Search

Purpose The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) requires that states develop comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans and recommends that disparities related to rural residence are addressed in these plans. The objective of this study was to explore rural partner engagement and describe effective strategies for incorporating a rural focus in CCC plans. Methods States were selected for inclusion using stratified sampling based on state rurality and region. State cancer control leaders were interviewed about facilitators and barriers to engaging rural partners and strategies for prioritizing rural populations. Content analysis was conducted to identify themes across states. Results Interviews (n = 30) revealed themes in three domains related to rural inclusion in CCC plans. The first domain (barriers) included (1) designing CCC plans to be broad, (2) defining “rural populations,” and (3) geographic distance. The second domain (successful strategies) included (1) collaborating with rural healthcare systems, (2) recruiting rural constituents, (3) leveraging rural community–academic partnerships, and (4) working jointly with Native nations. The third domain (strategies for future plan development) included (1) building relationships with rural communities, (2) engaging rural constituents in planning, (3) developing a better understanding of rural needs, and (4) considering resources for addressing rural disparities. Conclusion Significant relationship building with rural communities, resource provision, and successful strategies used by others may improve inclusion of rural needs in state comprehensive cancer control plans and ultimately help plan developers directly address rural cancer health disparities.

Background: Participation of racially diverse populations in research is necessary to advance cancer care. However, representation of Black individuals in biospecimen cancer research remains low and requires being asked to engage in research. We sought to understand the experiences, beliefs, and knowledge about biospecimen research among Black patients with lung cancer. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 15 Black patients diagnosed with lung cancer were conducted between January and August 2022 at a large academic center in North Carolina. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Themes related to who should initiate discussions about biospecimen donation, what should be considered before donation, and communication strategies to increase participation of Black patients with cancer in biospecimen research emerged from the interviews. Most participants indicated that discussions about biospecimen donation should be initiated by trusted and knowledgeable members of the medical team and most expressed trusting their providers. Some also expressed the importance of including family members in discussions about medical and research decisions. Some participants felt it was important to consider if donating specimens would cause pain or would require additional procedures. Recommended communication strategies to facilitate participation included use of simple and easily understood language in addition to messaging related to how biospecimen donation would benefit others. Participants also felt cultural humility, respect, and empathy during research recruitment would help enhance enrollment of Black participants in biospecimen research. Of note, all participants reported never being asked to participate in biospecimen research and felt that underrepresentation of Black participants may be due to not being asked. Conclusion: Black participants in this study have not been asked to participate in biospecimen research but are willing to be engaged in conversations about research from their medical team. Simply being asked, trusting their medical provider, cultural humility, and framing the message on how the research will benefit others are some of the recommended strategies to enhance research participation among Black patients. Future research should incorporate these strategies into an intervention to assess the impact on recruiting Black individuals in biomedical research. Sponsored by the Lung Cancer Research Foundation Research Grant on Disparities in Lung Cancer Citation Format: Jeenn A. Barreiro-Rosa, Oluwatumilara Akeke, Annabella Opoku, Alison Hilton, Jessica Carda-Auten, Randall Teal, Aaron Carpenter, Hayley N. Morris, Lauren Matthews, Ashley Rankin Collins, Marjory Charlot. “Simply ask and explain”: perspectives from Black patients with lung cancer on strategies to address racial disparities in biospecimen research participation. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 5534.

