LeBlanc, Thomas W.

Abstract Purpose: Shared decision-making (SDM) incorporates patients' individual preferences and values into treatment decisions in collaboration with their healthcare providers (HCPs). Patients with previously treated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have multiple available treatment options and are candidates for SDM. The objective of this project was to develop an informational, patient-centered decision aid that will enable patients, in collaboration with their HCP, to weigh available evidence along with patients' individual preferences and values. Methods: The evidence-based decision aid is designed to be accessed online in the physician's office or at home. The decision aid discusses and compares evidence about the risks and benefits of different treatment options available to previously treated MCL patients. To help patients understand what is important to them as they consider available treatment options, the decision aid includes simple questions that assess patients' values and preferences. The development and design process follows the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) model, including: 1) identification and description of the treatment decision for patients with previously treated MCL; 2) formation of a multidisciplinary advisory committee with four HCPs and one patient with MCL to advise on the development, evaluation, and implementation of the decision aid; 3) assessment of decisional needs through literature review and needs assessment interviews with five patients and five practicing HCPs to elicit their views on patients' information and decision support needs in previously treated MCL; 4) determination of online format designed for integration into clinical practice; 5) review and synthesis of clinical evidence relevant to the treatment decision and options for previously treated MCL; 6) development of the draft decision aid with five iterative cycles of feedback from HCPs and patients; 7) alpha testing with direct feedback from patients and HCPs; and, 8) beta testing in real life conditions, using patients and HCPs external to the development process, evaluating the usability of the decision aid, and assessing patient knowledge, expectations, values, treatment choice, decisional conflict and confidence in one's ability to make decisions. Results: Needs assessment interviews with patients showed that patients understand that their disease will relapse and apply previous treatment experiences to later treatment decisions. Through our interviews we found that patients look for information online, and feel that most information online about MCL is incorrect and/or outdated. In order of importance, patients identify efficacy, adverse effects, cost, and impact on daily life as their primary decision determinants. Patients like an online format and want to be involved in decision-making. In the HCPs' needs assessment interviews, HCPs stated that some patients may require significant education on treatment options due to the rapidly changing treatment landscape and long remission periods. In order of importance, HCPs feel patients choose treatment based on cost, efficacy, and impact on daily life. HCPs believe an online decision aid would work for this patient population and that patients want to be involved in treatment decision-making. Conclusion: A patient-friendly online decision aid with graphics and audio was developed for patients with previously treated MCL. Feedback from patients and HCPs has been integrated into the decision aid. Guided by a well-documented and systematic development process, this SDM tool can complement other methodologies in decision-making and has the potential to improve patient-physician communication, ensuring patients' preferences and values are incorporated at the point of care. Disclosures LeBlanc: Flatiron: Consultancy; Epi-Q: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Helsinn Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Wolf:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy. Neylon:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Caroselli:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Research Funding. Deering:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Research Funding. Schenkel:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Employment.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common form of acute leukemia among adults and accounts for the largest number of annual deaths due to leukemias in the United States. Recent advances have resulted in an expansion of treatment options for AML, especially concerning targeted therapies and low-intensity regimens. This portion of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for AML focuses on the management of AML and provides recommendations on the workup, diagnostic evaluation and treatment options for younger (age <60 years) and older (age ≥60 years) adult patients.

