No abstract

for a median of 9 days (range, 3-32 days). The average time of change from TDI to CIVI was 3 days after transplant. The TDI group received only TDI for a median 17 days (range 4-62 days) prior to conversion to oral CSA. CSA concentrations at day-1 and weeks 1, 2, and 3 were similar between the groups (Figure 1). We found no difference between the rates of grade II-IV acute (45% vs 53%, p = 0.59) or chronic (17% vs 30%, p = 0.20) GVHD or overall survival (57% vs 67%, p = 0.10) between groups. Subgroup analysis of patients that received myeloablative conditioning did not reveal significant differences in GVHD or overall survival. Conclusion: In contrast to previous studies, we did not observe an association of CIVI CSA administration with acute GVHD. Among patients intolerant of bolus CSA infusions, a brief transition to CIVI CSA appears to be a safe and acceptable route of administration without increased risk of GVHD or adverse effects on overall survival.

42 Background: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are recognized by organizations including the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer, as a best practice for improving survivor care. Little evidence supports this and hospitals and cancer centers are scrambling to meet deadlines for SCP development and delivery. The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KUCC) addressed this utilizing electronic health record (EHR) integration, developing a health system wide approach to education and delivery, and building referral workflows to primary care and specialists. We report on this approach to developing and growing a survivorship care program. Methods: KUCC is a NCI designated cancer center within an academic medical center and health system, with 11 outpatient locations across the Kansas City. Under the guidance of a multidisciplinary team: providers, health care informatics, administrators, nursing, tumor registry, quality improvement, and researchers, KUCC developed a step-wise process to deliver comprehensive survivorship care across the health system. This multi-year initiative aligned with institutional accreditation standards and an ongoing focus on expanding evidence based, comprehensive cancer and supportive care. Results: In 2014 a formal survivorship program plan was put into action: Support from leadership, providers, research priority; Staff and patient survivorship education & training; Integrated delivery of survivorship care at all locations with direct interaction and feedback from cancer care teams; Short & long-term programmatic goals; Management and referral of late effects of cancer; EPIC integrated SCP template: auto-populated, customized, personalized; treatment summary uses tools that pull in data stored discreetly in the patient "file"; SCP delivery targeting COC phase-in timeline: 2015: n= 539 (10% projection n= 434); 2016: n= 1,355 (25% projection n=1,253). Conclusions: This step-wise, integrated approach to survivorship care has resulted in a health system wide delivery of SCPs and meeting national accreditation standards. Next steps include the evaluation of cost and clinical/patient reported outcomes.

No abstract