor storytelling to enhance emotional engagement and cultural resonance and (c) facilitated navigation to breast cancer screening and future research participation. Component 2 involves structured post-forum follow-up through multiple touchpoints (phone calls and mailed boosters) to reinforce knowledge, address barriers and support screening completion and research enrolment. Quantitative data (eg, screening completion, satisfaction and follow-up engagement) will be summarised using descriptive statistics to assess feasibility and reach on 50 participants. Qualitative feedback from participants will undergo thematic analysis to identify barriers, facilitators and perceived cultural relevance. Integrated mixed-method interpretation will inform iterative refinement of the WeCARE intervention and guide design of subsequent larger trials. Ethics and dissemination Approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB #25–008934). All participants will provide informed consent. Procedures ensure confidentiality, cultural sensitivity and participant safety. Data will be stored in REDCap and disseminated through publications, conferences, local town halls and community reports.

TPS650 Background: The TAILORx and RxPONDER trials showed that recurrence score (RS) identifies many postmenopausal pts who do not benefit from addition of ACT to endocrine therapy (ET); however, RS also identifies subsets who do benefit (node-neg/high clinical risk/RS 16-20, node-neg/RS 21-25, and node-pos/RS ≤25). Most premenopausal pts in these trials did not receive ovarian function suppression (OFS) as part of their ET regimen. Given the observed benefit from OFS in high-risk premenopausal pts with HR+/HER2– BC in SOFT/TEXT, we question whether the ACT benefit in TAILORx/RxPONDER was due to chemotherapy-induced OFS. To address this, we developed OFSET, a phase III clinical trial comparing OFS+ET to ACT+OFS+ET. Methods: We hypothesize that addition of ACT to OFS+ET is superior to OFS+ET in improving invasive breast cancer-free survival (IBCFS) among premenopausal pts with early-stage HR+/HER2– tumors, and a 21-gene RS between 16-25 (for pN0 pts) and 0-25 (for pN1 pts). Secondary objectives include invasive disease-free survival, overall survival, distant recurrence-free interval, breast cancer-free interval, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Pts must be node-neg with RS 16-20 (plus high clinical risk), RS 21-25, or have 1-3 positive nodes with RS ≤25. Stratification is by nodal status/RS status (pN0 RS 16-25; pN1 RS 0-15; pN1 RS 16-25), intent to receive CDK4/6 inhibitor (yes; no), and age (18-39; ≥40). Pts are randomized after surgery to either OFS+ET or ACT+OFS+ET. ET is an aromatase inhibitor (AI) per physician discretion; or tamoxifen if AI is not tolerated or if OFS is incomplete. Radiotherapy will be administered per protocol guidelines. An HRQOL sub-study will assess severe menopausal symptoms (measured by FACT ESS-19) and pain severity (PROMIS) between arms. Blood and tumor specimens will be collected for future research. We anticipate accrual of 3,960 pts in 7 yrs, 7 mos. Per NSABP B-28/RxPONDER data, 5-yr IBCFS of pN1 pts on the ACT+OFS+ET arm is estimated at 92.3%. Per TAILORx data, 5-yr IBCFS of pN0 pts on the ACT arm is ~95%. Assuming 56% of pts to be pN0 and 44% pN1, and a 0.5% annual loss-to-follow-up rate, the definitive analyses to detect a hazard ratio: 0.75 with ACT+OFS+ET v OFS+ET, with 1-sided α of 0.025 and 80% power, will require 380 IBCFS events, expected to occur ~11 yrs after study initiation. Accrual is 496/3,960 (from 8/2023 to 1/2026). NCT #: NCT05879926. Clinical trial information: NCT05879926 .

