A237primary target for drug-seeking patients, this pilot study was conducted to validate a survey instrument designed to assess emergency physicians (EPs) intention to use the recently available Texas PMP. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of EPs was conducted at a statewide emergency medicine conference. A 34-item questionnaire, based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), was developed to assess EPs intention to use the Texas PMP. Items related to technology acceptance (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude, and intention) were assessed using 5-point Likert scale responses (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). The survey expanded on a previous exploratory survey of EPs. Correlation analyses were used to validate the survey instrument scales. Results: Of the 45 respondents, most were male (68.9%), attending EPs (57.8%), with 10.8±11.1 years in emergency medicine, from a community hospital setting (55.6%), and were users of the Texas PMP (51.2%). Among those who were not registered, 39.2% reported lack of awareness as the primary reason for not being registered. Standardized Cronbach's alphas for the constructs of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude, and intention for PMP users were 0.88, 0.90, 0.74, and 0.84, respectively; and 0.77, 0.87, 0.84, and 0.74, respectively for PMP non-users. ConClusions: Considering the ED as a source of diversion, it is important to understand EPs utilization of PMPs. EPs use of PMPs may help to mitigate the economic burden associated with the non-medical use of prescription opioids, while improving patient outcomes. Future studies using this survey instrument are needed to further assess the predictive utility.

A453 differences assessed using pairwise t-tests and chi-square analysis. Results: IDH status of 682 (39%) patients was provided, 31% confirmed IDH-mutant. Performance status, assessed using ECOG, showed IDH-wildtype patients as significantly more disabled than IDH-mutant at diagnosis (p< 0.01) and time of reporting (p= 0.01). Mean life expectancy at diagnosis (weeks) for IDH-wildtype patients was 62.6 vs. 78.1 for IDHmutant (p< 0.01); medians show a similar trend (52.0 and 65.0 respectively). Physician subjective classification of patient GBM status showed significant differences in the proportion of patients considered 'responding to treatment' (IDH-wildtype 26%, IDHmutant 35%, p< 0.01) and stable (IDH-wildtype 50%, IDH-mutant 41%, p= 0.02). No significant difference was noted in patients classified as progressing. PRO data were provided from 26 IDH-mutant and 109 IDH-wildtype patients. QoL was poor, indicated by an overall mean EQ-5D index score of 0.54 with no significant difference noted by IDH status. Similarly no significant difference was noted by IDH status for the EORTC Global health status score (overall mean 44.5). ConClusions: With limited existing data, our data demonstrated IDH-wildtype patients were likely to have poorer performance status, shorter life expectancy and not be considered as responsive to treatment as IDH-mutant patients reinforcing the decision to reclassify GBM entities to guide patient management strategies.

A761Health Technology Assessment (HTA) considerations for TTs and CDx in NSCLC in France, Germany, and England. Differences in access schemes were also explored. Methods: A literature search of the EMA, national HTA agency, and institutional websites was performed to identify TTs-CDx pairings, their corresponding HTA evaluations, and patient access schemes. HTAs were assessed for key clinical, economic, or other criteria taken into account by the agencies. Results: As of June 2016, seven TTs were identified for further analysis. NICE and IQWiG were more likely than HAS to issue a negative opinion or restrict the target population or treatment line. NICE guidance provided an integrated assessment including cost-effectiveness and discussion of the accuracy and availability of the CDx, whereas these aspects were assessed separately or not at all by HAS and IQWiG. Notable access schemes included the use of the Cancer Drugs Fund in England and the National Institute of Cancer's diagnostic access program in France. ConClusions: There is a heterogeneous approach to HTA and access schemes for NSCLC TTs in France, Germany, and England. HAS may be more likely than NICE or IQWiG to grant wider access for treatments which other agencies consider to have insufficient evidence. Potential future developments such as a shift towards adaptive licensing and multi-biomarker tests could lead to increasingly divergent approaches.