Background: Patients with AML and poor-risk cytogenetic abnormalities often have suboptimal treatment response and poor long-term survival, Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (ePROs) integration into routine oncology practice have been shown to improve patient time on therapy, survival, and resource utilization. This study explores the use of an ePRO platform to explore differences in treatment experience and ePRO compliance in patients with AML and poor and other-risk cytogenetics. Methods: Adult patients with AML undergoing treatment were enrolled in the Carevive remote symptom monitoring (RSM) platform between March 1, 2021 and April 20, 2023. Patients received baseline and weekly surveys to assess patient-reported symptom burden, physical function, overall health, and survey compliance throughout treatment. Baseline characteristics included age, sex, race, frailty status (modified Geriatric Assessment, CARE survey item, and/or self-reported activity level), comorbidities, and social determinants of health. Symptoms (derived from the PRO-CTCAE), physical function (PROMIS 4a), and quality of life (QoL) (EORTC QLQ-C30, items #29-30) were assessed weekly. Results were stratified by poor vs. other cytogenetic risk. As this was an exploratory study, statistical significance was not reported. Results: Of a total of 124 patients, 47 (38%) had poor-risk and 77 (62%) had other-risk disease by cytogenetics. Weekly survey compliance was comparable (68% vs 69%), and median age was 66 (range 35-88) and 69 (range 21-88), respectively. About 50% of all patients were male, 76% were White, and 69% had ≥1 comorbidity. Patients with other-risk were younger with 40% fewer comorbidities (mean 0.95, median 0, range 0-5) than patients with poor cytogenetic risk (mean 1.36, median 1, range 0-5). Overall symptoms were reported 12% more frequently among patients with other risk (1.49 symptoms per patient-week) compared to patients with poor risk (1.33 symptoms per patient-week). Fatigue was reported by 20% of patients across all patient-weeks for both risk groups; shortness of breath was reported 6% and 10% across all patient-weeks for poor and other risk groups, respectively. Although baseline treatment bother was 17% higher for poor risk patients, over time, QoL and treatment bother were comparable between both groups, and physical function was directionally higher. Conclusions: This study illustrates the feasibility of using remote symptom monitoring for evaluating patients with poor vs. other cytogenetic risk in routine care, with relatively high survey compliance in a real-world setting. Despite poor prognostic status, the experience of poor cytogenetic risk patients was comparable to other cytogenetic risk patients and reported directionally lower levels of symptom burden and higher levels of function over time.