range 58-72). Most patients were male (71.1%), and English-speaking (82.5%). Whites, Blacks, and Asians/Others comprised 41.2%, 39.2%, and 6.2% of patients, respectively. Fifteen patients were Hispanic (15.5%). The most common health insurance providers were private (n Z 37; 38.1%), joint Medicare-Medicaid including senior and community health plans for the elderly (n Z 26; 26.8%), Medicaid (n Z 17; 17.5%), and Medicare (n Z 15; 15.5%). Twenty-five patients (25.8%) were married. Seven patients (7.2%) no-showed or cancelled, while 90 patients were seen in consultation. Of these 90 patients, 44 patients (45.4%) completed initial questionnaires. For the remaining 46 patients (51.1%), the most common reason for lack of ePROM completion was clinical decision based on absence of indication for radiotherapy, and/or clinic understaffing (n Z 26; 28.9%). Eleven patients (12.2%) could not complete the ePROMs due to physical inability, including vision issues, inexperience with tablet technology, and physical restraints for two incarcerated patients. Nine patients refused to complete ePROMs (10.0%), with reasons cited including length of questionnaires and low energy. Language, race, ethnicity, insurance, marital status, gender, and disease site were not associated with ePROM completion (p!0.1). Conclusion: Routine implementation of ePROMs in a safety-net oncology setting is feasible, but challenging and labor-intensive. Improving ease and accessibility of PRO collection for these vulnerable patients, with dedicated staff and resources, should be prioritized.