e23108 Background: ASCO antiemetic guidelines recommend upfront triple prophylaxis (NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) + 5HT3 RA + dexamethasone) for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Physicians exhibit high variation in HEC guideline adherence, principally involving inclusion of NK1 RA. Whether adherence is associated with selection of the specific 5HT3 RA agent remains inadequately studied. Methods: In the IBM Explorys electronic health record database, we used procedure and diagnosis codes to identify HEC courses and related nausea/vomiting (NV) from 2012 to 2018. We defined HEC guideline adherence as triple prophylaxis at chemotherapy initiation. We assigned HEC courses for ≥ 7 day cycles of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), or carboplatin (≥ 14 day cycles as a proxy for AUC ≥ 4) to prescribing oncologists based on encounter frequency. We categorized 5HT3 RA use of each physician treating ≥ 5 HEC courses based on their most commonly used 5HT3 and performed descriptive statistics. Results: Of 12,262 HEC courses, 57% involved physicians having greater use of ondansetron (OND) (mean OND to palonosetron (PALO) ratio of 3.9:1). These courses had lower guideline adherence (due to NK1 RA omission) and higher rates of NV for combined HEC, AC, and carboplatin. NV rates for cisplatin did not vary by 5HT3 agent used. Courses involving physicians with greater PALO use (mean OND:PALO ratio of 0.2:1) had superior adherence and NV rates, despite involving a slightly higher risk population (younger and/or female). Conclusions: According to HEC antiemetic guidelines, NK1 RA use should occur independent of 5HT3 RA agent selection. However, we observed less NK1 RA use where OND was preferred, which may have caused the observed higher rates of NV with OND. Further evaluation should assess whether pharmacy cost minimization is a driver of both OND preference and NK1 omission in HEC. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: In order to improve care and reduce costs of cancer treatment, attention has focused on reducing inpatient (IP) and emergency room (ED) utilization. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently implemented an oncology outcome measure (OP-35) to assess the quality of care and determine outpatient hospital payment. It assesses 30-day post-chemotherapy rates of IP or ED events deemed “potentially avoidable” by CMS due to association with any of 10 CMS-defined toxicities: anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, nausea, emesis, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis. Although CMS found that 20% of chemotherapy treatment resulted in such events, event rates with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) are understudied, particularly for breast cancer (bCA) patients treated with anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), carboplatin, or cisplatin. Methods: In a large electronic health record database focused on US integrated delivery networks, HEC courses of therapy were identified from 4Q 2012 to 3Q 2017. IP/ED events within 30 days of chemotherapy administration were considered related to the OP-35 measure if they included a diagnosis code of any of the ten OP-35 toxicities, per CMS' definitions. HEC chemotherapy use, IP/ED events, bCA diagnosis, and toxicities were identified by ICD-9, ICD-10, and procedural codes. Subgroups were evaluated for 3 common HECs: AC, carboplatin (&gt;14 days apart, as a proxy for AUC ≥4), and cisplatin. Results: 4128 courses of HEC in bCA were identified. Of these, 2304 involved AC (median 4 cycles), 1721 involved carboplatin (median 6 cycles), and 103 involved cisplatin (median 4 cycles), with median ages of 55, 59, and 64, respectively. 30-day IP/ED events were seen in 25% of these HEC bCA courses (22%, 30% and 23% for AC, carboplatin, and cisplatin, respectively). The 10 CMS-defined toxicities were associated with an IP/ED event for 73%, 72%, and 76% of events for these AC, carboplatin, and cisplatin courses respectively, confirming that these are principal contributors to 30-day IP/ED use for patients receiving HEC in bCA. The top five that were most commonly associated with IP/ED for bCA for patients receiving AC, carboplatin, or cisplatin were pain 53%/49%/63%, anemia 51%/51%/38%, fever 48%/31%/38%, neutropenia 46%/27%/31%, and nausea/emesis 30%/40%/25%; patients may have had ≥1 toxicity associated with each IP/ED event. The IP/ED rate may be understated because some events, particularly ED, may occur out of the network the EHR data covers. Conclusion: One quarter of patients receiving AC, carboplatin, or cisplatin for bCA visit the ED or are hospitalized within 30 days of at least one of their chemotherapy administrations. Most events involved ≥1 of 10 toxicities deemed avoidable causes of hospitalization by CMS and now tracked as an oncology outcome measure. Relative to patients receiving AC, acute care rates for patients receiving carboplatin were lower for fever and neutropenia and higher for nausea/emesis, perhaps because the study period largely precedes the 2017 addition of carboplatin AUC ≥4 to national guidelines as HEC requiring triplet antiemetic prophylaxis. Toxicity prevention and symptom monitoring are crucial to reduce acute care needs. Citation Format: Ruddy KJ, Roeland EJ, LeBlanc TW, Binder G, Sebastiani S, Potluri R, Schmerold LM, Papademetriou E, Navari RM. Avoidable acute care use associated with nausea and emesis among patients receiving AC, carboplatin, or cisplatin for breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-16-05.

