347 Background: Chemotherapy is a mainstay treatment modality for patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Recent developments and new approvals have led to changing paradigms, incorporating the use of targeted therapies for patients with progressive disease. Given the need for a greater understanding of the molecular alterations, varying targets, and available and emerging therapies, education is needed to assess knowledge regarding these recent advances in unresectable CCA. The goal of this activity was to increase the knowledge of self-assess the learning needs of oncologists in treating patients with unresectable CCA. Methods: The education included 25 multiple choice questions in a continuing medical education (CME)-certified clinical practice assessment to assess practice gaps. The questions were designed to measure knowledge, competence, confidence, and attitudes of oncologists regarding clinical evidence, role of molecular testing, and place in the treatment paradigm for targeted therapies in unresectable CCA. The self-assessment was made available online to physicians as a learning tool to gain foundational knowledge, as well as receive feedback about their performance as compared to other test-takers, to improve self-awareness of their own personal educational gaps. The activity launched 6/24/20, and data are reported through 8/31/20. Results: A total of 1,009 learners, including 758 physicians, participated in the activity. Of the 104 oncologists that participated, a majority practiced in the community setting, saw patients with a range of cancers, and were not confident about using targeted therapies or recognizing targets for biomarker testing. Oncologists demonstrated the following gaps related to: NGS sequencing and biomarkers: 21% do not use; 32% use upon progressive disease; 35% did not realize that not all panels detect FGFR2 fusions; 20% do not test for biomarkers; 29% and 56% test for IDH or FGFR, respectively; 60% recognize the incidence of IDH1 mutations; Clinical trial (FIGHT202 and ClarIDHy): 45% were able to identify biomarker eligibility for pemigatinib; 9% were able to identify pemigatinib OS outcomes; 30% were able to recognize most common grade 3 AE of pemigatinib; 51% recognized the PFS endpoint with ivosidenib; 34% were able to identify eligibility for ivosidenib; 55% recognized most common AEs of ivosidenib. Conclusions: This CME-certified clinical practice assessment identified gaps in knowledge, competence, and confidence regarding testing and use of targeted therapies and emerging data in patients with unresectable CCA. As new data emerges and the number of targets and targeted therapies expand, continued education remains important to continue to optimize patient care.

Background:Immunotherapy was first introduced into the treatment of triple negative breast cancer with the approval of nab-paclitaxel + atezolizumab in patients with metastatic PD-L1-positive disease. Continued research sheds light on the utility of other immuontherapies in the metastatic setting as well as a potential role for immunotherapy in neoadjuvant disease. Given the factors impacting patient eligibility and the rationale for further exploring immunotherapy in novel settings, education can help ensure that oncologists are well-informed about available clinical trial data and ongoing research to optimize the use of immunotherapy in this subtype of breast cancer. The goal of this study was to determine if participation in an educational activity can improve the knowledge and competency of oncologists on the application of checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of triple negative breast cancer.Methods: An online continuing education (CME) activity consisted of a 30-minute video discussion with synchronized slides between 2 panelists about the rationale and ongoing clinical trials exploring data for immunotherapy in triple negative breast cancer. Educational effect was assessed using a repeated pairs pre-assessment/post-assessment study design and compared of content-based pre- and post-assessment responses. A chi-square test was used to identify statistical differences between pre- and post-assessment responses. P values were calculated and those < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data from oncologist participants in the educational activity were collected between 3/22/20 through 5/19/20. Results:Participation in education resulted in statistically significant improvement and a considerable educational effect for oncologists (n=121; p <0.0001). 61% of oncologists reported practicing in a community setting with 67% treating patients beyond breast cancer alone. Overall, oncologists demonstrated a 20% increase in confidence in identifying the role and stage in triple negative breast cancer therapy for the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Improvements in knowledge were observed in: •Understanding the biological rationale for using immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with triple negative breast cancer (69% vs. 83%; p <0.05) •Knowing the ongoing clinical trials that may impact the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors across the continuum of TNBC (69% vs. 87%; p <0.01) •Emerging clinical trial data on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors utilizing pathologic complete response as an endpoint of efficacy in neoadjuvant disease (73% vs. 82%) Conclusions: This online, interactive, CME-certified educational activity resulted in significant overall gains in oncologist knowledge regarding the existing and emerging evidence for immunotherapy in triple negative breast cancer. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of on-demand education but also highlight the effectiveness in reaching community-based practitioners and also practitioners that do not specialize in breast cancer alone. Grantors: This educational initiative was supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck & Co., Inc. Citation Format: Kinjal Parikh, Charlotte Warren, Patrick Kugel, Ann Carothers, Haleh Kadkhoda, Leisha Emens. Utilizing education to strengthen oncologist' understanding of immunotherapy in triple negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS9-15.

