IntroductionLearning collaboratives are a widely used implementation strategy for supporting the spread of complex innovations, but little is known about how learning collaboratives develop and sustain over time. The OncoPRO initiative, a PCORI-funded national learning collaborative focused on implementing remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in oncology, provides a unique opportunity to explore this process. By examining how OncoPRO fosters collaboration, shares strategies, and adapts to diverse sites, this study offers critical insights into both the development of learning collaboratives and their ability to support the long-term success of complex healthcare initiatives.MethodsThis study employed a multi-methods implementation science approach to examine the development and first year of the OncoPRO initiative. From conception through year 1 (March 2023-December 2024), OncoPRO provided support to 12 independent health systems. We identified cross-organizational barriers encountered during the development of a national learning collaborative, and the implementation strategies employed to address them, using field notes generated during all OncoPRO-related meetings, site-level communications, and site presentations during meetings. We systematically identified and categorized barriers and implementation strategies using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0 and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) frameworks. Strategies were then categorized into domains based on their alignment with each other and learning collaborative implementation components or processes.ResultsWe identified 29 overarching barriers (e.g., lack of best practices; clinician buy-in) that were addressed through 37 foundational implementation strategies relevant to developing and facilitating the learning collaborative. These implementation strategies were organized into six domains: building a multi-level foundation, engaging and onboarding implementation sites, building shared learning structures, supporting technical rollout, embedding feedback loops and quality monitoring, and stimulating demand for RSM and collaborative participation. Most barriers were addressed using multiple strategies, and individual strategies often targeted several barriers simultaneously. Broad strategies addressing multiple barriers (e.g. build a coalition; identify early adopters) were deployed early to develop a base for the collaborative. As the initiative matured, strategies targeting specific barriers (e.g. develop and implement quality monitoring systems) were added to support site-level operationalization and continuous improvement.ConclusionThis study describes our approach to building a national learning collaborative for ePRO-enabled RSM implementation in oncology, focused on the initial phase of implementation. It offers a case study and potential roadmap for others involved in the initial development of large-scale collaboratives for complex interventions. This descriptive process analysis lays the groundwork for future analyses of implementation variation and strategy effectiveness across participating health systems, and highlights how learning collaboratives can support the implementation of complex quality initiatives like RSM in oncology.

Symptoms are often underdetected during cancer treatment. To determine if symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes (PROs) improves clinical outcomes, we conducted a cluster-randomized trial in which 52 oncology practices were assigned to PRO or usual care. At PRO practices, patients with metastatic cancer were invited to complete weekly symptom surveys. Severe or worsening symptoms generated alerts to the care team. The primary outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included emergency visits, time to deterioration of physical function, symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient satisfaction with PRO. Among 1,191 enrolled patients, there was no difference in survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83-1.17); P = 0.86). Time to first emergency visit was significantly prolonged with PRO compared to usual care (HR 0.84 ((95% CI, 0.71-0.98); P = 0.03), with a 6.1% reduction in the cumulative incidence of emergency visits and fewer mean visits at 12 months with PRO (1.02 versus 1.30; P < 0.001). Benefits also significantly favored PRO for delayed deterioration of physical function (median 12.6 versus 8.5 months, HR 0.73; P = 0.002), symptoms (12.7 versus 9.9, HR 0.69; P < 0.001) and HRQL (15.6 versus 12.2, HR 0.72; P = 0.001), which remained significant when considering deaths in analyses. Most patients felt that PRO improved discussions with the care team (77.0% (188/244)), made them feel more in control of their care (84.0% (205/244)) and would recommend it to other patients (91.4% (223/244)). Patients completed 91.5% (20,565/22,486) of expected weekly symptom surveys. These findings demonstrate that symptom monitoring with PRO meaningfully improves clinical outcomes, the patient experience and utilization of services and should be included as a standard part of quality cancer clinical care. Future studies of PRO in clinical care should focus on these outcomes rather than mortality as primary endpoints. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03249090

