Novel use of an objective scoring rubric to guide inpatient chemotherapy stewardship.

20 Background: The cost of cancer care is an enormous healthcare burden. Most inpatient chemotherapy is not reimbursed because of diagnosis-related group codes. We have previously reported inpatient chemotherapy and immunotherapy (IC) is associated with poorer outcomes for patients with advanced stage solid tumor (ST) vs hematologic malignancy (HM) patients. 1 We piloted the use of a novel objective scoring rubric to guide and automate IC stewardship at an academic cancer center to decrease the inappropriate use of inpatient administration of costly therapies in patients especially at the end of life. Methods: Using an iterative process, an interdisciplinary group of physicians, nurses and pharmacists developed objective criteria of patient, cancer and treatment factors to guide chemotherapy stewardship. IC that is on formulary and being given as standard of care (i.e., induction of leukemia) are automatically approved. IC that is non-formulary requires evaluation using the developed criteria. Treatment factors include information on the level of existing evidence to support use: type and phase of trial, FDA and NCCN approvals. Patient factors include: performance status, line and goal of therapy. The scoring rubric positively weights regimens with strong levels of evidence or positive patient factors and negatively weights regimens with poor levels of evidence and adverse patient factors. Clinicians must complete the criteria via a form in RedCap. Upon completion, a score is automatically calculated by the tool and 2 disease specific physicians and a clinical pharmacist review for accuracy. If the threshold score is met, IC is approved for inpatient administration and if it is not met, IC is not approved for administration. Results: From January 2022 until May 2022 there have been 30 cases reviewed. 50% were ST requests and 50% were for HM requests. 20 cases (67%) were approved and 8 cases (26%) were not. Two cases were retracted by the requestor. This resulted in cost savings of $63,920. Table illustrates clinical outcomes and characteristics of the approved cases. Conclusions: This pilot illustrates that 67% of the time our cancer physicians chose the administration of inpatient chemotherapy that aligned with objective criteria which is reassuring and serves to validate the use of this tool. Alternatively, this objective rubric prevented inappropriate administration of chemotherapy 26% of the time. Our pilot indicates that there is a role for an objective tool for automated inpatient chemotherapy stewardship. Reference: Evaluation of inpatient chemotherapy among patients with cancer. Petrone G et al. JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.6566.[Table: see text]