Virtual Library
Start Your Search
A. Bowser
Author of
-
+
P1.12 - Poster Session/ Community Practice (ID 232)
- Event: WCLC 2015
- Type: Poster
- Track: Community Practice
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/07/2015, 09:30 - 17:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B+C)
-
+
P1.12-002 - International Online Tool for Therapeutic Decision Making in NSCLC (V2.0) (ID 2160)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): A. Bowser
- Abstract
Background:
Practice guidelines in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) list multiple therapy choices based on levels of evidence but cannot account for variability in patient (pt)-tumor characteristics between individual patient cases. To provide oncologists with expert guidance and feedback on choice of treatment (Tx) for specific pt scenarios, we previously implemented an interactive Web-based decision support tool in 2012, in which oncologist users input specific pt characteristics and selected among treatment options, then compared their selection with that of an NSCLC expert panel for that scenario. (Chow JTO 2015). Here we report data from version 2.0 of this tool, capturing current Tx trends for advanced NSCLC and investigating the impact of this online tool on oncology practitioners.
Methods:
V2.0 was developed based on input from 6 international NSCLC experts who provided Tx recommendations for 1st-line treatment in 96 pt case variations based on histology (nonsquamous vs squamous), EGFR mutational status (positive [+] vs negative [-]), ALK rearrangement (+ vs -), age (< 70 vs ≥ 70 years), performance status (0, 1 vs 2), smoking history (never/former light vs former heavy/current), and pt primary Tx goal (response and survival vs quality of life and low adverse events). As in V1.0, oncologist users input specific pt scenarios, then were prompted for their treatment choice. Once completed, recommendations for that scenario from each of the experts were displayed, and users were prompted to indicate whether the expert recommendations changed their treatment choice. Statistical methods: as previously described (Chow JTO 2015).
Results:
V2.0 oncologist users (N = 218 unique users) contributing 314 unique cases were 87% non-USA, 13% USA. As in V1.0, experts agreed on selection of targeted therapies (TKIs) for cases with actionable EGFR mutations and ALK translocations. Choice of a specific EGFR inhibitor by experts varied depending on region and clinical factors. By comparison, among online users of V2.0, an EGFR inhibitor was selected for 67% of EGFR-mutated cases (n = 78), while an ALK inhibitor was selected for 61% of ALK cases (n = 31). For nonsquamous histology cases without actionable mutations, use of pemetrexed was more common among experts compared with oncologist users (91% vs 48% of case scenarios). In 182 cases entered by users who reported on the impact of expert recommendations, treatment choice was affected in 86% of cases (confirmed in 71%); 5.5% disagreed with expert recommendations and 8% indicated barriers to implementing the recommendations. In comparing overall results from V1.0 (2012) to V2.0 (2014), more oncologist users were likely to select TKIs in both EGFR mutation (49% vs 67%) and ALK translocation (35% vs 61%), with a corresponding decrease in use of chemotherapy. A detailed analysis of expert vs user data will be presented, comparing V1.0 (2012) and V2.0 (2014).
Conclusion:
Expert opinions were largely unchanged between V1.0 and V2.0, while oncologist users increased use of TKIs. Most oncologist users of V2.0 either confirmed or changed treatment choices based on expert recommendations. This online tool can aid decision making, serve an educational purpose, and capture practice trends.