Background: Avoiding acute care services can improve cancer care and reduce cost. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) new oncology outcome measure (OP-35) defines 30-day post-chemotherapy inpatient (IP) and/or emergency department (ED) events (IP/ED) as “potentially avoidable” if involving any of 10 toxicities, including nausea or vomiting (NV). Evidence demonstrates meaningful gaps in oncologists’ adherence to antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), and that NV-related IP use costs >$10,000; yet the incidence of avoidable acute care events involving NV is not well studied. Methods: We assessed chemotherapy courses using IBM Explorys electronic health records (4Q 2012–1Q 2018). We identified rates of IP/ED ≤30 days post-chemotherapy, and OP-35 toxicities (NV, anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis) by ICD-9, ICD-10, procedure codes, and CMS criteria. We evaluated cisplatin, anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), carboplatin (>14 days apart, as a proxy for AUC ≥4), oxaliplatin (OX), and other non-HEC chemotherapy. We assessed guideline adherence, defined as triple prophylaxis (NK1 RA + 5HT3 RA +dexamethasone) rates at HEC initiation. Results: In 17,609 HEC and 56,624 non-HEC courses, we observed 30-day IP/ED utilization in 29% and 19% of courses, respectively (Table 1). For HEC, 76% of IP/ED use involved ≥1 of the 10 CMS toxicities, most often anemia (42%), pain (41%), dehydration (24%), and NV (24%). Rates of all-cause IP/ED, IP/ED with OP-35 toxicity, and NV-related IP/ED were consistent for HEC and OX. Gaps in triple prophylaxis were common in HEC. Conclusion: Roughly one-third of patients receiving HEC or OX experienced IP/ED events ≤30 days after chemotherapy. Three-quarters of IP/ED events involved ≥1 of 10 OP-35 toxicities linked by CMS to potentially avoidable acute care; of these, one-third involved NV. NV-associated acute care use is considerable, costly, and potentially avoidable with better adherence to antiemesis guidelines.

651 Background: Oxaliplatin (OX), used primarily in gastrointestinal cancers, is considered moderately emetogenic while multiple guidelines classify carboplatin and cisplatin as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The new oncology outcome measure (OP-35) from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) deems 30-day post-chemotherapy inpatient (IP) and emergency room (ED) events “potentially avoidable” if involving nausea or emesis (NV) or any of eight other toxicities. We lack data comparing avoidable IP/ED and NV events for OX relative to platinums classified as HEC. Methods: We assessed OX, cisplatin, and carboplatin courses of therapy from 4Q 2012 to 1Q 2018 using the IBM Watson Explorys database. We identified IP/ED and OP-35 toxicities (anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, NV, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis) by diagnosis and procedure codes, and stratified results by sex and age < 70 (median age at diagnosis for colorectal cancer). An IP/ED event could involve ≥ 1 OP-35 toxicity. We also evaluated a FOLFIRINOX subgroup (receiving irinotecan ≤ 3 days after OX). Results: In sum, we identified 4,231 OX courses (382 FOLFIRINOX) (Table). OP-35 toxicities occurred in 75% of IP/ED events; of these, 34% OX and 42% FOLFIRINOX involved NV. Rates of IP/ED, IP/ED OP-35-defined toxicity, and NV after OX were consistent with cisplatin and carboplatin. Among patients receiving OX, women age < 70 (n = 1388) had higher NV rates vs. others (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Roughly one-third of patients receiving OX experienced IP/ED events ≤ 30 days post chemotherapy. Most involved ≥ 1 of 10 OP-35 toxicities, meeting CMS’ criteria as potentially avoidable acute care. OX IP/ED rates and NV rates were similar to other platinums and were worse among women age < 70, suggesting more aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis should be evaluated. [Table: see text]

