Purpose To characterize and compare both the outcome and cost of treatment of outpatient (OP) and inpatient (IP) ifosfamide therapy. Methods A single-center retrospective chart review of patients 18 years and older receiving ifosfamide therapy. The primary endpoint compares and evaluates the side effect profiles of ifosfamide-treated patients in the OP/IP settings. The adverse event grading system was characterized using the CTCAE Version 5.0. The highest grade was documented per cycle. The secondary endpoint of this study compares the costs of OP/IP therapy. It was assumed that the cost of medication was equivalent for IP/ OP treatments. The cost saved with OP administration was determined by the average cost of hospital stay for IP admission. Results Ifosfamide therapy of 86 patients (57 OP, 29 IP) was reviewed. The predominant OP regimens were doxorobucinifosfamide-mesna (AIM) with 43.9% and ifosfamide-etoposide (IE) with 29.8%. Grade 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were most frequent in IP vs OP therapies (22.9% IP vs 4.3% OP, 21.6% IP vs 9.2% OP, and 22.8% IP vs 19.6% OP respectively). Neutropenic fever (NF) occurred in 20 OP patients which were predominantly treated with AIM or IE and led to average hospital stay of 6 days. Neurotoxicity, treated with methylene blue (MB) occurred in 4 OP patients. OP therapy saved a total of 783 hospital days, leading to a cost savings of $2,103,921. Conclusions Transitioning ifosfamide to the OP setting is feasible for academic and community infusion centers with the OP administration being safe, well-tolerated, and associated with decreased total cost of care. The current processes allow for safe transition of chemotherapy of chemotherapy under times of COVID.

1540 Background: Ifosfamide displays clinical activity against germ cell tumors as well as soft-tissue and bone sarcomas. It is used in different oncology regimens and commonly administered inpatient due to patient monitoring and side effect management. Transitioning certain chemotherapy regimens to the outpatient setting provides a novel approach to treating patients while maximizing patient satisfaction and decreasing total patient care costs1. There is limited data and protocol development to transition ifosfamide regimens to the ambulatory setting. This study’s purpose is to characterize a pharmacy managed ambulatory oncology workflow for transitioning ifosfamide based-regimens to the outpatient setting. Methods: A retrospective cohort chart review was conducted at a single center and included patients 18 years and older receiving at least one cycle of ifosfamide therapy between September 1, 2013 and July 31, 2019. The primary outcome was to evaluate the side effect profile and cost of treatment of ifosfamide. The secondary endpoint included number of hospitalizations. The adverse event grading system was defined using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. The highest grade observed for adverse effects was documented for every cycle of each patient. The cost was evaluated by labs ordered, drug used, length of stay in the hospital for chemotherapy or adverse reactions. Results: Ifosfamide therapy of 86 patients (57 OP, 29 IP) was reviewed. The predominant OP regimens were adriamycin-ifosfamide-mesna (AIM) with 43.9% and ifosfamide-etoposide (IE) with 29.8%. Grade 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were most frequent in IP vs OP therapies (22.9% IP vs 4.3% OP, 21.6% IP vs 9.2% OP, and 22.8% IP vs 19.6% OP respectively). Neutropenic fever (NF) occurred in 20 OP patients which were predominantly treated with AIM or IE, and led to average hospital stay of 6 days. Neurotoxicity, treated with methylene blue (MB), occurred in 4 OP patients. OP therapy saved a total of 783 hospital days, leading to a cost savings of $2,103,921. Conclusions: Transitioning to outpatient therapy is feasible for academic and community infusion centers. Administration of chemotherapy in the outpatient setting has shown to be safe, well-tolerated, and associated with decreased total cost of care, thereby lowering costs under the oncology care model when compared with inpatient chemotherapy costs.

e19149 Background: The combination of doxorubicin, ifosfamide and mesna (AIM) significantly improves outcomes among patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas. The rising cost of inpatient care, alternative payment model changes and patient preferences has prompted institutions to consider shifting therapy to the outpatient setting. However, the safety and feasibility of outpatient AIM chemotherapy is not well established. The University of Arizona Cancer Center developed an Outpatient Program (OP) to facilitate administration of traditional inpatient chemotherapy regimens in the outpatient setting. We transitioned AIM based chemotherapy to the outpatient setting based on selective criteria and caregiver support. The transition to outpatient treatment could lead to large cost-savings implications under the oncology care model. Methods: The current retrospective analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of outpatient AIM chemotherapy for sarcoma administered in the outpatient setting. An economic study evaluated AIM in the outpatient setting, address, cost of labs, chemotherapy and bed days saved from transitioning chemotherapy from the inpatient setting. Results: Twenty-one patients with soft-tissue sarcoma were treated with outpatient AIM, for a total of 83 cycles. The median age was 60 (27-73) with 6 females and 15 males being evaluated. The median number of cycles per patient was 3.9 (range, 1-6), an average of 4.68 days of infusion days per cycle. Notable side effects included three patients ifosfamide-induced neurologic syndrome and 2 with hematuria. Acute grade 3 and 4 hematological toxicities were observed in 16 and 15 of patients, respectively with 11 occurrences of febrile neutropenia in 9 patients. Of the 21 patients, 15 patients (71%) were hospitalized at least once and 9 patients (43%) were hospitalized due to neutropenic fever. Total bed days saved by transitioning AIM outpatient was 390, for a total hospital cost savings of $1,043,250. Current costs savings for laboratory, chemotherapy and patient assistance access is still being tabulated. Conclusions: The combination of ifosfamide and mesna as a continuous outpatient infusion is feasible and well-tolerated using proper selection of patient and caregiver evaluation. This new model of administration provides an opportunity to decrease cost of care, improve patient satisfaction and reduce utilization of healthcare resource for community and academic cancer center sites.