Improving biomarker testing in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer through patient education.

100 Background: Biomarker testing in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is essential for optimal and guideline-concurrent care. Despite recommendations for universal biomarker testing in mCRC, rates remain inadequate and much of the education is directed to physicians. The objective of this study is to improve patient knowledge and comfort in initiating biomarker discussions with their oncologists, as assessed by surveying oncologists and patients both before and after providing patient-directed education. Methods: Our unique approach utilized direct-to-consumer marketing to distribute mCRC biomarker education to the general public in the greater Philadelphia area. Our materials focused primarily on MMR, RAS, BRAF and HER2 biomarkers and were distributed via social media posts, flyers with QR codes, and local media outlets over 6 months. With IRB approval, pre- and post-intervention surveys to assess comfort with biomarker discussions utilizing a Likert scale were sent to the 50 most recent patients with mCRC seen at our center. Physician surveys were distributed via email to medical oncologists in the greater Philadelphia area via email blasts from Pennsylvania Society of Oncology and Hematology and our marketing team, and only those who treat mCRC were included. Data was collected and analyzed anonymously via REDCap. Results: Physicians estimated that biomarker testing results were available at the start of first-line therapy for less than half of their patients with mCRC. There were no notable differences in patients initiating biomarker discussions as assessed by surveys of oncologists; however, only 4 physicians completed both the pre and post-intervention surveys. Overall, our educational webpage received 367 views by 299 unique people, and 69% utilized a mobile phone to access this information. The average time spent on the webpage per session was 3.8 minutes; however, this increased to 5.5 minutes when excluding those who accessed the page from an internal device. Results by biomarker and secondary outcomes, including utilization of liquid biopsy and circulating DNA will be presented. Further metrics on the reach of our educational campaign will be presented. Conclusions: Our unique approach to patient education was feasible; however, survey-based assessments at 2 time points are not the most effective way to evaluate efficacy due to low completion rates. Of those who accessed our educational materials online, the majority utilized their mobile phones and engagement was high.