Advanced cervical cancer therapy: Comparison of contemporary expert and healthcare professional recommendations from an online treatment decision tool

5528 Background: Practice patterns for the management of advanced cervical cancer are rapidly evolving given the emergence of novel treatment options. We developed an online Interactive Decision Support Tool (IDST) for advanced cervical cancer to provide expert guidance to healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: With input from 5 experts, an IDST was developed for patient scenarios with newly diagnosed (ND) and recurrent/second-line (2L) advanced cervical cancer. The IDST included expert insights on 352 scenarios based on criteria such as adenopathy, disseminated disease status, previous therapy, and actionable biomarkers (PD-L1, MMR/MSI, TMB). Users were asked to enter specific patient criteria and their intended management approach. The IDST then showed the 5 expert recommendations for that specific scenario and HCPs were asked to indicate whether the recommendations changed their intended treatment plan. Expert recommendations vs user-selected therapy for different scenarios were analyzed. We present self-reported practice patterns in this disease setting and the impact of expert recommendations on treatment choice. Results: At this interim analysis, 141 unique learners used the IDST, entering 232 unique patient scenarios. Data from the IDST also showed areas of consensus and controversy in treating patients with advanced cervical cancer. For locally advanced, ND, no adenopathy and no metastases, all experts recommended pelvic chemoradiation with or without brachytherapy vs only 61% of HCPs; 16% and 3% of those entering cases for the locally advanced ND setting indicated expert recommendation changed their treatment choice and that barriers impeded the recommendations, respectively. For advanced ND, with adenopathy, metastatic, PD-L1–positive cervical cancers, all experts vs 50% of HCPs chose an immunotherapy-containing platinum-based chemotherapy regimen with/without bevacizumab; 9% of those indicated barriers to implementing expert recommendations. In 2L recurrent disease, all experts chose either single-agent immunotherapy (if PD-L1 positive) or tisotumab vedotin (if PD-L1 negative) vs 45% and 40% of HCPs, respectively; 19% of those selecting 2L therapy in the recurrent setting said the expert recommendations had changed their intended choice. Conclusions: Analysis from this IDST indicates differences in practice patterns between experts and HCPs for various case scenarios of advanced cervical cancer. Online decision support tools may increase the number of HCPs making optimal treatment decisions for advanced cervical cancer, particularly when new data, indications, and guideline updates must be considered. Updated and detailed analyses from the IDST will be presented.