<h3>Objectives:</h3> Phase III clinical trials have demonstrated the benefit of longer time without disease progression for ovarian cancer (OC) patients treated with bevacizumab (bev) in combination with chemotherapy, as compared to chemotherapy alone. FDA approved bev for use in the first-line (1L) setting in June 2018, though bev treatment of OC patients occurred previously. This study is designed to describe characteristics of patients with advanced or metastatic OC treated in community oncology settings in the United States (US), separately for those who received bev and those who did not receive bev. <h3>Methods:</h3> This retrospective analysis identified patients, age ≥18 years, within existing medical records with an advanced/metastatic ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (aOC) diagnosis on or after 01/01/2011 who received carboplatin and paclitaxel and did not receive poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors. Patients were identified in the ConcertAI Oncology Dataset, representing diverse practice locations, including rural and urban centers, within the US. Key data elements were abstracted from unstructured medical records by trained clinical research nurses and linked to data extracted from structured fields. Descriptive statistics were generated for patient characteristics of interest for the bev and non-bev cohorts separately. <h3>Results:</h3> Of a majority sample of the overall ConcertAI Oncology Dataset, 15.7% (n=4.997) of all OC patients with an initial diagnosis between 2011-2018 received bev, ranging from as low as 12.3% (n=399) of those diagnosed in 2011 to as high as 18.2% (n=762) in 2015. A total of 92 and 119 aOC patients who did and did not receive bev, respectively, had data abstracted and were eligible for analysis. Patient characteristics categorized by bev use were largely similar (Table). However, a higher proportion of patients in the bev cohort, compared to those in the non-bev cohort, were stage IV at aOC diagnosis (45.7% vs. 38.7%) and had ≥2 sites of distant metastasis (31.5% vs. 10.7%). Comorbid conditions were more frequent in the non-bev cohort, including diabetes (24.4% vs. 10.9%), renal disease (13.4% vs. 4.3%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (8.4% vs. 3.3%), and connective tissue disease (8.4% vs. 0%). Nearly 70% and 65% of bev and non-bev patients, respectively, had debulking surgery post aOC diagnosis. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> The proportion of OC patients who received bev in real-world oncology settings has increased over time. Patients with aOC who received bev were more frequently stage IV at index and had more sites of distant metastasis. Those who did not receive bev had more comorbid conditions at index. With the recent approval for 1L aOC therapy, use of bev has become a key decision point in determining maintenance treatment. This study provides insight into patient characteristics of aOC patients treated with bev and the substantial number of patients with evidence of bev use in real-world US oncology settings.