1633 Background: CAR-T cell therapy has transformed outcomes of hematologic malignancies and is poised to expand into solid malignancies. However, broader use of CAR-T remains constrained by the need for timely cytokine release syndrome (CRS) detection. Current episodic monitoring may miss early physiologic changes. Wearable digital health technologies (DHTs), offering continuous monitoring and real-time alerts, could enable earlier CRS detection, further support outpatient delivery, and expand access to CAR-T and potentially other immunotherapies associated with CRS. Methods: This single-center observational study (NCT05018208) enrolled patients receiving FDA-approved CAR-T products in the outpatient setting at Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN. Management of post-CAR-T complications (e.g. CRS) followed the institution’s standard of care. Patients were monitored from day -5 to day +30 post infusion with intermittent remote patient monitoring (SoC) and an arm-worn wearable device for continuous monitoring (DHT). Patients were included in this analysis if DHT data were available for ≥ 5h of data/day or ≥ 2h of data/night on ≥2 days or nights for baseline and ≥1 day or night within 72h prior to CRS, or at least 2h within 4h of CRS onset, or if DHT was available for ≥7 days/nights post infusion with no CRS event. CRS detection time by DHT was defined as the onset of pyrexia or threshold-based deviation from an individual’s baseline pulse distributions. Results: 32 patients were included in this report (median age 64 years, gender 12 F/20 M, diagnoses 18 MM/14 NHL). 25 patients experienced a CRS event, with maximum CRS grades ranging from 1-3 (16 G1, 8 G2, 1 G3). 24/25 patients with CRS required tocilizumab/steroid. Median CRS onset time was 3.4 days (range 0.4-18.4). 12/32 patients had sufficient DHT data (7 CRS, 5 no CRS) for analysis. 5 patients with CRS had a DHT detection time in advance of the SoC by a median of 13h (range 2.8 - 69.2). The DHT prediction of CRS by baseline HR change was earlier than the first episodic fever by a median of 14.5h (range 13-77.5). The remaining 2/7 patients who did not have CRS detected by the DHT had missing DHT data for more than 45h before a treated CRS event. DHT detected CRS in 2/5 patients without CRS according to SoC. One patient had fever caught with intermittent monitoring. The other was treated for neutropenia fever with suspicion of CRS and/or infection. Conclusions: These results offer evidence that continuous DHT can identify CRS events earlier than intermittent monitoring (SoC). Despite limitations related to compliance with wearable device use and data missingness, and variability in clinical management of CRS, we highlight the usability of DHT and its potential for future studies with optimized strategies to address these limitations. Clinical trial information: NCT05018208 .

1503 Background: CAR T-cell therapy has revolutionized treatment outcomes in hematological malignancies, but has traditionally required inpatient post-infusion monitoring, which is associated with significant cost and time toxicity. Outpatient CAR T infusion and monitoring has been the standard approach at Mayo Clinic site in Rochester, MN, with demonstrated feasibility and safety (Bansal et al., ASCO 2023). We present data comparing healthcare utilization between CAR T recipients who underwent outpatient remote monitoring and those with traditional inpatient monitoring. Methods: Electronic medical records were retrospectively analyzed for 293 patients who received CAR T-cell therapy for a hematological malignancy at any of the 3 Mayo Clinic sites (MN, AZ, FL) between 2020 and 2024 . Healthcare utilization was compared between patients who received outpatient CAR T with remote patient monitoring in Rochester, MN (N = 125) and those who received inpatient CAR T in the Arizona (n = 90) and Florida (n = 78) sites. Per protocol, patients in the inpatient group underwent mandatory inpatient monitoring for 7 days, with extension per provider discretion. Data was analyzed through Chi-Square and Wilcoxon tests. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: There was no significant difference in baseline sex, age, ethnicity, LDH, platelets, or neutrophils among the 293 patients. Diagnoses included lymphoma (n = 175), multiple myeloma (n = 106), and B-ALL (n = 12). The most common CAR T-cell products used were axicabtagene ciloleucel (n = 138) idecabtagene vicleucel (n = 56), and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (n = 50). Median hospital days were lower in the outpatient group vs the inpatient group at 30 days (4.4 vs 13.3, P < 0.001) and 90 days (4.6 vs 13.6, P < 0.001). ICU admission occurred in 1 outpatient patient ( < 1%) vs 18 inpatient patients (11%) in the first 30 days (P < 0.001). In the first 30 days, 22% of patients in the outpatient group did not require hospitalization, while 56%, 15%, and 6% required 1, 2, and 3 hospitalizations, respectively. Similarly, only 11 (8.8%) patients in the outpatient group had ≥1 ED visit in the first 30 days compared with 32 (20%) pts in the inpatient group (P = 0.009). At 30 days, there was no difference in patient portal use, with 58% of patients using the portal at least once and a median of 1 message in both groups. Within the first 30 days, 53% and 2% of patients in the outpatient group required 1 and 2 outpatient visits, respectively, vs 29% and 2% in the inpatient group (P < 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (1.6% outpatient vs 2.4% in inpatient) between the 2 groups (P = 1.00) Conclusions: Outpatient CAR T-cell therapy monitoring was associated with significantly fewer hospital days without increased ED visits, ICU stays, portal use, or 30-day mortality. This demonstrates lower healthcare utilization for outpatient CAR-T therapy.

