Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a premalignant disorder characterized by the asymptomatic presence of a monoclonal protein. It is defined by an M protein < 3 gm/dl, less than 10% clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow, and the absence of anemia, hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency and bone lesions. In 2010 the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) advocated for MGUS patients to be stratified into low risk disease, which carries a 5% risk of progression to multiple myeloma at 20 years, and high risk disease, which represents a 20% risk at 20 years. This stratification model categorizes patients as low risk if they have an IgG paraprotein with an M-component < 1.5 g/dl and a normal free light chain (FLC) ratio. As such, it is suggested that the initial workup be comprised of a serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP), an immunofixation (IFE), and a FLC ratio. A bone marrow biopsy (BM) and bone survey should only be performed if anemia, hypercalcemia or an elevated creatinine of unclear etiology is noted. If these studies place a patient into the low risk, it is suggested the patient follow up at 6-months with only an SPEP. If the SPEP is stable, the next follow-up is recommended to occur at 2 to 3 year intervals unless symptoms arise suggestive of a plasma cell dyscrasia. The risk stratification of MGUS patients was validated in 2013 by Turesson et al. in a Swedish cohort (Blood, 2014; 123:338-345). Nevertheless, the risk model is not universally accepted and unnecessary office visits along with laboratory studies are performed on low risk patients. The purpose of this study was to perform an internal retrospective review of our patients diagnosed with low risk MGUS, evaluating excess medical costs incurred when patients were not risk stratified by the IMWG recommendations. Methods: MGUS patients seen in the Hematology Oncology Division of Drexel University between 2014 and 2016 were retrospectively categorized into high and low risk based on the IMWG criteria. Those determined to be low risk were evaluated over two years for extra costs incurred outside the IMWG recommendations. Extra cost was tallied based on initial workup and surveillance studies performed up to two years from diagnosis. Costs per test and follow up visits were based on our office appointment pricing and BM biopsy charges. Laboratory costs were obtained based on pricing from ACCU reference lab. Cost per test (varies by lab/provider) SPEP $67 UPEP $130 Serum IFE $200 Urine IFE $72 IgA $27 IgG $27 IgM $27 K/L ratio $120 B2 microglobulin $42 Office Visit $40 - $100 Bone Survey $500 - $1200 BM biopsy $500- $1000 Results: Sixty patients seen between 2014 and 2016 met the criteria for MGUS. Twenty-eight patients were determined to have low risk disease. Of the 28 patients, five were diagnosed prior to 2010 and were excluded. In the remaining 23 patients, four followed up at exactly six months from diagnosis and only one had an SPEP. The most common test ordered was quantitative immunoglobulins (QI) aside from a CBC and CMP. The total number of excess office visits was 49. Three patients had unnecessary BM biopsies (total cost $1,000 - $2,000), and 11 had unnecessary bone surveys (Total $5,500 - $13,200). The total cost of unnecessary lab tests within 2 years was $6,024 and the total cost of unnecessary office visits within 2 years was $1960 - $4900. Thus, the average excess spent per patient was $630 - $1135, for a total excess cost for the 23 patients of $14,484 - $26,124. Conclusion: This internal review highlights the excess medical costs incurred when patients are not risk stratified by the IMWG recommendations. Ideally, no further health care dollars should be spent for low risk MGUS patients who have a stable SPEP at the 6-month visit until the 2 or 3 year follow up visit. The actual excess amount spent in our office in 2 years for these patients was $14,484 - $26,124 beyond the cost of the standard of care recommended by the IMWG guidelines. Additionally, these values did not include excess basic labs such as a CBC or CMP and it did not include extension of our investigation out to three years which would result in further unnecessary costs. One patient was noted to accumulate excess cost due to his co-morbid condition of prostate cancer, which led to increased surveillance for his low risk MGUS. The risk stratification model allows physicians to offer patients a better understanding of their disease, decrease the patient's burden and reduce the cost on healthcare. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a complication of heparin-based anticoagulation (AC) resulting in thrombocytopenia and thrombosis. Laboratory testing can often be avoided as the 4T score (4TS) has a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.998 for low risk patients. Despite this scoring system, which has been validated since 2006, physicians continue to send inappropriate studies despite a low probability of HIT. We sought to evaluate our academic institution's compliance, perform a cost analysis and determine if appropriate AC was initiated. By analyzing our data, we sought to educate our staff and implement measures to improve cost efficiency and quality of care. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to Hahnemann University Hospital (HUH) between November 1, 2016 and April 30, 2017 who had HIT antibodies (HITAb) and serotonin release assay (SRA) studies. These laboratory tests were performed at Quest Diagnostics. This data was compiled from the EMR at HUH. According to the 4TS, patients were assigned a score of 0-8: 0-3 for low, 4-5 for intermediate, 6-8 for high probability respectively. Laboratory results of HITAb and SRA were then compared to the calculated 4TS. We then investigated whether appropriate AC was initiated. Data on the cost associated with the inappropriate management of suspected HIT was compiled. Results: 72 patients had HITAb sent during the interval studied. Table 1 shows the 4TS and results of HITAb and SRA testing. Table 2 lists the AC used based on the 4TS. The NPV of not having HIT in the low probability group was 100%. The positive predictive value (PPV) of having HIT in the high probability group was 100%. At our institution, HITAb with reflex SRA costs $503. Expenditure due to inappropriate testing was estimated to be around $23,000 dollars over the study's time course. Inappropriately switching to argatroban cost up to $1,000 per day or fondaparinux $500 per day of overspending on anticoagulation per patient. Discussion: We found the majority of HITAb and SRA testing was unnecessary based on the 4TS. Our data showed a low 4TS had a very high NPV confirming the scoring system's utility. HIT testing was often overutilized as part of a general workup for thrombocytopenic patients who were often septic, on marrow suppressive medications and had multiple comorbidities such as hepatitis and HIV infections which confounded their clinical picture. Furthermore, this scoring system had a very high PPV in the high probability group. This study confirmed that HIT laboratory studies rarely change patient management in these scenarios. With the turnaround time of laboratory studies taking up to 4 days, there is a significant increase to the cost of patient care when solely relying on HITAb and SRA due to the use of expensive anticoagulants. In contrast, it remains unknown if HITAb and SRA could be useful in patients with an intermediate 4TS as our data is limited with no SRA results for patients with intermediate scores and a positive HITAb. To prevent unnecessary testing in the future and to improve the management of HIT, we propose to implement the following at our institution: 1. create a hard stop in our EMR which would prevent studies from being sent off inappropriately; 2. add a 4TS to the calculator section of the EMR and encourage collaboration with the hematology department if additional questions remain after calculating a 4TS; 4. start resident based educational sessions on the importance of calculating a 4TS and its significance prior to sending laboratory studies. In conclusion, the 4TS remains a useful tool to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing and use of expensive therapeutic anticoagulants in patients with suspected HIT. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