Background: Representation of Black individuals with cancer in biospecimen research remains disproportionately low compared to white counterparts. Clinicians and research staff are responsible for informing, inviting, and consenting patients to participate in such research. We sought to understand clinician and research staff perspectives on engaging Black patients in biospecimen research. Methods: We conducted 10 in-depth interviews with purposively sampled clinicians and research staff at a large academic cancer center in North Carolina between January and August 2022. Participants underwent semi-structured interviews (duration 45-60 minutes) and were asked open ended questions about biospecimen research barriers in general, barriers specific to people who identify as Black or African American, and considerations when discussing biospecimen research with Black patients. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Perceived patient related barriers to biospecimen donation included pain from sample collection, invasive sample collection, lack of to time or transportation, medical research mistrust, health literacy, and limited knowledge of opportunities for involvement. Many felt that these barriers were faced by both Black and non-Black patients. However, some felt for Black patients, these barriers existed within the context of historical injustices in medicine, current bias in health care and socioeconomic inequities, while others felt socioeconomic status not race was more of a concern. Clinician and research staff identified barriers to discussing biospecimen research included lack of time given busy clinical practice and concern with patients’ physical and emotional state. Patients’ race was not considered a barrier. When asked about considerations for discussing biospecimen research specifically with Black patients, participants felt time to establish rapport and trust, readiness to discuss historical injustices in biomedical research, reminding participants research is voluntary, and having in person discussions were important. Few felt that patient race was not relevant to these discussions. Conclusion: Some clinicians and research staff acknowledge that historical injustices and current racial bias in biomedical research and health care contribute to low representation of Black individuals in biospecimen research, while others did not. Further research is needed to assess whether race and/or racism agnostic approaches versus acknowledgement of structural racism’s influence on biomedical research and health care have an impact on fair representation of Black individuals in biospecimen research. Sponsored by the Lung Cancer Research Foundation Research Grant on Disparities in Lung Cancer Citation Format: Aaron Carpenter, Hayley N. Morris, Annabella Opoku, Alison Hilton, Jessica Carda-Auten, Randall Teal, Jeenn A. Barreiro-Rosado, Lauren Matthews, Oluwatumilara Akeke, Ashley Rankin Collins, Marjory Charlot. Research team perspectives on engaging Black patients with cancer in biospecimen research. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 5535.

To describe perceptions of financial navigation staff concerning patients' cancer-related financial burden.This qualitative descriptive study used a semi-structured interview guide to examine perceptions of financial navigation staff concerning patients' cancer-related financial burden. Staff who provided financial navigation support services to cancer patients were interviewed from different types of cancer programs across seven states representing rural, micropolitan, and urban settings. Interviews lasted approximately one hour, were audio recorded, and transcribed. Transcripts were double coded for thematic analysis.Thirty-five staff from 29 cancer centers were interviewed. The first theme involved communication issues related to patient and financial navigation staff expectations, timing and the sensitive nature of financial discussions. The second theme involved the multi-faceted impact of financial burden on patients, including stress, difficulty adhering to treatments, and challenges meeting basic, non-medical needs. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer-related financial burden has a profound impact on cancer survivors' health and non-health outcomes. Discussions regarding cancer-related costs between cancer survivors and healthcare team members could help to normalize conversations and mitigate the multi-faceted determinants and effects of cancer-related financial burden. As treatment may span months and years and unexpected costs arise, having this discussion regularly and systematically is needed.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity is associated with negative patient outcomes and rural populations are disproportionately affected by the high costs of cancer care compared to urban populations. Our objective was to (1) understand cancer programs’ perceptions of rural-urban differences in cancer patients’ experiences of financial hardship, (2) evaluate the resources available to cancer patients across the rural-urban continuum, and (3) determine how rural and urban health care teams assess and address financial distress in cancer patients. METHODS: Seven research teams within the Cancer Prevention and Research Control Network conducted semi-structured interviews with cancer program staff who have a role in connecting cancer patients with financial assistance services in both rural and urban counties. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We identified themes using descriptive content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 35 staff across 29 cancer care programs in seven states, with roughly half of respondents from programs in rural counties. Participants identified differences in rural and urban patients’ experiences of financial hardship related to distance required to travel for treatment, underinsurance, and low socioeconomic status. Insufficient staffing was an identified barrier to addressing rural and urban patients’ financial concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Improved financial navigation services could mitigate the effects of financial toxicity experienced by cancer patients, particularly rural patients, throughout treatment and survivorship. Future research is needed to improve how cancer programs assess financial hardship in patients and to expand financial navigation services to better serve rural cancer patients.

