Abstract P1-12-01: Clinical impact of internet-based tools to help guide therapeutic decisions for metastatic breast cancer (MBC)

Abstract

Abstract Background: Clinical practice guidelines are an important resource to help guide management of patients with MBC. However, guidelines are sometimes difficult to apply to individual patients, particularly when there are 2 or more treatment options with similar levels of evidence. We sought to determine whether expert recommendations on MBC treatment, delivered via an interactive, online decision support tool, would change or confirm the treatment decisions of community practitioners. We further sought to analyze changes in practice patterns and expert recommendations over time by comparing data from the current tool (2013) with data from a similar tool developed previously (2012). Methods: Both online decision support tools were developed based on input from a panel of 5 experts. Each expert provided treatment recommendations for more than 400 patient scenarios based on a simplified set of variables: disease phenotype (HR status, HER2 status), previous therapy, visceral crisis (yes/no), and rate of disease progression. Users of the tool are prompted to enter specific patient criteria, and are asked to state their intended management approach for that particular patient case. The tool then shows the recommendations of the 5 MBC experts for the specific patient case that the user entered. Finally, the user is prompted to indicate whether the experts’ recommendation confirmed or changed their intended management approach. An analysis of expert recommendations and user-selected treatments was performed to compare results of the 2013 and 2012 tools. Results: The 2012 decision support tool was utilized by 697 individuals who entered more than 1000 patient case scenarios. Users indicated that the experts’ recommendations changed their intended management approach for 30% of the cases, confirmed their approach for 36%, and did not impact their intended approach for 34%. Utilization data for the 2013 tool are pending. Expert recommendations in the 2012 vs 2013 tools changed to reflect emerging developments in guidelines, evidence, and clinical practice. For example, in 2012 there was no expert consensus on use of everolimus + hormonal therapy for HR+, HER2- patient cases, whereas in 2013, everolimus-based therapy was recommended by the majority of experts (3 out of 5) for 12 different HR+, HER2- cases. There was no consensus among the experts on the use of pertuzumab + trastuzumab and a taxane for HER2+ MBC in 2012, whereas in 2013 at least 3 out of 5 experts recommended it for a total of 36 HER2+ cases. At least 3 of 5 experts recommended trastuzumab emtansine for 96 different HER2+ cases in 2013 vs 0 in 2012. In both 2012 and 2013, the greatest variability in expert treatment recommendations was observed for HR-, HER2- cases. Conclusions: An online tool providing expert advice on specific MBC patient scenarios either confirmed or changed the clinical approach for a majority of community practitioners. Decision support tools may increase the number of clinicians who make optimal treatment decisions for patients with MBC, especially when new data, agent indications, and guideline updates must be incorporated. Detailed comparisons of expert and user responses from the 2012 and 2013 decision support tools will be presented. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P1-12-01.