Abstract Background: Accurate staging is essential for treatment selection, prognosis assessment, and trial eligibility. While prior studies attempted automating pathological (p) staging, few address clinical (c) staging and no studies have compared LLM-derived staging with clinician staging during clinical visit and retrospective cancer registry staging. Methods: We developed a multi-agent framework using Gemini-2.0-Flash-001 and GPT-5 to (1) identify reports (2) extract key data, and (3) apply AJCC 8th edition staging criteria. LLM staging was compared with clinician documentation and registry staging in breast cancer patients. Clinician-registry agreement served as the reference standard. Two independent breast oncologists reviewed discordant cases. Results: We analyzed 122 randomly selected breast cancer patients across all three Mayo Clinic sites from 2018 - 2023. LLM performance matched or exceeded human inter-rater agreement for pathological staging (95-99.2% vs. 95-98.4%). Clinical staging was more challenging, with LLM concordance of 73-77.9% for cT and 87-89.3% for cN versus 87.8% and 91.0% clinician-registry agreement. Among 89 patients with clinician-registry concordance, LLM concordance was 98.9% for pT/pN, 79.8% for cT, and 91.0% for cN. Experts favored LLM staging in 27.8% (5/18) of cT and 25.0% (2/8) of cN discordances. Error analysis revealed LLM challenges in handling non-mass enhancements (6 cases), selecting radiologic measurements (2 cases), identifying discrete masses (2 cases), and miscellaneous (3 cases). Conclusion: LLMs achieved human-level performance for pathological staging (98%), supporting human-in-the-loop deployment. For clinical staging (79.8% cT, 91.0% cN), future work must enhance multimodal reasoning and integrate physical examination data. Prospective validation is needed to assess real-world impact. With targeted refinements and oversight, automated staging can transform registry workflows while augmenting clinical decision-making. Citation Format: Arshad Mohammed, Umair Ayub, Pooja Advani, Shakeela W. Bahadur, Amye J. Tevaarwerk, Tufia C. Haddad, Elisabeth I. Heath, Brenda J. Ernst, Ben Zhou, Cui Tao, Sara J. Holton, Karthik V. Giridhar, Irbaz B. Riaz. Automating clinical and pathological staging for breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 2744.