253 Background: Treatment decision making for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is complex. An informed discussion between the patient and physician that incorporates patient values and preferences is crucial to arrive at a personalized treatment plan. We sought to understand the patient experience of treatment decision making and identify challenges to aligning care to patient preferences. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with newly diagnosed older (≥60 years) adults with AML and their caregivers following a semi-structured interview guide. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to summarize findings. Results: 16 in-depth interviews were conducted. Major themes emerged including: 1) Patients were overwhelmed and in shock (“I was shocked.” “... like my face was hit with a water hose turned all the way up.” “It’s like you have been hit by a truck.”) 2) Patients felt powerless, without true treatment options (“You don’t feel like you are in the driver seat.” “I didn’t see that there was a decision to be made.” “I mean, I had no choice.” “Either go through chemotherapy or go through dying.”) 3) Patients felt rushed and unprepared to make a treatment decision (“I don’t feel like we were prepared at all. It was all thrown in your face, and you had to decide.” “But the mindset when they went through the typical course of chemo... laying that all on me in a two-hour period and wanting me to decide right there and then, I think that that should not be allowed... you can’t make sound decisions in a two-hour period about your life and whether you are going to live or not.”) 4) Patients predominantly followed physician recommendations for treatment (“What went through my mind was I was told that I had a great doctor who was going to be looking at me and I leave stuff like that up to the professionals.” “They told me what needed to be done and I just let them do it.”) 5) Patients balanced many factors when making treatment decisions including survival, quality of life, and spending time with family (“Dr. [Name], I want to live long and strong.” “And both of us prefer quality for a shorter time than we do a longer time in agony.” “I’m not scared to die... it’s just the fact that I’ll miss everyone.”) 6) Patients desired greater input on care plans (“[I suggest] trying to let the patients have a little bit of input on their treatment plan.” “It has to be catered to the patients making those decisions.”). Conclusions: Older adults with newly diagnosed AML feel overwhelmed, unprepared, and rushed into treatment decisions. No one factor dominated treatment decision making highlighting the need for physicians to assess individual patient priorities to arrive at a treatment plan. Interventions to reduce distress, elicit patient preferences and values, and increase participation in treatment decision making would improve the quality of treatment decisions.

134 Background: Early detection and timely treatment of breast cancer using multi-disciplinary therapies often contributes to a goal of curative intent along with improved overall outcomes. In prior studies, Black women compared to non-Black women are at a higher chance of treatment delay (> 60 days) in NC. The care team factors that contribute to these treatment delays are unclear. Methods: This qualitative study utilized content analysis. The 30 participants included community stakeholders involved in breast cancer care delivery, including breast cancer clinicians and community resource providers. Participants were selected through purposive sampling. Three Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) regions (Northwest, Charlotte, and Area L) that represent the diversity of the state of NC were selected as sites for data collection. Each participant completed a one-time semi-structured interview which was audio-recorded and transcribed. Inductively derived codes were created from the previously established interview guide leading to the production of the codebook with each code conceptually defined. Transcripts were coded by 7 coders through the method of consensus coding leading to the identification of emergent themes. Code reports were generated from each code leading to the production of a narrative summary. Results: All participants identified perceived both facilitators and barriers to the timely initiation of breast cancer treatment. Barriers fell into several categories: geographical, financial, healthcare system related, and patient related (non-financial). Most barriers were perceived as more common among Black patients. Additionally, participants emphasized incidents of historical racism in medical care that limited Black patients from having trust in the healthcare system. Facilitators identified included: outreach through community partners, healthcare navigation, supportive healthcare providers, provision of social support services, transportation, integrative services, and raising the overall quality of cancer care. Conclusions: Despite the diversity of participants regarding region, years of employment, and role, stakeholders identified important common themes when reviewing the perceived facilitators and barriers of breast cancer care delivery. Perceived barriers were largely related to patients’ social determinants of health, and participants perceived that Black patients had more adverse social determinants impacting their care timeliness, highlighting that structural racism contributes to delayed cancer care delivery. Future initiatives aimed at improving the delivery of timely breast cancer care must focus on evaluating marginalized communities’ overall access to adequate care along with effective community engagement to build a higher level of trust from such patients and target the social determinants of health.

