Implementing value assessment in oncology practice: A single-center experience.

Cancer treatment costs in the United States are rising. Evidence suggests that increased costs do not always correlate with improved outcomes. Several organizations have developed tools and frameworks to assess cancer treatment value; however, many centers have reported difficulty in implementing these tools and effectively incorporating value-based decision making into clinical practice. After evaluating existing frameworks, the Carbone Cancer Center at UW Health set out to create a value-based tool that could be used to inform the decisions of clinicians and patients. This tool was piloted in metastatic or advanced non-small cell lung cancer, specifically in the second-line setting to assess the value of immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab, atezolizumab, and pembrolizumab. The results of the pilot suggest that atezolizumab is the best value of the three agents in this patient population. Challenges and opportunities for improvement that were identified during the pilot process have helped refine the tool for use in a variety of disease states within oncology.

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.

Myeloid Growth Factors, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Myeloid growth factors (MGFs) are given as supportive care to patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of neutropenia. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for MGFs focuses on the evaluation of regimen- and patient-specific risk factors for the development of febrile neutropenia (FN), the prophylactic use of MGFs for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN, and assessing the risks and benefits of MGF use in clinical practice.

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.

Retrospective analysis of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant are at a high risk for infection-related mortality in the immediate post-transplantation phase. Prophylaxis with a fluoroquinolone is now recommended to reduce this risk with the stipulation that surveillance for increased fluoroquinolone resistance Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea be conducted. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 48 patients who underwent an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant and received a fluoroquinolone for prophylaxis and 48 patients who underwent an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant who did not receive a fluoroquinolone for prophylaxis. All patients received the same standard antifungal, antiviral and anti-pneumocystis prophylaxis. RESULTS: Patients receiving fluoroquinolone prophylaxis had a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia than those not receiving prophylaxis, though the difference was not found to be statistically significant (83% vs. 67%, p = 0.098). Similar non-significant improvements in the number of positive cultures recovered during an episode of febrile neutropenia and antimicrobial days were noted. No significant increase in fluoroquinolone resistance, Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea, or in methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections were noted. CONCLUSION: Our single institution experience with fluoroquinolone prophylaxis for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients supports continuation of this practice. Expansion to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients may be appropriate based on guideline recommendations and our institution-specific experience with fluoroquinolone prophylaxis.

Implementation of a chemotherapy stewardship process.

PURPOSE: To design and implement a chemotherapy stewardship process to optimize the location of chemotherapy administration in an effort to decrease the number of inappropriate inpatient anticancer regimen administrations and decrease institutional costs associated with inpatient administration. SUMMARY: As the costs of anticancer agents continue to rise, it is crucial that multidisciplinary efforts are aimed at managing anticancer medication utilization; this is especially important for high-cost medications, medications whose use requires increased monitoring due to safety concerns, and medications that do not exert effects quickly and, as such, can be more appropriately administered in the outpatient setting. It is imperative that pharmacists play a role in managing chemotherapy medication utilization, as pharmacists provide expertise in formulary management, a vast knowledge of financial impact and reimbursement processes, and clinical knowledge that can help predict the expected effectiveness and adverse effects of each anticancer regimen. Our institution sought to develop and implement a multidisciplinary chemotherapy stewardship program targeting the optimization of site of anticancer agent administration with a goal of decreasing both cost and inappropriate utilization of high-cost, high-risk anticancer agents. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a chemotherapy stewardship service may decrease the number of inappropriate inpatient anticancer regimen administrations and decrease inpatient resource use, thereby decreasing costs to institutions. The concept of a chemotherapy stewardship process was well received by multidisciplinary healthcare colleagues, and a collaborative approach should be used to design and implement such processes.

Implementation and Clinical Utility of an Integrated Academic-Community Regional Molecular Tumor Board.

PURPOSE: Precision oncology develops and implements evidence-based personalized therapies that are based on specific genetic targets within each tumor. However, a major challenge that remains is the provision of a standardized, up-to-date, and evidenced-based precision medicine initiative across a geographic region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a statewide molecular tumor board that integrates academic and community oncology practices. The Precision Medicine Molecular Tumor Board (PMMTB) has three components: a biweekly Web-based teleconference tumor board meeting provided as a free clinical service, an observational research registry, and a monthly journal club to establish and revise evidence-based guidelines for off-label therapies. The PMMTB allows for flexible and rapid implementation of treatment, uniformity in practice, and the ability to track outcomes. RESULTS: We describe the implementation of the PMMTB and its first year of activity. Seventy-seven patient cases were presented, 48 were enrolled in a registry, and 38 had recommendations and clinical follow-up. The 38 subjects had diverse solid tumors (lung, 45%; GI, 21%; breast, 13%; other, 21%). Of these subjects, targeted therapy was recommended for 32 (84%). Clinical trials were identified for 24 subjects (63%), and nontrial targeted medicines for 16 (42%). Nine subjects (28%) received recommended therapy with a response rate of 17% (one of six) and a clinical benefit rate (partial response + stable disease) of 38% (three of eight). Although clinical trials often were identified, patients rarely enrolled. CONCLUSION: The PMMTB provides a model for a regional molecular tumor board with clinical utility. This work highlights the need for outcome registries and improved access to clinical trials to pragmatically implement precision oncology.

Multidisciplinary Optimization of Oral Chemotherapy Delivery at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Use of oral chemotherapy is expanding and offers advantages while posing unique safety challenges. ASCO and the Oncology Nursing Society jointly published safety standards for administering chemotherapy that offer a framework for improving oral chemotherapy practice at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center. METHODS: With the goal of improving safety, quality, and uniformity within our oral chemotherapy practice, we conducted a gap analysis comparing our practice against ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society guidelines. Areas for improvement were addressed by multidisciplinary workgroups that focused on education, workflows, and information technology. Recommendations and process changes included defining chemotherapy, standardizing patient and caregiver education, mandating the use of comprehensive electronic order sets, and standardizing documentation for dose modification. Revised processes allow pharmacists to review all orders for oral chemotherapy, and they support monitoring adherence and toxicity by using a library of scripted materials. RESULTS: Between August 2015 and January 2016, revised processes were implemented across the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center clinics. The following are key performance indicators: 92.5% of oral chemotherapy orders (n = 1,216) were initiated within comprehensive electronic order sets (N = 1,315), 89.2% compliance with informed consent was achieved, 14.7% of orders (n = 193) required an average of 4.4 minutes review time by the pharmacist, and 100% compliance with first-cycle monitoring of adherence and toxicity was achieved. CONCLUSION: We closed significant gaps between institutional practice and published standards for our oral chemotherapy practice and experienced steady improvement and sustainable performance in key metrics. We created an electronic definition of oral chemotherapies that allowed us to leverage our electronic health records. We believe our tools are broadly applicable.