Extemporaneous compounding and administration of tretinoin slurry for acute promyelocytic leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is a potentially curable malignancy with 4-year overall survival rates >90%. Early complications from the disease or its treatment may result in a loss of oral access and require alternative administration of medications. Tretinoin has been the backbone of APL therapy since the late 1990s and is only available as a liquid filled capsule. CASE REPORT: Two patients with high-risk APL were unable to safely swallow tretinoin capsules due to complications of their disease. MANAGEMENT & OUTCOME: We prepared a tretinoin slurry using tretinoin 10 mg capsules, sterile water, and mineral oil at a ratio of 1 capsule to 2.75 mL sterile water to 1.25 mL mineral oil. This was successfully administered to both patients and no doses of tretinoin slurry were missed by either patient. In the patient who has long-term follow up available, a complete remission was achieved. DISCUSSION: Due to tretinoin's known teratogenicity, this capsule should not be crushed, cut, or open, which limits its use in patients without oral access. Alternative routes of administration, such as via a nasogastric tube or sublingually, have not been safe and effective. By preparing a tretinoin slurry in our hazardous extemporaneous compounding area, we were able to safely and effectively prepare a tretinoin slurry that was successfully administered to two patients. This alternative preparation did not alter long-term outcomes and represents a viable option for patients who do not have oral access.

Flat-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor evaluation after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma patients: Does one dose fit all?

INTRODUCTION: The current recommended granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) dose after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (autoHSCT) in multiple myeloma patients is 5 mcg/kg/day administered subcutaneously until engraftment. Recently, our institution changed practice from weight-based to flat-dose G-CSF. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of flat-dose G-CSF on time to engraftment among multiple myeloma patients of different weight groups. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was completed for adult patients with multiple myeloma who underwent autoHSCT from March 2018 through August 2019. Data collected included time to neutrophil engraftment, total length of hospitalization, length of stay post-transplant, time to platelet engraftment, use of intravenous fluconazole or acyclovir, parenteral nutrition use, incidence of febrile neutropenia, antibiotic use, and death. Differences in outcomes were compared between patients ≤80 kg versus those >80 kg. A secondary analysis was completed for patients ≤100 kg versus those >100 kg. RESULTS: There was no difference in time to neutrophil engraftment between weight groups (≤80 kg versus >80 kg: median = 12 days, p = 0.22; ≤100 kg versus >100 kg: median = 12 days, p = 0.52). There was a significant difference in intravenous fluconazole and acyclovir use between groups, with more use in the lower weight groups (≤80 kg versus >80 kg: 12 patients versus 10 patients p = 0.02; ≤100 kg versus >100 kg: 19 patients versus 3 patients p = 0.04). No significant differences were found for any other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Utilizing a flat-dose of G-CSF for patients after autoHSCT does not appear to negatively affect patient outcomes. Institutions may benefit from using the 300 mcg dose of G-CSF for multiple myeloma patients after autoHSCT.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor utilization postautologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma patients: Does one size fit all?

PURPOSE: To evaluate a single institution's experience with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant in myeloma patients to identify populations that benefit most from granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were conducted on patients 18+ years with multiple myeloma that underwent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant at UW Health from January 2012 to May 2016. Data collection included demographics, length of stay, time to engraftment, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, and hematopoietic cell transplantation-comorbidity index. The primary outcome was days from transplant to engraftment, defined as absolute neutrophil count > 500/mm3 for two consecutive days or absolute neutrophil count > 1000/mm3 once. A subset analysis was performed on patients whose date of engraftment was known. RESULTS: In total, 216 individual patients were included in the full cohort and 122 patients included in the subset analysis. Median time to engraftment between patients administered granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and the nongranulocyte colony-stimulating factor group was 12 versus 19 days (P < 0.001) in the full cohort and 12 versus 14 days (P < 0.001) in the subset analysis. The average length of stay posthematopoietic stem cell transplant in the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor group was 15 days versus 17 days in the nongranulocyte colony-stimulating factor group (P = 0.026) in the subset analysis. Additionally, no difference in time to engraftment was seen when stratified by age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, or hematopoietic cell transplantation-comorbidity index. CONCLUSION: Our study supports use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor posthematopoietic stem cell transplant in myeloma patients to decrease time to engraftment and length of stay. Consideration should be given to utilization in all patients in this population posthematopoietic stem cell transplant. Further research is needed to identify the populations that benefit most from granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration.

Utilization and evaluation of noncore chemotherapy regimens within an academic medical center.

Uniformity of evidence-based chemotherapy prescribing using approved, standard, or "core" regimens provides systems-based safety. Noncore chemotherapy regimens are non-standard-of-care regimens requested by physicians on a patient-by-patient basis. Chemotherapy Council, a Pharmacy & Therapeutics subcommittee, assesses all requests and determines approval status based upon submitted evidence and patient-specific factors. This study's purpose is to describe noncore chemotherapy regimens utilization, efficacy, and clinical outcomes in patients receiving noncore chemotherapy regimens. This retrospective chart review includes a two-stage utilization and outcomes evaluation of patients receiving noncore chemotherapy regimens. Stage I, a demographics and utilization assessment of patients receiving noncore chemotherapy regimens, has data collection including patient age, sex, performance score, malignancy, and noncore chemotherapy regimen use justification. Stage II assesses noncore chemotherapy regimen-related, patient-specific outcomes of breast cancer noncore chemotherapy regimen patients. Breast cancer patients were evaluated on regimen and clinical outcomes including disease stage, regimen duration, discontinuation reason, subsequent chemotherapy, survival, and time from noncore chemotherapy regimen until death. Within stage I, 307 patient-specific noncore chemotherapy regimen requests were submitted. The most commonly submitted rationale was modification of a core regimen (33%), followed by patient-specific factors (29%) and salvage therapy (22%). For stage II, 29 breast cancer patients received a noncore chemotherapy regimen and most (54%) received a modified core regimen. The vast majority of noncore chemotherapy regimen discontinuation was due to either regimen completion (42%) or disease progression (42%). Nonelective hospitalizations (35%) and mortality (30%) were found during the median 13.3 months of follow up. Noncore chemotherapy regimen use provides regimen tailoring for patients who are candidates for further therapy, but nonelective hospitalizations, end-of-life chemotherapy, and mortality warrant further investigation to improve patient outcomes.