256 Background: Numerous studies have demonstrated that physician perceptions of patient priorities and patients’ stated preferences differ substantially. Use of preference clarification using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) has been shown to improve preference-concordance for patients with solid tumors. Previously, we developed a DCE to describe preferences of survivors of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We sought to evaluate this DCE among newly diagnosed patients with AML to inform shared decision-making. Methods: We used a sequential explanatory (quantitative to qualitative) mixed methods design to assess acceptability, feasibility, and content validity of the DCE to elicit individual preferences. Newly diagnosed older (≥ 60 years) adults with AML completed the DCE at the time of treatment decision. Patients and caregivers then completed semi-structured interviews to expand on quantitative findings. Based on initial results, healthy volunteers completed think-aloud sessions while completing the DCE and semi-structured interviews to further evaluate comprehensibility. Results: 47 participants were enrolled (18 patients [8 female, 10 male; aged 60-87], 16 caregivers, 15 healthy volunteers). Patients received best supportive care (n = 1), hypomethylating agents (n = 9), and high-intensity chemotherapy (n = 8). Feasibility/Acceptability: All patients completed the DCE (100% feasibility), and all reported that they answered according to their preferences (100% acceptability). Content Validity: 1) Relevance: 17/18 (94%) felt the DCE was relevant. 2) Comprehensiveness: In addition to the attributes in the DCE, provider recommendations and family considerations were noted to be critical in treatment decision-making. 3) Comprehensibility: Only 13/18 (72%) felt the DCE was easy to understand, and 14/18 (78%) felt it was easy to answer. Explanatory Interviews: Patients reported being in “shock,” “devastated” from receiving the diagnosis, feeling overwhelmed (“I was floored”) and not being able to reliably concentrate on the DCE due to these factors. Caregivers corroborated patients’ reports. Healthy volunteers also reported “information overload” and that the DCE was “technical” and the included outcome levels were “confusing.”. Conclusions: This DCE designed for older adults with AML was relevant, feasible, and acceptable. However, nearly 30% of patients reported difficulty understanding the DCE. Some reported not being able to attend to the complex tasks in the DCE, thereby compromising content validity of the measure. We suspect this was due to the distress caused by the diagnosis. This study demonstrates the challenge of developing valid preference elicitation instruments for newly diagnosed patients and highlights the need for extensive evaluation prior to clinical implementation.

Background Women with obesity are at higher risk for high-grade and/or advanced-stage breast cancer in comparison with women without obesity. Many women with a high body mass index (BMI) at breast cancer diagnosis experience further weight gain during and after treatment. This study investigated Black and White patient perspectives on conversations with their oncologists about weight and weight management. Methods Focus groups using a virtual platform (Zoom) were conducted with women after primary treatment for stage I to III breast cancer who were 21 years or older and had a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 : 2 with Black women (n = 12) and 2 with White women (n = 14). Results Participants asked that their oncologists be "transparent" about weight gain as a potential side effect of their cancer treatment and how excess weight might affect their prognosis and survival. They asked to be "seen as an individual" to facilitate both person-centered and culturally appropriate conversations about behavioral changes needed for weight management. Participants urged clinicians to take the lead in initiating conversations about weight to underscore its importance in cancer care and survivorship. They welcomed actionable recommendations about nutrition and exercise from either the oncology clinician or a specialist. Participants offered specific suggestions on how clinicians could initiate weight-related conversations, beginning with questions eliciting patients' perspectives on their weight and lifestyle. Conclusions Many women with early-stage breast cancer and obesity have concerns about weight and weight gain and urge their oncologists to use an active and personalized approach in recommending and supporting efforts at weight management. Lay summary Focus group discussions with Black and White women with early-stage breast cancer and obesity have elicited patient perspectives on conversations with their oncologists about weight and weight management. Many patients have concerns about weight and weight gain and urge their oncologists to use an active and personalized approach in recommending and supporting efforts at weight management.