11138 Background: Remote symptom monitoring using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) results in improved symptom management, communication, quality of life, and in some cases survival. Furthermore, value-based cancer care models such as the CMS Enhancing Oncology Model are increasingly supporting or requiring remote symptom monitoring. However, implementation at scale in real-world settings remains challenging for practices. Methods: OncoPRO is a national initiative in the United States that supports oncology practices and health systems in the implementation and sustainability of remote symptom monitoring programs using ePROs, integrated with electronic health record systems. OncoPRO is funded by the Patent-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and is led by operational groups at the University of North Carolina and the University of Alabama, in partnership with the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the PROTEUS Consortium, with observers from federal agencies. Results: OncoPRO was initiated in March 2024, with 15 large U.S. practices/health systems participating, as well as two national practice networks, four EHR software companies, four ePRO software companies, and observers from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Food and Drug Administration. The central activities of OncoPRO encompass co-learning collaborative monthly meetings where leaders from each practice in clinical care, information systems, and value-based care convene to review progress, barriers and strategies for implementation, billing tactics, and other guidance. Practices share data dashboards on implementation, discuss challenges they face, and exchange success stories under the facilitation of ASCO coaches. Support materials and standard operating processes are shared by the operational team, ACS, and software vendors. Additional practices are joining the initiative both within the US and internationally. A goal is to demonstrate that implementation of remote symptom monitoring with ePROs is feasible on a wide basis and leads to improved operational and clinical outcomes. Conclusions: The OncoPRO initiative is supporting practices, including both community and academic, in implementing remote symptom monitoring using ePROs through a learning collaborative that is anticipated to be of interest to others considering ePRO implementation.

PURPOSE:Monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems can improve cancer outcomes and is increasingly recommended. Optimal implementations of ePROs in routine clinical care are not yet known. Perspectives from clinicians, clinic staff, and patients who used ePROs can provide real-world insights for optimizing the design, efficiency, and effectiveness of future implementations. METHODS:Providers, clinic staff, and patients receiving treatment for metastatic cancer from community oncology practices that implemented ePROs as part of the national PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) participated in semi-structured interviews related to ePROs. Perceptions from clinicians on perceived benefits, usefulness, acceptability, impact on quality of care, and required effort; from staff on clinical integration and effort; and from patients on ease of use, usefulness, and effort were collected. Themes, subthemes, and recommendations were identified via a standardized coding-based directed thematic analytic approach. RESULTS:Ninety-eight clinic members and 67 patients participated from 25 intervention sites. Four themes were identified: (1) positive impact of ePROs on cancer care quality, communication, and relationship-building; (2) ePRO system usability; (3) challenges to ePRO integration with clinical workflow; and (4) recommendations for improving ePRO systems and implementation. Subthemes related to the impact of ePROs on cancer care included enhanced communication with care team, increased awareness of symptoms, and increased ability to self-manage symptoms. Actionable recommendations for future initiatives were to engage and train clinicians, staff, and organizational support for ePRO-related activities; tailor content of ePRO surveys to be clinically actionable; integrate ePRO alert notifications and reports with existing information systems; and optimize integration of ePROs with existing clinic workflow processes. CONCLUSION:Experiences of care team members and patients were positive, with actionable recommendations identified to guide future ePRO implementations.

PURPOSE Many trials ask patients to complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) via the web, excluding patients unable to use/access the Internet. The PRO-TECT trial (AFT-39, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ) also offered a telephone interface option (interactive voice response [IVR]). We compared patients choosing IVR versus web on alert rates to nurses and clinical outcomes to determine if a telephone option can close disparities in symptom management. METHODS PRO-TECT randomized 26 community oncology practices to the PROM intervention arm where concerning symptoms generated automated alerts to nurses. IVR and web patients were compared for social determinants of health (SDOH) using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. After accounting for clustering and confounders, we used generalized estimating equations to compare alert rates, mixed models for quality of life (QOL) at 3 months, and Cox regression for emergency visits and survival at 12 months. RESULTS Among 593 patients, 215 (36%) chose IVR and 378 (64%) chose web. IVR patients were older (65.2 v 60.8 years) and were more often rural residents (32% v 23%), Black (27% v 11%), and with less education (54% v 27% ≤high school; all P < .01). Patients choosing IVR had more surveys with concerning symptoms (49% v 37%) and nurses felt clinical attention was warranted more often (4.8 surveys v 3.4 surveys; all P < .001) but ultimately experienced similar benefits as web in QOL, emergency visits, and survival. CONCLUSION One third of community patients choose a telephone option over the web for reporting PROMs during cancer care. These patients are disproportionately from SDOH backgrounds at risk of poor clinical outcomes and have higher symptom management needs but ultimately experience similar clinical benefits as patients choosing the web. PROM programs should offer web alternatives to close disparities in symptom management.