No abstract

24 Background: An informed decision requires good communication between the patient and their oncologist in regards to diagnosis and prognosis, especially in patients with terminal cancer. This discussion entails education about their disease, treatment options, and potential outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess advanced-stage cancer oncology patients’ comprehension of their disease, treatment options and goals of therapy. Methods: Subjects included patients with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer with an option for palliative or life extending chemotherapy in an out-patient office at Drexel University College of Medicine. Outpatient office charts were reviewed to identify eligible patients. All subjects consented to participate. Participation included completing a 34-item questionnaire about comprehension of their cancer, satisfaction, perception of their physician interaction regarding disease education and potential barriers to patient understanding. Results: 52 patients analyzed to date: 1 patient was not aware he had cancer. 3 patients (5.7%) thought there was no longer cancer in their bodies. 33 patients (62%) thought the goal of therapy was to cure their cancer. 27 patients (51%) thought the goal of therapy was to extend how long they will live. 11 patients (20.7%) thought the goal of therapy was to palliate symptoms. 5 patients (9.4%) did not know why they were on therapy for their cancer. 5 patients (9.4%) indicated they had talked about hospice with their doctor. 5 patients (9.4%) felt they shouldn’t ask any questions. 48 patients (90.5%) felt they were participating in their treatment decisions. 4 patients (7.5%) stated they didn’t understand the medical terms used by the doctors. Compared to what patients wish they knew, almost 30% felt they knew half or very little about their diagnosis and 33% felt they knew half, very little, or nothing about their prognosis. Conclusions: Due to discrepancies between patient understanding and the intended goals of care, our study highlights the need for further guidance in effectively communicating extent of disease and predicted outcome. It is also important to periodically ask patients to discuss their understanding of their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options.

1602 Background: Telemedicine is increasingly used in cancer care but has mostly been applied to surveillance and oral therapy rather than parenteral treatments. In the U.S. Veterans Affairs National TeleOncology service (NTO), patients receive intravenous cancer treatments locally under remote supervision from a disease-specialized oncologist. We analyzed care delivered by the NTO for patients with an aggressive lymphoma (AL) and metastatic lung cancer (mLC). Methods: The demographics of veterans with AL and mLC enrolled in NTO between 2020-2023 were compared to patients receiving in-person care at the VA. From these NTO cohorts, two subsets of patients receiving 1st line therapy for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were extracted and compared to control arms of in-person care matched 1:4 by stage, age, PDL1 (NSCLC), and cytogenetics (DLBCL). Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables, t test for continuous variables, log rank for survival, and negative binomial for count outcomes. Results: 140 patients with AL or mLC (40 DLBCL, 13 Hodgkin, 2 Burkitt, 61 NSCLC, 24 SCLC) were enrolled in NTO, spanning 12 U.S. states. Compared to in-person care ( n = 7,561), NTO had more rural (56% vs. 34%, p < 0.001) and white patients (89% vs. 77%, p = 0.002). With a median follow-up of 256 days (IQR, 154 - 415), NTO mLC and AL patients had a median of 15 and 17 telemedicine visits, respectively. 13 of 55 AL (24%) and 56 of 85 mLC (66%) patients received systemic therapy of any line, while 38 (69%) of AL were on surveillance. 7 mLC and 2 AL patients were referred externally for care. 11 patients with DLBCL and 30 patients with stage IV NSCLC started 1st line therapy while in NTO, which were compared to matched controls. NTO and matched control had similar mean time from referral to first appointment and from diagnosis to first treatment. There were no significant differences in progression-free survival between NTO and matched controls for NSCLC (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.8) or DLBCL (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.1-2.3). COVID infections in the first 12 months and number of ED visits in the first 3 months of treatment were not statistically different from controls. Conclusions: The NTO service demonstrates the feasibility of infusional chemoimmunotherapy administration under the direction of a remote tele-oncologist. This model has the potential to improve access to specialized oncology care for rural populations and provides a framework for decentralized clinical trials.[Table: see text]