With the discovery of imatinib mesylate nearly 20 years ago, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were found to be effective in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). TKI therapy has since revolutionized the treatment of CML and has served as a paradigm of success for targeted drug therapy in cancer. Several new TKIs for CML have been approved over the last two decades that exhibit improved potency over imatinib and have different off-target profiles, providing options for individualized therapy selection. Areas covered: Current management of chronic phase CML, including guidance on the sequential use of imatinib and newer-generation TKIs and evolving treatment strategies such as TKI discontinuation. Relevant literature was identified by searching biomedical databases (i.e. PubMed) for primary research material. Expert commentary: Although survival outcomes have drastically improved for CML patients, treatment for CML has grown more complex with the introduction of next-generation TKIs and the advent of treatment-free remissions (TFR). Goals of therapy have shifted accordingly, with increased focus on improving quality of life, managing patient expectations and optimizing patient adherence.

e18523 Background: Many patients with cancer (PwC) possess a suboptimal understanding of their chemotherapy treatment plan.1 Accordingly, PwC may seek information regarding both the disease and its treatment from other resources. Purpose: A freely-accessible website was curated by oncology pharmacists to provide evidence-based educational material on chemotherapy treatment plans. Objective: To use the website to deploy an online survey assessing other modes of education routinely accessed by PwC. Methods: Between February 2020 and January 2021, PwC completed an anonymous, English language survey via www.chemoexperts.com. Results: A total of 1,036 self-identified patient users began the survey. The majority were from North America (75%). Most respondents (65%) were female. PwC were asked: “If you received education from a health care professional (HCP), what type of education did you receive?” Multiple responses were allowed. Of the 820 patients who responded to this question, 77.4% (n = 635) were given printed material, 52.3% (n = 429) were taught in clinic, 8% (n = 66) were shown videos, 5.7% (n = 47) participated in an educational class outside of clinic, and 4% (n = 33) were given magazines. Roughly 37% were directed to an internet site (n = 304; 92 to chemoexperts.com, 212 to other internet sites) by a HCP. Patients also reported using blogs (12.7%; n = 111/873 respondents), websites other than chemoexperts (85%; n = 742/873), support groups (28.4%; n = 248/873), and YouTube (15.1%; n = 132/873). Discussion: In-person teaching sessions are vital to understanding treatment plans. While the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may have lowered the percentage of PwC who are offered teaching, some PwC may still not absorb or retain all there is to know during in-person sessions and seek other resources to bolster their understanding of treatment. Although the majority of users reported receiving printed material, this too may be limited in its ability to meet the needs of all individuals. Knowing PwC may seek varying modes of education, HCPs should direct patients to resources they are familiar with. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first global survey to examine modes of education utilized by PwC. Although PwC may receive teaching in person, many still seek a variety of educational resources outside of clinic. Relying solely on printed material will not meet the needs of some PwC. When educating PwC in clinic, HCPs concerned about the validity of outside materials should direct patients to resources they are familiar with and trust. Reference: Almalki H, Absi A, Alghamdi A, Alsalmi M, Khan M. Analysis of Patient-Physician Concordance in the Understanding of Chemotherapy Treatment Plans Among Patients With Cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 2;3(3):e200341.

Cost consideration of second line therapy for relapsed diffuse large lymphoma in the community setting Introduction Despite treatment with curative intent chemotherapy, many patient with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) will relapse. Post relapse, the majority of patients will remain sensitive to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Commonly used regiments in this situation include Rituximab plus a combination of other agents such asifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide (R-ICE)etoposide, methylprednisolone, cytarabine, cisplatin (R-ESHAP)dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, cisplatin (R-DHAP)gemcitabine, oxaliplatin (R-Gem/Ox)lenalidomide (R squared)bendamustine (R-Bendamustine As few clinical trials exist that compare these different regimens head to head, the decision is often left to the treating physician. We opted to look at cost as a consideration. Methods: For the regimens listed above, we calculated drug costs using the average wholesale price. For regimens that require inpatient hospital stays, we used historical data for cost of average hospital stay from Beckers Hospital review. A body surface area of 1.75 was used for each regimen. We determined the cost for four cycles of the different regimens. Growth factor support was included as many of these regimens require this. As our focus was on our own community institution, and is it isn't yet widely available, CAR-T was not included. Results: In table Conclusions: While a number of decisions will factor into the use of one of these regimens, cost is an important factor. Based on the above information, there is a wide range of cost. This can be one factor in deciding which combination to use. Few clinical trials have compared these regimens in a head to head fashion. One trial that did compared R-ICE to R-DHAP and essentially showed only minor outcome differences between them. In such situations, cost as well as inpatient vs outpatient hospital stays, patient preference, physician comfort with the different regimens will all play a role in determining which regimen to use. Table. Table. Disclosures Landau: celgene: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria.

e18811 Background: An open-access, web-based platform was developed to provide standardized, evidence-based information, that is cancer regimen-specific and supportive care focused. Online content was provided in the English language only for more than 200 anti-neoplastic regimens. A survey was conducted to determine reasons adult patients and their caregivers seek internet-based cancer drug information, and to evaluate if there is an unmet need for improved oncology therapy education. Methods: Between February 2020 and January 2021, patients and caregivers completed an online anonymous, English language survey deployed on the website www.chemoexperts.com. Results: A total of 1,021 website users responded. The majority of users were from North America (75%). Female respondents comprised 65% of the population and users self-identified as being a patient (67%), or family member/caregiver (33%). The mean age of respondents was 60.7 years (+ 16.2). Roughly two-thirds (66.4%) had a college degree. The majority of respondents reported they were either currently receiving (59.6%), or planning to receive (27.4%) treatment, however patients of all education levels, and in all phases of treatment (before, during, and after) sought online drug information. Clinical drug information education was reportedly provided by a doctor (68.9%), nurse (40.9%), physician assistant or nurse practitioner (23.8%), or pharmacist (15%), while 23% did not receive any education from clinical staff. Modes of education received by participants included printed material (73.9%), teaching in person (52.3%), and/or other internet sites (27.5%). Reasons for visiting the website were reported as follows: seeking additional information (92%), did not know what questions to ask (12%), looking at treatment alternatives (10%), forgot to ask questions (5%), not enough information given (11%), not enough time to ask questions (5%), and afraid to ask questions (2%). Respondents could mark all reasons. Among content sections, the percentage of users reported the side effect section as being the most useful. However, section usefulness varied based upon age, phase of treatment, and baseline education level. Overall, 86% reported finding the information they were looking for on the website. Conclusions: The majority of respondents received education from a health care provider, but not all. It is possible that the current pandemic prevented some patients from receiving education when in-person teaching was not available. However, many patients and caregivers still use the internet to seek additional drug information. These data highlight a continued unmet need for patients using online sources when searching for cancer drug and supportive care information. Further work is required to determine whether supplemental online, education can improve outcomes while reducing adverse effects.