Integration of Genetic Testing and Counseling in Patients With Breast Cancer in a Large, Multisite Community-Based Practice.

PURPOSE: Despite data-driven consensus recommendations, there remains significant nonadherence to genetic screening and testing. More than 300,000 patients are diagnosed with breast cancer annually, with one third of these estimated to be eligible for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)/BRCA testing following National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Only 35% of eligible patients are referred for genetic counseling. METHODS: The goal of this project was to apply NCCN guidelines for germline genetic testing to all new patients with breast cancer within a large community oncology practice to improve HRD/BRCA testing. Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology was used, and cycles were built on a proven teaching infrastructure. In cycle 1, providers were educated and directed to use electronic health record (EHR) templates in the setting of an initial diagnosis visit and treatment planning. Discreet data fields were created in the EHR during cycle 2 to streamline and automate the process. Appropriate patients were referred to the genetics team for further evaluation, counseling, and testing. Adherence to the plan was maintained and measured using data analytic reports and chart audits. RESULTS: Of the 1,203 patients with breast cancer eligible for inclusion, 1,200 (99%) were screened according to NCCN guidelines. Of the screened patients, 631 (52.5%) met the referral/testing criteria. In total, 585 (92.7%) of the 631 were referred to a genetic specialist. Seven percent had previous referrals. A total of 449 (71%) patients were acceptable to genetics referral while 136 (21.5%) patients refused. CONCLUSION: The implemented methods of education, NCCN guidelines imbedded within provider notes, and discreet data fields in the EHR have proven to be highly effective in screening appropriate patients and ordering subsequent genetic referrals.

Sustainable Integration of US Food and Drug Administration-Approved Biosimilars: Pharmacy- Versus Physician-Driven Change.

PURPOSE: Biosimilars are clinically equivalent to branded products yet cost significantly less. Interchangeability is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) designation that allows generic drugs to be substituted for reference drugs at the pharmacy, without a physician's consent. Currently, no oncologic biosimilar has FDA approval for interchangeability. METHODS: Building on pharmacy auto-substitution processes with therapeutic interchange, Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology was used to automate conversions from reference biological products to Pharmacy and Therapeutics-/Physician-approved biosimilars. After establishing the baseline metrics, cycle 1 focused on full staff education (completed July 2020) with systematic pharmacy-driven biosimilar conversion initiated in September 2020 for rituximab, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab. Physician-initiated conversion of Neulasta biosimilar products was encouraged but not mandated. During cycle 2 (May 1, 2021-November 30, 2021), pharmacy-driven Neulasta biosimilar conversion was mandated. In cycle 3 (December 1, 2021-April 30, 2023), stakeholder education was reinforced and the sustainability of conversions was confirmed. RESULTS: Systematic pharmacy-driven conversion to biosimilar products improved over cycles 1 and 2 from baseline: 1.8% to 90.3% for rituximab, 9.2% to 89.7% for trastuzumab, and 20.5% to 96.1% for bevacizumab. Physician-driven biosimilar conversion for Neulasta was lower at 12.7% through April 2021. Pharmacy-driven Neulasta biosimilar conversion was initiated during cycle 2, resulting in a conversion rate of 39.7%. The conversion rates remained sustainable through April 2023. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy-driven auto-substitution of biosimilar products results in rapid and statistically significant biosimilar adoption. The pharmacy-based substitution approach was found to be far more effective than physician-driven substitution. Rapid conversion from branded products to FDA-approved biosimilar is feasible, measurable, and sustainable and can be scaled. Barriers to Neulasta conversion warrant further investigation.

Closing the Testing Gap: Standardization of Comprehensive Biomarker Testing for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in a Large Community Oncology Practice.

PURPOSE: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, accounts for 85% of all lung cancer cases. Biomarker testing is an integral part of the care of patients with NSCLC. Despite broad consensus recommendations that all patients with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) undergo comprehensive biomarker testing (comprehensive genomic profiling and PD-L1), testing rates remain suboptimal. METHODS: The primary goal of this project was to apply National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for comprehensive biomarker testing to all new patients with mNSCLC within a large community practice. Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology was used, with cycle 1 focused on provider education and the creation of a mNSCLC initial consult Note (electronic health record template/McKesson iKnowMed G2) and accompanying order set. Staging, template/order set utilization, and comprehensive biomarker testing rates were recorded while workflow processes were monitored. Cycle 2 centered on improved cancer staging, data analytic reporting, auditing, and reeducation. RESULTS: The comprehensive biomarker testing rates increased from a historic rate of 68% to 92.7% during the 1-year intervention period. The template utilization rate was 71% with complete staging (TNM stage and relevant biomarkers) documented in 40%. CONCLUSION: Implementation and standardization of comprehensive biomarker testing of patients with mNSCLC in a large multisite community-based oncology practice is feasible and results in significant improvement in comprehensive biomarker testing and reporting. Establishing reliable and measurable tracking metrics to ensure that these new processes are used and maintained can assist in scaling these processes. Efforts to scale this best practice are planned across the US Oncology Network.

TITAN: phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by ixabepilone or paclitaxel in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Ixabepilone is a microtubule stabilizer with activity in taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer and low susceptibility to taxane-resistance mechanisms including multidrug-resistant phenotypes and high ß-III tubulin expression. Since these resistance mechanisms are common in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ixabepilone may have particular advantages in this patient population. This study evaluated the substitution of ixabepilone for paclitaxel following doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage TNBC. METHODS: Patients with operable TNBC were eligible following definitive breast surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive four cycles of AC followed by either four cycles (12 weeks) of ixabepilone or 12 weekly doses of paclitaxel. RESULTS: 614 patients were randomized: 306 to AC/ixabepilone and 308 to AC/paclitaxel. At a median follow-up of 48 months, 59 patients had relapsed (AC/ixabepilone, 29; AC/paclitaxel, 30). The median time from diagnosis to relapse was 20.8 months. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of the two groups were similar [HR 0.92; ixabepilone 87.1% (95% CI 82.6-90.5) vs. paclitaxel 84.7% (95% CI 79.7-88.6)]. The estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were also similar [HR 1.1; ixabepilone 89.7% (95% CI 85.5-92.7) vs. paclitaxel 89.6% (95% CI 85.0-92.9)]. Peripheral neuropathy was the most common grade 3/4 event. Dose reductions and treatment discontinuations occurred more frequently during paclitaxel treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with AC/ixabepilone provided similar DFS and OS in patients with operable TNBC when compared to treatment with AC/paclitaxel. The two regimens had similar toxicity, although treatment discontinuation, dose modifications, and overall peripheral neuropathy were more frequent with AC/paclitaxel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier, NCT00789581.