INTRODUCTION:Thoracic surgery is a mainstay of therapy for lung cancer and other chronic pulmonary conditions, but recovery is often complicated. Digital health systems can facilitate remote postoperative symptom management yet obstacles persist in their routine clinical adoption. This study aimed to identify patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to using an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) monitoring platform specially designed to detect complications from thoracic surgery postdischarge. METHODS:Patients (n = 16) who underwent thoracic surgery and participated in an ePRO parent study completed semistructured interviews, which were analyzed using thematic content analysis and iterative team-based coding. Themes were mapped onto the three domains of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of behavior framework to inform ePRO design and implementation improvements. RESULTS:Analysis demonstrated seven dominant themes, including barriers (1. postoperative patient physical and mental health, 2. lack of access to email and poor internet connectivity, 3. lack of clarity on ePRO use in routine clinical care, and 4. symptom item redundancy) as well as facilitators (5. ease of the ePRO assessment completion, 6. engagement with the surgical care team on ePRO use, and 7. increased awareness of symptom experience through ePRO use). Suggested ePRO improvements included offering alternatives to web-based completion, tailoring symptom assessments to individual patients, and the need for patient education on ePROs for perioperative care. CONCLUSIONS:Addressable barriers and facilitators to implementation of ePRO symptom monitoring in the thoracic surgical patient population postdischarge have been identified. Future work will test the impact of design improvements on implementation outcomes of feasibility and acceptability.

Clinical benefits result from electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems that enable remote symptom monitoring. Although clinically useful, real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms can overburden nurses. Thus, we aimed to algorithmically identify likely non-urgent alerts that could be suppressed. We evaluated alerts from the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) in which oncology practices implemented remote symptom monitoring. Patients completed weekly at-home ePRO symptom surveys, and nurses received real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms. During parts of the trial, patients and nurses each indicated whether alerts were urgent or could wait until the next visit. We developed an algorithm for suppressing alerts based on patient assessment of urgency and model-based predictions of nurse assessment of urgency. 593 patients participated (median age = 64 years, 61

We derived meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening in selected patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) items and their composite scores. We used two data sources, the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults with advanced cancer at 26 United States (U.S.) community oncology practices and the PRO-CTCAE validation study that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at nine U.S. cancer centers or community oncology practices. Both studies administered selected PRO-CTCAE items and EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Conceptually, relevant QLQ-C30 domains were used as anchors to estimate meaningful change thresholds for deterioration in corresponding PRO-CTCAE items and their composite scores. Items or composites with ǀρǀ ≥ 0.30 correlation with QLQ-C30 scales were included. Changes in PRO-CTCAE scores and composites were estimated for patients who met or exceeded a 10-point deterioration on the corresponding QLQ-C30 scale. Change scores were computed between baseline and the 3-month timepoint in PRO-TECT, and in the PRO-CTCAE validation study between baseline and a single follow-up visit that occurred between 1 and 7 weeks later. For each PRO-CTCAE item, change scores could range from − 4 to 4; for a composite, change scores could range from − 3 to 3. Change scores in QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE were available in 406 and 792 patients in PRO-TECT and the validation study, respectively. Across QLQ-C30 scales, the proportion of patients with a 10-point or greater worsening on QLQ-C30 ranged from 15 to 30

Thoracic surgery is a mainstay of therapy for lung cancer and other chronic pulmonary conditions, but recovery is often complicated. Digital systems to monitor postoperative symptom burden have been developed; however, barriers to routine clinical implementation remain, particularly in complex and vulnerable populations. This study sought to determine end-user (patient) barriers and facilitators of using an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) monitoring platform designed to detect complications from thoracic surgery post-discharge. A subset of patients who were planned for thoracic surgery and participated in a study on ePROs (n=16) underwent semi-structured interviews, which were analyzed using thematic content analysis and iterative team-based coding. Themes were mapped onto the three domains of the COM-B model of behavior framework (Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation). ePRO design and implementation improvements to respond to these themes were identified. Analysis demonstrated seven dominant themes reported by ePRO participants. These included barriers (postoperative patient physical and mental health, lack of access to email and poor internet connectivity, lack of clarity on ePRO use in routine clinical care, and symptom item redundancy) and facilitators (ease of the ePRO assessment completion, engagement with the surgical care team on ePRO use, and increased awareness of symptom experience through ePRO use). The following ePRO intervention design improvements were identified: offering alternatives to web-based completion, tailoring symptom assessments to individual patients, and the need for patient-facing materials explaining the link of ePROs to other systems for perioperative care. ePROs have the promise of improved care outcomes for postoperative patients. Addressable barriers and facilitators to implementation in the thoracic surgical patient population have been identified. Future work on testing the impact of intervention design improvements on implementation outcomes of feasibility and acceptability is ongoing. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04342260

