Experiences and preferences of cancer survivors across the immunotherapy journey.

1635 Background: Immuno-oncology (IO) drugs are recommended by guidelines for several tumor types and can significantly improve survival in patients with cancer. As patients experience long-term care due to extended survival, it is important to understand the challenges of survivorship and experiences receiving IO. Here, we present IO treatment experiences and preferences for IO based on modes of administration among cancer survivors. Methods: A web-based survey was administered to US cancer survivors in the fall of 2024. Patients were recruited via physician referral and were eligible to participate if they were ≥ 18 years of age, diagnosed ≥ 1 year prior with any solid tumor cancer (any stage), and received IO within the past 5 years. The survey included the Quality of Life-Cancer Survivor (QoL-CS) scale (range 0–10; higher scores indicate better QoL) and a direct preference exercise. The preference exercise asked patients to indicate whether they would prefer IO be administered via subcutaneous (SC) injection or intravenous (IV) infusion and asked patients to rank the influence of common characteristics of each administration on preferences. Study variables were analyzed descriptively. Results: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of patients (N = 100) was 57.8 (7.2) years; 46% were White and 51% were male. The most common tumor types reported were lung (26%), melanoma (14%), kidney (12%), and colon (10%). Mean (SD) time since cancer diagnosis was 4.1 (2.7) years and mean time since starting IO was 2.4 (1.5) years. Most (72%) patients reported that a typical visit for receiving an infusion lasted between 1–2 hours and most (56%) traveled 30–60 minutes to receive their infusion. Some patients experienced interrupted access to their most recent IO treatment due to transportation delays (24%) and not having someone to accompany them to treatment (24%). The average QoL-CS score was moderate (mean [SD], 5.1 [1.3]) and 57% of patients agreed that IO improved their QoL. Yet, 42% and 48% noted that daily activities and physical health, respectively, were negatively affected by their most recent IO treatment. Most patients (92%) preferred a hypothetical SC injection over IV infusion; the top SC injection characteristics influencing this preference were no need to access the vein with an IV catheter, the amount of time it takes to be administered (described as 5 vs 30 minutes), and the potential for more flexibility in scheduling/location of receiving IO treatment. Conclusions: Our study found that IO treatment improved the QoL of most cancer survivors. However, challenges to receiving IO, including the time required for travel and administration, were common. Most patients in our sample would prefer a SC administration of IO over an IV infusion, suggesting that less-invasive modes of administration requiring less time and greater flexibility may present opportunities to improve the patient treatment experience.