Background With increasing survival rates, a growing population of patients with cancer have received or will receive adjuvant therapy to prevent cancer recurrences. Patients and caregivers will confront the complexities of balancing the preventative benefits of adjuvant therapy with possible near‐term or long‐term adverse events (AEs). Adjuvant treatment–related AEs (from minimal to severe) can impact therapeutic adherence, quality of life, emotional and physical health, and survival. However, to the authors' knowledge, limited information is available regarding how stakeholders use or desire to use adjuvant‐related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. Methods A qualitative, purposeful sampling approach was used to elicit stakeholder feedback via semistructured interviews (24 interviews). Drug development, drug regulatory, clinical, payer, and patient/patient advocacy stakeholders were questioned about the generation, dissemination, and use of adjuvant treatment–related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. Transcripts were coded independently by 2 senior health care researchers and reconciled to identify key themes. Results All stakeholder groups in the current study identified needed improvements in each of the following 4 areas: 1) improving the accessibility and relevance of AE‐related information; 2) better integrating and implementing available information regarding AEs for decisions; 3) connecting contemporary cultural and economic value systems to the generation and use of information regarding adjuvant treatment–related AEs; and 4) addressing a lack of alignment and ownership of stakeholder efforts to improve the use of AE information in the adjuvant setting. Conclusions Despite commonalities in the overall needs identified by the diverse stakeholders in the current study, broad systemic change has been stymied. The current study identified the lack of alignment and the absence of a central “owner” of these diffuse efforts as a previously unrecognized hurdle to realizing the desired systemic improvements. Future initiatives aimed at improving quality of life and outcomes for patients receiving adjuvant therapy through the improved use of AE information must address this challenge through innovative collectives and novel leadership strategies., Navigating complex risk‐benefit tradeoffs in the adjuvant treatment setting requires robust and accessible information regarding treatment‐related adverse events. The current multistakeholder qualitative study identifies systemic challenges in the generation and use of information regarding adjuvant treatment–related adverse events to improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROMs and ≥ 75% patient acceptability. RESULTS: Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability, > 95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete. CONCLUSION: Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures.

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 .

165 Background: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has identified rural cancer control as a research priority. Rural patients may have greater cancer-related financial burdens due to high travel costs, low insurance coverage, and less flexible work schedules. To better understand geographic differences in cancer-related financial toxicity from an organizational perspective, we interviewed staff from a range of cancer treatment settings in counties across the rural-urban continuum. The goal was to qualitatively assess the financial resources available to cancer patients, particularly those residing in rural areas. Methods: Seven research teams within the Cancer Prevention and Research Control Network interviewed personnel providing financial navigation services across four types of cancer care facilities and three urban/rural classifications. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We identified themes using inductive content analysis. A total of 28 interviews were collected across 7 states and preliminary results have been generated from 20 interviews. Results: Study participants identified transportation and housing costs as primary financial stressors for rural patients. A few personnel from centers in urban counties did not observe clear differences in experiences of financial toxicity between rural and urban patients. No personnel mentioned resources that are long-term or specifically for rural patients. Gas cards and temporary housing are often provided to help rural and urban patients access treatment. Insufficient staffing is a barrier to addressing patients’ financial concerns in rural and urban centers. Urban institutions, particularly NCI-designated facilities, employ more cancer-specific financial navigators than rural institutions. Conclusions: Patients across the rural-urban continuum experience financial hardship, but rural patients may be disproportionately affected by transportation and housing costs. Improving transportation and housing support may improve their ability to access treatment. Financial navigation practices within states vary; thus, patients and cancer centers may benefit from more streamlined approaches to address financial needs for all cancer patients.