95 Background: Palliative care (PC) specialists provide supportive care for patients with hematologic diseases (HD). However, the degree of engagement by PC physicians may be limited by the views of both PC physicians & hematologists. Prior studies have surveyed hematologists to identify barriers to delivery of PC, however PC physician views are unclear. This study aimed to examine views of PC physicians toward hematology. Methods: A survey was mailed to a random sample of the AAHPM physician contact list in 2017. Items focused on perceptions of their understanding of HD, comfort providing care, opinions regarding PC & hospice involvement, & beliefs about hematologists. Anonymized responses were assessed on a Likert scale. Statistical testing was based on logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations to account for correlated data within respondents. Results: 538 of 1000 surveys were completed. 51.9% of respondents were male. Community (37.2%), academic (36.7%) & hospice (26.2%) physicians were represented. Respondents were likelier to believe they understand the trajectories of lymphoma & myeloma than leukemia or patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (p < 0.001). They were more comfortable discussing prognosis (p < 0.001) & managing symptoms (p < 0.001) in lymphoma & myeloma than leukemia & HSCT. They were likelier to believe that hematologists’ perceptions of PC physicians limit collaboration rather than their own views of hematologists (p < 0.001). 80.2% agreed that hospice referrals are not made early enough. Conclusions: PC physicians’ understanding of trajectories & comfort caring for patients varies by hematologic disease. They perceive that hematologists’ perceptions are a larger barrier than their own & hospice referrals are delayed. These results provide insights into opportunities for better collaboration with hematologists.

74 Background: U.S. National Antiemetic Guidelines recommend upfront triple prophylaxis (NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) + 5HT3 RA + dexamethasone) for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 per 2017 guidelines. While existing data show gaps in guideline compliance, variation between individual physicians is less studied, and a realistic target compliance rate remains unknown. Methods: In a large electronic health record database (IBM Explorys), we identified HEC courses of therapy initiated from 2012 to 2017. Guideline compliance was defined as triple prophylaxis at chemotherapy initiation. Patient courses for ≥ 7 day cycles of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), or carboplatin (≥ 14 day cycles as a proxy for AUC ≥ 4) were ascribed to oncologists based on encounter frequency. We then ranked physicians treating ≥ 5 HEC courses and evaluated guideline compliance and individual physician variation. Results: In total, 10,074 HEC courses were identified and attributed to 451 unique physicians. Overall antiemetic guideline compliance with cisplatin and AC averaged 68% and 81% respectively. When ranked by compliance, the top 20% of physicians were 2.5 - 1.5 times as compliant as the bottom 20% (cisplatin 100% vs 40%; AC 100% vs 67%). For cisplatin, 32% of physicians had > 90% compliance; the remaining 68% were evenly distributed from 0 - 90%. For AC, 56% of physicians had > 90% compliance, and another 14% had 80 - 90%; the remaining 30% were evenly distributed. For carboplatin, 62% of physicians had ≤ 10% compliance, and another 17% had 11 - 20%; however, the majority of these data preceded guideline inclusion of carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 as HEC. Rates were independent of course volume per physician. Conclusions: Considerable physician-level variation exists in triple antiemetic prophylaxis guideline adherence for HEC. Hundreds of physicians had > 90% compliance with guidelines, suggesting 90% is a realistic target. However, the majority exhibited substantial gaps in NK1 RA use in HEC, placing patients unnecessarily at risk for CINV. Interventions are needed to bolster triple antiemetic prophylaxis in HEC, perhaps especially for carboplatin.