Overview of premedication prescription and intake in an oncology day hospital: What do we need to change to improve patient management?

BACKGROUND: Premedication of cancer therapy against nausea and vomiting (NV) and hypersensitivity reaction (HS) is essential for good patient management. However, this prescription is not always optimal. Today, as a large part of cancer therapies are administered in day hospitals (DH), premedication taken on the day of the cancer treatment is injected as a 30-min infusion. OBJECTIVE: To assess compliance with recommendations for premedication prescription and intake; to analyse patient attitude about switching to exclusively oral forms taken at home. METHOD: The study is conducted in the medical oncology DH of a French Hospital from 17 January to 25 February 2022. The data collection is carried out as an individual interview, associated with the distribution of two questionnaires. Data are coupled with the premedication set up on our software and the last medical report. Intakes are considered optimal when recommendations, tolerance, background, and adherence of the patient are taken into account. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included for interviews. Regarding software prescriptions, our configuration was consistent with recommendations in 100% of cases for HS and 37% for NV. Intakes were compliant in 51.4% of cases, non-compliant in 17.1% and debatable in 31.5%. Disparities between the practices of different physicians were identified. Regarding the feasibility of oral substitution, it could concern 63.5% of patients. CONCLUSION: This work makes it possible to improve the management of all patients and to make the operation of the care unit more fluid.

A Multicenter Study Assessing the Real-World Use and Effectiveness of First-Line Chemotherapy Plus Immunotherapy in Advanced Small-Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) Patients.

BACKGROUND: First-line chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (CT-IO) has recently demonstrated survival benefits over CT alone in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), based on randomized phase III studies. This retrospective multicenter study assessed the real-world use and effectiveness of CT-IO in ES-SCLC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All newly diagnosed ES-SCLC patients from 4 French hospitals treated with CT alone or CT-IO between May 2020 and December 2021 were included. Overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard models were performed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) in univariate and multivariate models. The aim was not to compare efficacy between groups. RESULTS: Among 104 patients, 75 (72.1%) received CT-IO. Brain metastases were diagnosed in 28.3% of patients, and 29.8% were performance status (PS) ≥ 2. At a median follow-up of 16.8 months (95%CI, 14.9-23.4), the median OS was 11.4 months (95%CI, 7.7-14.7) in the CT-IO group, and the 12-month OS rate was 43.6% (95%CI, 33.3-57.2). In the CT group, the median OS was 7.8 months (95%CI, 5.4-11.8) and the 12-month OS rate was 15.3% (95%CI, 5.7-41.0). In multivariate analyses, baseline brain and liver metastases were associated with a shorter OS for patients treated in the CT-IO group (HR, 3.80 [95%CI, 1.90-7.60] and 3.12 [95%CI, 1.60-6.08] respectively; P < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: We showed that clinicians have chosen to use IO beyond the specific criteria defined in guidelines. Survival data appeared promising with a median OS comparable to the one previously demonstrated in clinical trials.

Analysis of cost-effectiveness of chemotherapeutic agents and new therapies for the management of unresectable and metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapies has revolutionized metastatic melanoma (MM) management but their use is associated with high daily costs compared to chemotherapies: €2 for dacarbazine versus €175 for immunotherapies and €413 for targeted therapies. While overall survival (OS) has increased, healthcare expenditures are expected to double by 2030. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the median OS and costs for MM patients in order to evaluate the effectiveness of new biological or targeted therapies (NT) used since 2013 compared to chemotherapies. MATERIALS & METHODS: This was a retrospective monocentric cost-effectiveness analysis performed in CHU Nantes (Nantes University Hospital). All MM patients treated with conventional chemotherapy as first-line treatment between 2008 and 2012 were included (CHEMO group). The same number of patients treated with NT as first-line between 2013 and 2017 were included (NT group). RESULTS: In total, 161 patients were included in each group. The mean age at diagnosis was 64.7±2.4 years in the CHEMO group and 65.3±2.4 years in the NT group (not significant). The men/women ratio was 1.48 and 1.27, respectively, (not significant). The median OS was 158 days in the CHEMO group and 395 days in the NT group (p<0.001). Treatment cost was €10,280/patient versus €94,676/patient, respectively. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €90,184/LY (95% CI: €59,637; €166,395). CONCLUSION: Our study assessed clinical and economic features associated with MM management before and after the advent of NT. Costs and life expectancy have increased. NT appears to be cost-effective.