The Minority-Based Community Clinical Oncology Program (MB-CCOP) at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School-University Hospital Cancer Center was established to serve an unmet need in a medically, educationally, and socioeconomically underserved community of primarily African American and Latino patients in Newark and Essex County, New Jersey. The MB-CCOP was built on an existing infrastructure of multidisciplinary teams of cancer specialists who collaborated in patient care and an existing clinical research program, which included multilingual staff and a breast cancer navigator. This article highlights some of the unique opportunities and challenges involved in the startup of an MB-CCOP specifically relevant to an academic setting. We present a guide to the necessary infrastructure and institutional support that must be in place before considering such a program and some of the steps an institution can take to overcome barriers preventing successful enrollment of patients onto clinical trials.

72 Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide, yet many patients with HCC never receive cancer-directed therapy, for reasons that are not well documented. In order to tailor interventions to increase access to appropriate therapy, it is critical to understand the barriers and facilitators to access to care and receipt of treatment in HCC. Methods: This study includes 10 patients with HCC, within 6 months of diagnosis, identified through either the University of North Carolina (UNC) multidisciplinary HCC clinic or the UNC Rapid Case Ascertainment (RCA) Core which identifies cancer patients through registrars at local hospitals. Recruitment is ongoing with a target of 20 patients, expected to complete in July 2018. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted by two qualitative researchers. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and coded independently by two coders, using a common codebook. Coding discrepancies were reconciled by consensus. Results: Most participants described that they had been incidentally diagnosed with HCC during evaluation for another health issue. Key facilitators of care were: physician knowledge about HCC; clear, honest, and timely communication regarding test results, plan of care, and prognosis; access to transportation; strong social support; and financial support through friends, family, insurance, or charity care. Barriers to care included: lack of transportation; delays in receipt of information or in scheduling appointments; or poor communication with the medical team. Conclusions: This study identifies key facilitators and barriers to accessing care for HCC in North Carolina (NC). Further investigation of a broader sample of HCC patients is warranted, and the qualitative data from this study will be used to create a survey to be administered to all patients with incident HCC in NC. Ultimately, this information will serve as the basis for tailored interventions aimed at improving access to appropriate, life-prolonging care for patients with HCC.

230 Background: Many community cancer research programs aim to exceed Good Clinical Practices. To support such efforts, the National Cancer Institute and collaborators began developing the Clinical Trials Assessment of Infrastructure Matrix (CT AIM) Tool in 2008. CT AIM’s 3 levels of exemplary performance span 11 infrastructure attributes. 2013’s revisions focused on interpretability, usability, and measurability. Methods: Tool input was obtained at national research meetings. Also, 4 Principal Investigator-Program Administrator (PI/PA) pairs from NCI-funded community cancer programs with varied demographics (eg, size, population) underwent cognitive interviews. Aggregated responses and a major-themes summary led to tool revisions. Next a web-based version was piloted with 4 more PI/PA pairs. The frequency/distribution of responses within pairs was assessed. The revised tool was then field-tested with 9 more PIs and scoring method feedback was collected; the tool was further revised. Results: Per community input and cognitive interviews: (1) “best practice” designation was replaced with “assessment of infrastructure”, (2) attributes were reordered based on perceived importance, (3) terms and cumulativeness of levels were clarified. Receiving 0 “don’t understand”s indicated improvement in clarity. 64% of “don’t know” responses were from respondents at the same program and 5 were from the biospecimen research attribute, indicating the information is difficult for programs to obtain. PI/PA responses varied 36% of the time, of which 70% involved a 1-level difference in response, indicating variation in responses by program role. 2 questions generated inconsistent responses from all 4 pairs, indicating possible further revisions. Average scoring was more accurate and sensitive to incremental program improvements. Conclusions: Broad community input, cognitive interviews, and piloting improved the tool’s clarity. Program leaders are encouraged to use CT AIM with research team members to enhance site infrastructure. CT AIM is useful for quality improvement, benchmarking research performance, progress reporting, and communicating program needs with institutional leaders. NCI Contract No. HHSN261200800001E