e13512 Background: While there has been ongoing work to define the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivorship models, little has been done to understand the role of PCPs earlier in the care continuum. As PCP-shared models of care have been theorized to help address morbidity related to the physical and psychosocial effects of cancer and its treatment, there is a need to better understand the impact of PCPs on AYAs. Given this, we sought to study the influence of PCPs in the care of AYAs with cancer, comparing care receipt and satisfaction during treatment versus in survivorship. Methods: Electronic health record query identified adult AYA cancer patients 19-39 years with at least two visits at the University of Wisconsin from 3/30/2019-3/29/2020. Identified patients were sent an electronic survey to assess care team members and impact on care. Responses were categorized based on patient-reported presence of a PCP as part of their cancer care team. For the data analysis, all patients who did not self-identify as long-term survivors, defined as 5+ years since diagnosis, were defined as active patients. Given survey answers were not mandated for all questions, the denominator was unique for each question. Results: We found a minority of AYAs responding to our survey considered a PCP as part of their cancer care team (71/173, 41%). PCP presence led to improved satisfaction in all AYAs with addressing the impact of diagnosis/treatment on peer interactions and independence, with 67% (45/67) AYAs with a PCP very or some satisfied versus 55% (53/97) without a PCP. PCPs also decreased the likelihood that supportive care services weren’t received by patients due to a lack of knowledge of the services, seen in 64% (56/88) AYAs without a PCP versus 52% (32/62) with a PCP. As seen in table, there were several findings suggesting that PCP involvement in AYA care was more critical to active patients than long-term survivors, including supportive care service receipt and satisfaction with such services. Conclusions: Overall, we found PCP involvement on cancer care teams was important for AYAs defined as both active patients and long-term survivors. Despite this, less than half of all patients identified PCPs as part of their care team. Our data suggest PCP-shared models of cancer care may improve care utilization and satisfaction in AYAs and support efforts to incorporate PCPs as meaningful members of the care team throughout all phases of care. Survey responses based on PCP inclusion as cancer care team member and patient treatment status.[Table: see text]

PURPOSE: Adolescent and young adult oncology programs are critical but exist primarily in academic centers, prompting potential disparities in care on the basis of patient residence. We studied the impact of residential location on supportive care receipt and treatment satisfaction in young adults (YAs) with cancer age 19-39 years treated at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center (UWCCC). METHODS: YA patients with cancer age 19-39 years seen at UWCCC from March 30, 2019, to March 29, 2020, were sent a survey assessing supportive care receipt and satisfaction. Survey results were compared with retrospective chart review of YAs seen at UWCCC between April 1, 2011, and April 1, 2021. Data were categorized on the basis of residential location using distance from UWCCC and 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Code (RUCC). RESULTS: Survey results were obtained for 145 YAs, including 29 from nonmetro RUCC (20.0%) and 81 living > 20 miles from UWCCC (55.9%). YAs from nonmetro locations had lower satisfaction with available treatments (79.3% v 91.4%, P = .005), and distant YAs living > 20 miles from UWCCC more frequently identified location as a barrier to supportive care receipt (35.6% v 15.8%, P = .02). Metro YAs more frequently listed fertility consultations as unavailable (38.0% v 16.0%, P = .04) in the survey despite chart review data showing higher rates of sexual health assessments (48.2% v 20.4%, P = .002) and fertility visits (29.6% v 18.5%, P = .18). CONCLUSION: We identified differences in both supportive care receipt and treatment satisfaction on the basis of residential location. These findings support the need for measures to successfully meet treatment and supportive care needs regardless of residential location.