Oncology pharmacy practice in the United States: Results of a comprehensive, nationwide survey.

Introduction: This study was designed to describe the landscape of oncology pharmacy practice at patient facing institutional healthcare organizations throughout the United States. Methods: The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) Practice Outcomes and Professional Benchmarking Committee conducted a multi-organization, voluntary survey of HOPA members between March 2021 and January 2022. Four overarching domains were targeted: institutional description, job function, staffing, and training/certification. Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 68 responses were analyzed including 59% and 41% who self-identified their organization as academic and community centers, respectively. The median number of infusion chairs and annual infusion visits were 49 (interquartile range (IQR): 32-92) and 23,500 (IQR: 8300-300,000), respectively. Pharmacy departments reported to a business leader, physician leader, and nursing leader 57%, 24%, and 10% of the time, respectively. The median oncology pharmacy full-time equivalents was 16 (IQR: 5-60). At academic centers, 50% (IQR: 26-60) of inpatient and 30% (IQR: 21-38) of ambulatory pharmacist FTEs were dedicated to clinical activities. At community centers, 45% (IQR: 26-65) of inpatient and 50% (IQR: 42-58) of ambulatory pharmacist FTEs were dedicated to clinical activities. As many as 18% and 65% of organizations required or encouraged certification for oncology pharmacists, respectively. The median number of Board-Certified Oncology Pharmacists was 4 (IQR: 2-15). Conclusion: As the number of patients with cancer rises, the oncology workforce must grow to support this expanding population. These results describe the practice landscape of oncology pharmacy at US healthcare institutions to serve as a foundation for future research evaluating metrics and benchmarks.

Germline Genetics of Prostate Cancer: Prevalence of Risk Variants and Clinical Implications for Disease Management.

Prostate cancer has entered into the era of precision medicine with the recent approvals of targeted therapeutics (olaparib and rucaparib). The presence of germline mutations has important hereditary cancer implications for patients with prostate cancer, and germline testing is increasingly important in cancer screening, risk assessment, and the overall treatment and management of the disease. In this review, we discuss germline variants associated with inherited predisposition, prostate cancer risk and outcomes. We review recommendations for germline testing, available testing platforms, genetic counseling as well as discuss the therapeutic implications of germline variants relevant to prostate cancer treatments. Understanding the role of germline (heritable) mutations that affect prostate cancer biology and risk as well as the subsequent effect of these alterations on potential therapies is critical as the treatment paradigm shifts towards precision medicine. Furthermore, enhancing patient education tactics and healthcare system infrastructure is essential for the utilization of relevant predictive biomarkers and the improvement of clinical outcomes of patients with prostate cancer or at high risk of developing the disease.

Detecting direct oral anticoagulants in trauma patients using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry: A novel approach to medication reconciliation.

BACKGROUND: Accurate medication reconciliation in trauma patients is essential but difficult. Currently, there is no established clinical method of detecting direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in trauma patients. We hypothesized that a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LCMS)-based assay can be used to accurately detect DOACs in trauma patients upon hospital arrival. METHODS: Plasma samples were collected from 356 patients who provided informed consent including 10 healthy controls, 19 known positive or negative controls, and 327 trauma patients older than 65 years who were evaluated at our large, urban level 1 trauma center. The assay methodology was developed in healthy and known controls to detect apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran using LCMS and then applied to 327 samples from trauma patients. Standard medication reconciliation processes in the electronic medical record documenting DOAC usage were compared with LCMS results to determine overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of the assay. RESULTS: Of 356 patients, 39 (10.96%) were on DOACs: 21 were on apixaban, 14 on rivaroxaban, and 4 on dabigatran. The overall accuracy of the assay for detecting any DOAC was 98.60%, with a sensitivity of 94.87% and specificity of 99.05% (PPV, 92.50%; NPV, 99.37%). The assay detected apixaban with a sensitivity of 90.48% and specificity of 99.10% (PPV, 86.36%; NPV 99.40%). There were three false-positive results and two false-negative LCMS results for apixaban. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were detected with 100% sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSION: This LCMS-based assay was highly accurate in detecting DOACs in trauma patients. Further studies need to confirm the clinical efficacy of this LCMS assay and its value for medication reconciliation in trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test, level III.