Burckhard, Jenna L.

e13893 Background: For individuals with CNS tumors who have experience difficulties with in-person (IP) evaluations due to disease-related neurologic disability or the costs associated with travel, telehealth (TH) offers a convenient and timely alternative for accessing specialized neuro-oncology care. We report our institution’s experience with telehealth utilization in neuro-oncology. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who had at least one neuro-oncology telehealth visit between August 2021 and May 2024 at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Reasons for visits, outcomes of appointments, acute care utilization following visits was reviewed. Results: A total of 660 patients who had at least one TH visit between August 2021 and May 2024 were included in the analysis. Median age was 56 (range 20-98), 49% were female, and 92% were white. Most patients resided in the US Midwest (84%), followed by the South (8%), West (5%), Northeast (1%), and US Territories (< 1%). Less than two percent were international patients. The most common primary visit diagnosis was glioblastoma (GBM, 26%), followed by astrocytoma, IDH-mutant (17%), meningioma (17%), oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant, 1p/19q codeleted (7%). Of 6657 visits reviewed, 2745 (41%) were conducted via TH. Telehealth visits served various purposes, including consultation for newly diagnosed tumors or abnormal MRIs (n = 26), second opinion for an established tumor diagnosis (n = 119), discussion about clinical trial participation (n = 108), tumor-related treatment discussions (n = 719), chemotherapy education (n = 161), new symptom assessment (n = 117), symptom management (n = 366), and tumor surveillance (n = 1694). Outcomes from telehealth visits included enrollment in clinical trials (n = 28), proceeding with tumor-directed surgery (n = 46), initiation of radiation therapy (n = 88), starting or changing systemic therapy (n = 377), continuing existing systemic therapy (n = 932), transition to supportive care (n = 45), tumor diagnostic workup (n = 28), continuation of tumor surveillance (n = 1254). Acute care utilization, defined as an emergency department visit or hospitalization within one month of an appointment, was the same following telehealth visits compared to in-person visits (6.9% for IP vs 5% for TH, p = 0.507). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that telehealth can effectively support all aspects of neuro-oncology care, ranging from initial diagnosis discussions to systemic therapy management and transitions to supportive care. Telehealth offers a convenient and accessible method of care delivery option for patients faced with neurologic illness. Additionally, THs do not lead to increased acute care utilization compared to IP evaluations.

12058 Background: It is well established that many patients with cancer are taking dietary supplements (DS) and alternative medicines and often do not disclose such to their care teams. There is potential for harm in several ways: 1) interactions with their medications that may increase side effects, 2) interactions with their treatment that may lead to decreased efficacy, 3) direct toxicity from the supplement 4) financial toxicity. We have recently started a new Integrative Oncology service to help counsel patients about improving lifestyle factors and assist patients with safe and evidence-based integrative treatments and supplements. Methods: Patient data (N=100) were collected prospectively from an Integrative Oncology Clinic. The number and type of DS were documented. Using the Natural Medicines Database (NMD), we determined whether supplements interacted with the patients’ other medications or cancer therapies. We calculated the percentage of patients in which a recommendation for discontinuation of DS was recommended, along with the supporting reasons. We calculated the most common DS being taken and other alternative therapies beyond supplements. Results: Ninety-one percent of patients took DS, with an average of 5.5 per patient (range 0-20). The most common DS patients reported taking (%): Vit D (52), Vit C (41), Multivitamin (34), probiotic (27), B Vitamins (26), Ca (20), zinc (20), fish oil (18), cannabis (18), mushrooms (18), turmeric (17), magnesium (15), melatonin (14), biotin (11), coq10 (7), iron (8), VIT E (5), and glucosamine (5). Eighty-nine percent of patients using DS were on active cancer therapy. In thirty-five percent of patients, we recommended stopping some of their DS or other therapies. Number of patients using alternative therapies beyond DS: IV Vitamin C (5), Rick Simpson oil (high dose THC) (4), extreme diets (4), mistletoe (2), re-purposed meds (2); and one each was using hyperbaric O2, ozone, homeopathic, ayurvedic, insulin-potentiated chemo, miracle mineral cure, chelation, low dose naltrexone Conclusions: Cancer patients both on and off active treatment are using large numbers of DS with potential for adverse effects and/or decreasing efficacy of treatments. This study highlights the prevalence of DS and alternative medicine usage in cancer patients referred to an integrative oncology clinic and demonstrates the need for counseling about safe supplement use; in 35% of patients, discontinuation of DS was recommended. [Table: see text]