479 Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are a heterogeneous group of cancers with varying underlying pathophysiology and distinct treatment paradigms. Immunotherapy (IO) is unique in each of the subtypes and biomarkers utility varies. With the expansion of IO in each cancer subtypes, education remains essential to optimize patient outcomes through integration of the latest evidence-based data at point of care. Through the partnership between Medscape Oncology and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, 2 educational activities were designed to increase the knowledge and competence of oncologists surrounding the role of IO in patients with advanced GI cancers. Methods: The 2 educational activities included a text based online activity with 3 chapters focused on gastroesophageal cancers, colorectal cancers, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and a 30-minute online, video discussion with 3 faculty and synchronized slides on HCC. Educational effectiveness was assessed with repeated paired pre/post assessment where learners served as their own controls. A chi-square test was used to identify statistical significance in proportion of correct responses. The first activity launched 11/27/2019 and the second activity launched on 5/8/20. Data were collected and reported through 8/25/2020. Results: A total of 8433 learners, including 1543 oncologists, participated from 11/2019 through 8/2020. Participation in education resulted in significant relative improvements among oncologist learners on IO in GI cancers in (n = 641): 110%: role or eligibility of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (p < .001) 38%: clinical trial data of ICIs (p < .001) Subsequent education on unresectable HCC demonstrated a significant relative improvement in both knowledge and competence for oncologist learners (n = 902): 19%: regarding clinical trial data in unresectable HCC (p = .073) 19%; competence identifying role of ICIs in unresectable HCC (p < .05) 59%: competence managing irAEs in unresectable HCC (p < .001). Conclusions: These 2 online CME-certified educational activities resulted in statistically significant gains in oncologist knowledge surrounding the use of IO in advanced GI cancers Follow-up education on HCC demonstrated the value and benefit of multi-modal and sequential activities on improving competence among oncologists caring for patients with unresectable HCC There remains a need for continuous education as more oncologists utilize IO in their practice while the understanding and availability of clinical data continues to expand and evolve in the varying GI cancer subtypes. More than 50% of learners continued to demonstrate a need in understanding the clinical trial data or role of IO in metastatic GI cancers with more than 40% of the learners demonstrating continued need on clinical trial data or role of IO in HCC specifically.

Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukemia in the Western world. Treatment selection in CLL is dependent upon a number of factors, such as patient age and genetic mutations, and can be challenging. A number of novel therapies and combination treatment approaches are now available, making treatment selection and management of adverse events increasingly complex. We sought to determine if a curriculum of online continuing professional education (CPE) activities could improve hematologists/oncologists (hem/onc, H/O), pathologists (path), nurse/NP, and pharmacist knowledge, competence, and confidence related to clinical decision making in patients with CLL. Methods: An expert panel identified educational gaps related to the treatment of patients with CLL. Based on the educational needs identified, the curriculum included 4 activities that were posted online between March 2019-June 2019. The first activity was a 30 minute video lecture (1 faculty) about measurable residual disease (MRD) analysis in CLL. The second activity was 30 minute video roundtable discussion (3 faculty) about treatment initiation and selection in newly diagnosed CLL. The third activity was a text activity focused on relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL with 2 patient cases. The final activity was a video discussion between a nurse and pharmacist about mitigating side effects and optimizing compliance with oral therapies in CLL. Three activities were certified for physicians and the fourth activity was certified for nurses and pharmacists. Multiple-choice questions were asked before and after participation in each activity A repeated-pairs analysis was conducted where individual learners served as their own controls. Improved indicates an incorrect response pre-activity and a correct response post-activity. Reinforced indicates a correct answer pre- and post-activity. Improved confidence indicates a higher level of confidence post-activity. Results: As of July 2019, there were 356 hem/oncs, 154 pathologists, 178 nurses/NPs, and 504 pharmacists included in this analysis. The curriculum had a large impact on the knowledge and competence of hem/oncs and pathologists. MRD is an indicator of improved progression free survival: 13% H/O and path improved their knowledge, 58% H/O and 36% path reinforced their knowledge. The role for MRD measurement in CLL: 24% H/O and 15% of path improved their knowledge, 51% H/O and 39% path reinforced their knowledge. Selecting therapy for treatment-naïve CLL: 13% H/O and 30% path improved their competence, 57% H/O and 36% path reinforced their competence. Selecting therapy for relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL: 39% H/O and 42% path improved their competence, 26% H/O and 11% path reinforced their competence. Managing treatment-related side effects in CLL: 11% H/O and 33% path improved their competence, 72% H/O and 31% path reinforced their competence. 