No abstract

No abstract

3156 Introduction Clinicians have different expectations and perceptions regarding the role of primary care providers (PCPs) and hematologist/ oncologists (Hem/Oncs) in the provision of follow-up and survivorship care for patients with hematologic malignancies, and for the cancer survivor in general [Cheung JCO 2009]. The continuing decline in the number of specialists will require PCP involvement in the care of the patients with hematologic malignancies in particular, as well as cancer survivors in general. An outcomes study investigated barriers to shared care/ co-management of patients with hematologic malignancies and current practices of PCPs and Hem/Oncs regarding communication, provider roles and responsibilities and resources needed to implement effective cancer survivorship care plans. Methods: Internet polling surveys within an educational activity developed by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) and Medscape LLC with outcomes assessment by CE Outcomes, LLC. The activity learning objectives centered on roles and communication touch points for PCPs and Hem/Oncs, strategies and tools for optimal patient care, and recommendations for care of survivors with hematologic malignancies. Case-based education was delivered by an expert panel of hematologist/oncologist and primary-care physicians to illustrate critical communication points between Hem/Onc and PCP. The activity addressed regional variations in care, fragmentation of care, and helped define healthcare provider roles in the shared–care model. Electronic health records (EHR) and a treatment summary form were discussed as methods for effectively communicating a survivorship care plan among healthcare providers. More than 4, 000 physicians participated in the activity; 170 specialists and 587 PCPs were respondents to the survey. Polling questions and outcomes survey addressed barriers and current practices in shared care of patients with hematologic malignancies. Responses of PCPs and Hem/Oncs were aggregated and compared to identify gaps in continuity of care between specialties. Results: A summary of interactivity responses of PCPs (N=587) and Hem/Oncs (N=170) shows the most significant barrier to co-management of patients with hematologic malignancies was “lack of defined roles and responsibilities for PCPs vs specialists” (51.5% Hem/Onc vs 53.2% PCP). Confusion over roles is evident as 55.6% of Hem/Onc respondents expect the oncology specialist to follow the patient during the “watch and wait' period, while 45.8% of PCPs expect the PCP to follow the patient, and 35.4% expect the PCP and specialist to follow the patient together. More than half of PCPs and specialists report that they should co-manage follow up for cancer recurrence. The majority of PCPs and specialists report that standardized communication tools are from “very to extremely important” yet only approximately one third of PCPs and specialists are currently using EHR resources, with a third in the process of implementing EHR in their practices. Conclusions: Barriers to the provision of shared care and co-management of the cancer survivor can be addressed by more clearly defining individual clinician roles and responsibilities. Bridging gaps in the survivorship care plan requires improved communication between Hem/Oncs and PCPs to coordinate “watch and wait” care and follow-up screening, and effective methods to transfer patient records and history including Treatment Summary Forms and EHR. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

centers were defined as hospitals that completed more cases than the median for each year in the dataset. We compared patient characteristics, procedures, and outcomes, and examined trends over the 5-year period. A multivariable analysis (MVA) was completed to identify independent predictors of surgical complications in the robotic cohort. Results: A total of 7,066 patients were identified. Over the study period, rates of obesity increased (P b .001) as well as the CCI (P = .001). Lymph node dissection was less commonly performed (P b .001). Surgery volume increased in small or medium-sized (P b .001), private (P b .001), and teaching (P b0.001) hospitals. High-volume centers were more likely to be large (74% vs 62%, P b .001), teaching hospitals (78% vs 58%, P b .001), located in the northeastern or western United States, and were less likely to be privately owned (22% vs 31%, P b .001). Patients treated at highvolume centers were similar in age (P = .11), but had higher CCI values (2.5 ± 0.9 vs 2.6 ± 1.2, P = .002) and were more likely to undergo lymph node dissection (73% vs 68%, P = .007). MVA models included age, race, CCI, obesity, lymph node dissection, hospital size, ownership, teaching status, location, and volume. Increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02; 95% CI 1.02-1.03), CCI (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18-1.33), obesity (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.30-1.73), and teaching hospital (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.05-1.45) independently predicted having a surgical complication. Large (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.99) or high-volume (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.98) hospital and Caucasian race (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99) were associated with lower risk of complication. With increasing year of the procedure, patients were less likely to have a surgical complication (aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81-0.91). Conclusions: The strongest independent predictor of improved intraoperative and perioperative outcomes in robotic surgery for endometrial cancer is having surgery at a high-volume center.Objectives: Expression of AXL is associated with a worse prognosis in ovarian cancer. We investigated the role of AXL expression in chemotherapy response in ovarian and uterine cancers, and sought to reverse chemoresistance through inactivation of AXL. Methods: In vitro cell viability (XTT) assays were performed to confirm response to chemotherapy in SKOV3-S/R (platinum sensitive/ resistant ovarian cell lines), OVCAR3/TP (taxane sensitive/resistant ovarian cell lines), and AN3CA/ARK1 (taxane sensitive/resistant uterine cell lines), and Western blotting was performed for AXL expression. XTT assays of ARK1 cells for paclitaxel resistance with AXL silencing by shRNA were performed. This was then repeated with selective small molecule inhibition of AXL with R428. AXL knockdown by siRNA was performed with either a traditional transfection reagent (DharmaFECT) or with a novel serum-stable, cell-penetrating, endosomolytic amphipathic peptide delivery system (p5RHH). Cell viability assays were analyzed using paired t tests. P b .05 was considered statistically significan...

No abstract