PURPOSEFinancial toxicity (FT) affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate FT. We evaluated the effect of monthly FT screening as part of a larger patient-reported outcomes (PROs) digital monitoring intervention.METHODSPRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomly assigned 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring (PRO practices) or usual care (control practices). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys about symptoms, functioning, and FT (single-item screening question from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity) for up to 1 year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this planned secondary analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 financial difficulties measure, at any time compared with baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention.RESULTSOne thousand one hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the FT screening intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared with 39.0% treated at control practices (P = .004). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that FT screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance.CONCLUSIONIn this report of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial, FT screening as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduced the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy.

180 Background: Financial toxicity affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with decreased treatment adherence and poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate financial toxicity among patients undergoing cancer treatment. We evaluated the effect of monthly patient-reported financial toxicity screening as part of a larger digital monitoring intervention. Methods: PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (“PRO practices”) or usual care (“control practices”). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys containing symptom, functioning, and financial toxicity screening questions for up to one year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the EORTC QLQ-C30 (“Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties?”), at any time compared to baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. Results: 1,191 patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared to 39.0% of patients treated at control practices (p = 0.01). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that financial toxicity screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance. Conclusions: Screening for financial toxicity as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduces the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

Importance Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. Objective To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. Interventions In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. Results Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Performance measurement is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting standardized measures of clinical performance that can be compared across practices to evaluate how well care was provided. We conducted a systematic review to identify stakeholder perceptions of key symptoms and health domains to test as patient-reported performance measures in oncology. Stakeholders included cancer patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators. Standard review methodology was used, consistent with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies through August 2020. Four coders independently reviewed entries and conflicts were resolved by a fifth coder. Efficacy and effectiveness studies, and studies focused exclusively on patient experiences of care (e.g., communication skills of providers) were excluded. Searches generated 1813 articles and 1779 were coded as not relevant, leaving 34 international articles for extraction. Patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators prioritize psychosocial care (e.g., distress) and symptom management for patient-reported performance measures. Patients and caregivers also perceive that maintaining physical function and daily activities are critical. Clinicians and administrators perceive control of specific symptoms to be critical (gastrointestinal symptoms, pain, poor sleep). Results were used to inform testing at six US cancer centers.

PURPOSE There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients’ symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.

7044 Background: There is growing interest to implement electronic patient-reported outcomes in oncology practices for symptom monitoring. It is not well known what nurse, physician, and patient impressions of benefits, acceptability, and challenges are in routine care use. Methods: PRO-TECT is an ongoing U.S. national trial including 26 community oncology practices across 15 states that implemented PRO symptom monitoring [NCT03249090]. Patients complete weekly PROs between visits, nurses receive alerts for severe/worsening symptoms, and oncologists review PROs at office visits. Interviews were conducted with 147 stakeholders including nurses (N = 46), oncologists (N = 27), data managers (N = 15), and patients (N = 59). Each stakeholder group had different interview guides with overlapping topics to explore experiences with the PRO system. Interviews lasted 15-60 minutes, were digitally recorded, transcribed, and entered into a qualitative analysis software program. A codebook was developed from the research questions, interview guides, and discussions with the project team. Standardized coding methods were applied, with transcripts double coded for thematic analysis. Feedback surveys were also completed by nurses (N = 57), oncologists (N = 38), and patients (N = 435). Results: Key benefits perceived across stakeholder groups included increased patient self-awareness of symptoms; improved direct communication of patients with care teams; more open and honest conveying of symptom experiences; ability to track symptoms over time; and increased involvement of patients in their own care. Most stakeholders felt PRO symptom monitoring had a positive impact on quality of care delivery, and believed benefits of PROs outweighed necessary staff efforts. Challenges included additional work by nurses to review and respond to alerts, staff turnover requiring retraining, and limited time of oncologists. In the survey, 39/56 (70%) nurses felt the PRO system improved quality of care; 27/33 (82%) oncologists noted PROs were useful for team discussions and care delivery; and 320/434 (74%) patients agreed that weekly PRO reporting improved discussions with their care team. Conclusions: Clinicians and patients perceived weekly PRO symptom monitoring between visits to be valuable despite added staff effort. Results of additional analyses are forthcoming. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090 .