10% of nurses/NPs and 11% of pharmacists improved and 30% of nurses/NPs and 38% of pharmacists reinforced their skills counseling patients about adverse event management and drug-drug interactions in R/R CLL. Tailoring frontline therapy in treatment-naïve CLL: 26% H/O and 15% path improved their confidence. Tailoring therapy in R/R CLL: 34% H/O and 31% path improved their confidence. Using MRD in CLL management: 31% H/O and 21% path improved their confidence. Improving patient engagement by using effective interprofessional communication: 25% nurses/NPs and 36% pharmacists improved their confidence. Conclusions: This analysis shows that an online CPE curriculum, utilizing many different formats (video, text, panel discussions) can improve and reinforce the knowledge, competence, and confidence of hem/oncs, pathologists, nurses/NPs, and pharmacists in multiple areas surrounding the treatment of patients with CLL. Results also suggest the following areas warrant further education: knowledge of the role for MRD in CLL management, individualizing therapy selection for treatment-naïve and R/R CLL, and managing treatment-related adverse events of CLL therapies. Acknowledgements: Sameer Bhagavatula contributed to data analysis for this research. Figure Disclosures Allan: Verastem Oncology, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Awan:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Brander:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Tolero: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cohen:Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding. Barrientos:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy.

BackgroundAdvanced melanoma treatment selection is guided by BRAF-mutation status and patient and disease-specific factors. Historically, oncologists decided between targeted therapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). However, given the differences in onset of activity, response durability, and adverse events combination BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ICI (triplet therapy) are being evaluated to optimize outcomes. With several trials due to report, oncologists need education to stay up-to-date on the available data and contextualize this potential treatment option.MethodsAn online continuing education (CME) activity consisting of a multi-media 30-minute video panel discussion explored the rationale, available clinical trial data, and future directions of triplet therapy for the treatment of advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Educational effect was assessed using a repeated pairs pre-assessment/post-assessment study design and compared the pre- and post-assessment responses. A chi-square test was used to identify differences between pre- and post-assessment responses. Effect size was calculated using Cramer’s V test by determining the strength of the association between the activity and the outcomes (V = 0.16–0.26 is considerable and V > 0.26 is extensive). P values were calculated and those < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data from oncologist participants were collected between 12/23/2019 through 2/26/20.ResultsParticipation in education resulted in statistically significant improvements and noticeable educational effect for oncologists (n=49; p < 0.05, V =0.136). • 39% of pre-assessment questions were correctly answered increasing to 52% post-assessment • 15% of oncologists had a measurable improvement in confidence regarding the rationale for use of triplet therapy in advanced melanoma• Significant improvement in knowledge regarding clinical trial data in triplet therapy was observed (35% vs. 55%; p < 0.05, V = 0.205)ConclusionsThis online, interactive, expert-led, CME-certified educational activity resulted in significant gains in oncologist knowledge and confidence regarding triplet therapy in the management of melanoma. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of on-demand education but also highlight an ongoing need for education on this topic as further data becomes available.AcknowledgementsThis educational initiative was supported through educational grants from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and GenentechReferenceSullivan RJ, Salama AKS. Managing Melanoma: Emerging Concepts of Triplet Therapy. https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/923003