Wilcox, Ryan Eldredge

e18781 Background: Clinical decision support (CDS) technology has the potential to improve health outcomes by offering physicians an informational resource to support review and application of best practices. The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) and Intermountain Healthcare (IMH) conducted a study to assess the suitability of a single health system’s data for a myeloma-specific CDS tool that visualizes treatment pathways, and to assess the effort needed to support a CDS program. This research is part of a longer-term effort to explore how CDS technology can help: Increase awareness of and apply treatment guidelines by visualizing pathways for specific MM patient cohorts, Improve understanding of treatment variation for quality improvement within healthcare systems, Improve outcomes research by visualizing relationships between treatments and outcomes. This abstract focuses on the second use case, showing suitability of community health system data to assess treatment variability within the health system. Methods: IA12 data from the CoMMpass study was used to create a CDS tool prototype. These data were aggregated into state and transition maps to identify nodes and pathways with corresponding outcomes, including response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). We also tested if EMR data from a community health system (i.e., IMH) could support such visualization. Inclusion criteria included patients with active MM between January 2016–June 2018; adult aged 18 years to 89 years at diagnosis of active or smoldering MM. An IMH-specific data dictionary was assessed for variable importance, quantity, and ease of acquisition. Results: Ninety-six of an initial 146 patients meeting eligibility criteria had sufficient data usable for the study, reflecting 44 unique drug combinations across 9 lines of therapy. The tool was able to associate and visualize all patients and their clinical states and transitions to their outcomes. Clinical data was typically complete (99% of the time), including key clinician-derived data, such as ECOG scores (78%) and treatment response (99%). Conclusions: The IMH portion of the study supports the hypothesis that a community health system can provide sufficiently high-quality information to power a CDS tool with priority features including display of treatment selection variability. Only 65% (96/146) of the initial study group had usable data because some patients had received partial care outside of the IMH integrated delivery network (IDN) leaving associated data inaccessible. Initial biostatistical analysis suggests that roughly 750-1000 complete patient records would be required for statistically significant outcomes research with granularly stratified cohorts. The MMRF plans to recruit additional large IDNs to obtain the patients to power more generalizable functionality.

678 Background: Improvements in outcome of medical therapy for mCRC are closely linked to availability of active agents. Based on phase III clinical data, regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, received FDA approval September 2012 for patients with mCRC previously treated with all approved therapies. Post regorafenib therapy (PRTx) has not been established. Based on clinical observations, we established a multi-institution collaboration to assess chemotherapy response in mCRC after regorafenib therapy. Methods: After IRB approval, patient records at Mayo Clinic (MC), MD Anderson (MDA) and the University of Southern California (USC) from April 2010 to February 2014 were reviewed for regorafenib use and outcomes for mCRC. Therapies, patient and tumor characteristics were reviewed. Response and progression were determined by investigator review. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival. Results: Regorafenib was given to 173 patients with mCRC (MC:59 MDA:95 and USC:19). Of these, 11 (6%) continued on regorafenib at time of analysis and 98 (57%) received no additional therapy. PRTx was given to 64 (37%) patients, 31 of which went on a clinic trial. 33 patients were treated with standard approved therapy of which 11 (33%) progressed, 20 (61%) showed response or SD, and 2 (6%) were not evaluable. Out of the 33 treated with standard agents, 8 (24%) had stable disease or response to a treatment previously discontinued without definitive PD, whereas 4 (12%) responded to rechallenge with chemotherapy previously discontinued due to PD. Response was noted in 8 (24%) patients that received an agent not given prior to regorafenib. After discontinuation of regorafenib, mOS was 6.5 mo (CI 4.9 – 9.4), and the probability of survival at 6 and 12 months was 52% and 27% respectively. Conclusions: With the caveat of a small sample size and a potential selection bias, our multi-institution study shows that re-utilizing standard treatment options after regorafenib may be beneficial in select patients with mCRC including in patients with progression on identical therapy before regorafenib. Further retrospective and prospective studies could be warranted to define the role of regorafenib as a chemotherapy re-sensitizing agent.