Abstract Introduction: The National Cancer Institute estimated almost 317,000 new breast cancer and over 13,000 new cervical cancer cases in 2025. While the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has served millions of women over the past two decades, inequities in cancer screening, subsequently delayed diagnosis, and timely and appropriate treatment remain a public health challenge in the United States. Despite the substantial impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on cancer screening, few studies have accounted for SDOH at the individual level when assessing breast and cervical cancer screening adherence. The primary objective of this study is to examine whether the individual-level SDOH, measured using HOUsing-based SocioEconomic Status (HOUSES) index, is associated with breast and cervical cancer screening non-adherence (not current on respective USPSTF recommendations for age and frequency). Methods: In this retrospective study, patients were identified as those receiving primary care in the Mayo Clinic Health System and Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). The Midwest Quality Metrics panel was then used to assess patients due for screening for breast or cervical cancer in July 2023. The HOUSES, using home address and publicly available data on the residence which measures and categorizes housing status into quartiles, was obtained using the electronic health records (EHRs)-linkable patient-level information. Logistic regression analyses were conducted, controlling for Census block group-level adverse social exposome from the Area Deprivation Index, age, and comorbidities. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: For breast cancer, among 128,462 eligible patients, 20.1% (n= 25,857) were non-adherent. Compared to the highest HOUSES quartile (Q4), lower HOUSES groups showed significantly higher odds of non-adherence: Q3 OR=1.20 (95% CI=1.15, 1.25), Q2 OR=1.45; (95% CI=1.40, 1.53), and Q1 OR=1.90 (95% CI=1.81, 1.99). For cervical cancer, among 175,712 eligible patients, 29.9% (n=52,533) were non-adherent. Compared to the highest HOUSES quartile (Q4), lower HOUSES groups showed significantly higher odds of non-adherence: Q3 OR=1.07 (95% CI=1.03, 1.10), Q2 OR=1.16; (95% CI=1.12, 1.20), and Q1 OR=1.36 (95% CI=1.31, 1.41). Conclusions: A clinically meaningful association between the HOUSES index and cancer screening adherence was observed. A lower HOUSES index was associated with higher odds of non-adherence for both breast and cervical cancer screening, even after accounting for neighborhood-level risk, age, and comorbidities. Incorporating HOUSES into EHRs can be a practical “screening-for-screening” tool that enables close monitoring of higher-risk patients without additional burden of surveys. Citation Format: Eunice Y. Park, Madison Beenken, Dave Watson, Chung Il Wi, Tufia Haddad, Gladys Asiedu, Karla BALLMAN, James R. Cerhan, Carolyn Flock, Brian Lynch, Folakemi T. Odedina, Scott H. Okuno, Young J Juhn, . HOUSES as a screening tool for cancer screening: Patient-level housing-based socioeconomic status and breast and cervical cancer screening adherence [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 7599.

PURPOSE Limited access to high-speed internet (broadband [BB]) may pose challenges to video telehealth visit (VTV) utilization. This study explored barriers, facilitators, and attitudes toward VTV adoption in patients with cancer residing in low-BB settings. METHODS We examined a cohort of patients with cancer receiving longitudinal care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Practice in the Upper Midwest. Eligible patients had ≥6 in-person visits during July 2020-October 2022, received oncology care at Mayo Clinic sites, were alive at sampling, and resided in low-BB areas defined by Federal Communications Commission data as 0 or 1 internet service provider offering <25 Mbps. We enrolled 24 participants stratified into two groups: (1) Transitioned users (TUs): adopted VTVs postpandemic (November 2022-December 2023); (2) persistent nonusers (PNUs): received exclusively in-person visits. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in June 2024 and thematically analyzed. RESULTS The average age of participants was 71.3 years (range, 42-88), 50% was female, and all identified as White. Three themes emerged: (1) Structural and clinical constraints—physical examinations, laboratory testing, and chemotherapy administration were viewed as requiring in-person care, whereas VTVs were perceived acceptable for routine follow-ups; (2) Skills and experience—digital literacy was generally adequate, but confidence and direct exposure to VTV distinguished TU from PNU; (3) Motivations—both groups preferred in-person care for cancer-related emotional reassurance. TU cited weather, travel burden, and proactive provider offering as adoption triggers, whereas PNU reported that VTV was rarely offered. TU focused on system-level solutions, whereas PNUs preferred individual-level resources. CONCLUSION Differential VTV adoption in low-BB settings reflected exposure, provider offering, and situational necessity rather than BB access alone. Oncology practices should consider normalizing the hybrid care model combining in-person and video appointment visits and provide tailored supports to advance equitable telemedicine. Expanding video care in oncology requires more than digital access and depends on patient experience, care context, and human connection inherent in oncology care.