Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2026

Is remote survivorship assessment, equally accurate for everyone? (145553)

Rachel E Houweling 1 2 , Jordana K McLoone 1 2 , Claire E Wakefield 1 2 , Joe Alchin 1 2 , Sara Soleymani 1 2 , Elysia Thornton-Benko 2 3 , Karen Johnston 1 2 , Rachael Baldwin 1 2 , Adam Nelson 1 2 , Dinisha Govender 4 , Kristen Neville 1 2 , Richard Cohn 1 2 , Christina Signorelli 1 2
  1. 1. Behavioural Sciences Unit, Discipline of Paediatrics & Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, Randwick Clinical Campus, UNSW Medicine & Health,, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia, Pyrmont, Australia
  2. 2. Minderoo Children's Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, , Randwick, NSW, Australia
  3. 3. Bondi Road Doctors, Bondi, NSW, Australia
  4. 4. Cancer Centre for Children, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia

Aims: Childhood cancer survivors require risk-based follow-up care to manage their lifelong risk of treatment-related late effects. How best to access care for their diverse physical and psychosocial survivorship needs is variable and potentially complex. We developed The Engage Health and Lifestyle Assessment (HLA), as a digital, patient-reported tool to support remote multidisciplinary review and personalised recommendations. The aim of this study was to identify the HLA acceptability, feasibility, and accuracy of survivor-reported information (as compared to nurse-documented information), and examine outcomes between survivors with and without an intellectual disability (ID).

Methods: ‘Engage’ was trialled at two Australian hospitals. Survivors (diagnosed <18 years; ≥5 years post-diagnosis; in remission; >2 years since previous specialist visit) completed the HLA online, followed by nurse consultation and multidisciplinary review. We assessed acceptability, completion time, and survivor–nurse concordance (agreement across clinical domains), overall and compared between survivors with/without intellectual disability.

Results: In total, 138 survivors consented (mean age at diagnosis 8.6 years; mean time since diagnosis 14.5 years; 55% brain cancer) and 127 completed the HLA (no ID 60%, ID 40%). Acceptability was high, with 80.7% of survivors reporting the HLA questions were relevant to their medical care and 82.9% finding it easy to complete. Overall concordance was high. Domain-level discordance ranged from 2.9% to 15.8% and was highest for endocrine (15.8%) and Central Nervous System (CNS) (13.8%) cancers. Survivors with an intellectual disability had higher discordance than those without (10.8% vs 7.1%; RR = 1.52). Furthermore, survivors with an intellectual disability took longer to complete the HLA than those without (Mann–Whitney U = 983.5, Z = −2.05, p = .040).

Conclusion: The remote HLA was feasible and acceptable, with high survivor–nurse concordance. Additional time/support may be needed when discussing CNS and endocrine issues, given lower levels of concordance, and for survivors with intellectual disability.