Outcome of patients with newly diagnosed AML admitted to the ICU, including preemptive admission - a multi-center study.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) can lead to life-threatening complications that may require intensive care unit (ICU) management. It has been advocated that early preemptive (ePE) ICU admission, before the onset of organ failure, could benefit some high-risk patients such as those with hyperleukocytosis. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the outcome of newly diagnosed AML patients who required ICU admission in five academic centers with a special focus on patients with an ePE admission strategy, i.e., those transferred to the ICU without any organ failure (modified SOFA score ≤ 2 [omitting thrombocytopenia] and no life-sustaining intervention in the first 24 h following ICU admission) before the start of induction therapy. Between January 2017 and December 2019, 428 patients were included among which 101 were admitted to the ICU. Among patients requiring life-sustaining interventions (n = 83), 18 (22%) died while in the ICU but ICU survivors had the same survival as those not admitted to the ICU. Patients with an ePE admission (n = 18) had more comorbidities and high-risk disease features such as hyperleukocytosis but required no life-sustaining interventions while in the ICU. In a subgroup analysis of patients with hyperleukocytosis ≥ 50 G/l at diagnosis (n = 85), patients not admitted to the ICU and those admitted with an ePE strategy had similar outcomes. This study provides encouraging results about ICU outcome in AML patients during induction therapy but the potential benefit of an ePE strategy must be confirmed prospectively.

Practicing and evaluating clinical pharmacy in oncology: Where are we now? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacy is a discipline structured around multiple activities whose objective is to secure patient care. Among all the specialties where it can be applied, oncology is a field of choice. More and more studies are being conducted on the impact of this activity, but their methodology and results seem at first sight very heterogeneous. OBJECTIVE(S): The objective of this literature review was to describe the clinical oncology pharmacy activities found in the literature, and analyze the methodology used and the outcomes measured by the authors for their evaluation. METHODS: This literature review was based on the PRISMA-ScR criteria. The Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO databases were searched. All studies reporting the evaluation of hospital-based clinical pharmacy activity in cancer patients were included based on a previously validated search equation. The search was conducted until the end of 2020. The quality of all studies was assessed using the MMAT. RESULTS: Of the 2521 results of the initial query, 93 were selected for complete review. The main interventions implemented were pharmaceutical analysis as well as pharmaceutical interviews. The indicators assessed most often were the number of pharmaceutical interventions as well as treatment-related problems. The overall quality assessment score was 55%. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacy activity in oncology still lacks robust studies, whether methodologically or of the measured indicator. Patient-centered impact indicators are still too rare. This area of research should focus on the homogenization of indicators and their relevance.

Exploring the factors influencing adherence to oral anticancer drugs in patients with digestive cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the beliefs, perceptions and representations of patients in order to identify the determinants of oral anticancer drugs adherence and to take action in current practice to improve patient support in digestive oncology. METHODS: We constructed a semi-directed interview guide which aimed to explore the patient's relationship with medication, their health history, their experiences at the time of the announcement of treatment, their confidence, their fears, their motivations to adhere to their treatment and the constraints linked to their treatment. The data were analysed and discussed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Seventeen patients agreed to participate in the study. The median age was 60 years. Ten patients had colorectal cancer, 3 patients had hepatocellular carcinoma, 3 patients had gastrointestinal stromal tumour and 1 patient had neuroendocrine pancreatic tumour. We identified five categories of factors influencing adherence: demographic and socioeconomic, disease-related, treatment-related, care system-related, and patient representation and pathways' factors. A majority of patients emphasised the importance of family support in the adherence process and the convenience of per os treatment compared to other intravenous treatments. However, several negative determinants emerged such as the toxicity of the treatment, fears of forgetting to take the medication, difficulties with the galenic formulation and negative beliefs of the family. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the need to address the different dimensions of the patient in order to understand his or her behaviour with regard to adherence and to identify the levers for improvement.

Prophylactic or Preemptive Low-Dose Azacitidine and Donor Lymphocyte Infusion to Prevent Disease Relapse following Allogeneic Transplantation in Patients with High-Risk Acute Myelogenous Leukemia or Myelodysplastic Syndrome.

Because of the persistently high rates of relapse of patients with high-risk acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), post-transplantation maintenance therapy has been proposed. We previously initiated a Phase II trial in which epigenetic therapy was combined with immunotherapy in an attempt to reduce disease relapse. In that study, low-dose azacitidine (AZA) and escalating doses of donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) were given as post-allo-HSCT maintenance treatment. In the present study, we retrospectively analyze a larger cohort of patients receiving post-transplantation maintenance therapy and provide updates on some patients of the earlier study. The objectives of the present study were to analyze the cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) and the incidence of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) of patients with high-risk AML or MDS receiving post-transplantation maintenance treatment with AZA with or without DLI. We retrospectively analyzed 77 patients (54 with AML, 23 with MDS) considered at high risk based on either their genomic or clinical status at transplantation. Following allogeneic transplantation, they received at least 1 cycle of prophylactic or preemptive low-dose AZA with or without escalating doses of DLI to prevent disease relapse. Almost one-half of the patients (47%) were able to receive the full 12 cycles of scheduled AZA, and a majority (79%) received at least 1 DLI. With a median follow-up of 24 months, 19 patients (25%; 16 with AML, 3 with MDS) relapsed, at a median of 9.8 months (range, 4 to 58.6 months), giving a 22% CIR at 24 months. OS and PFS at 24 months were 70.8% and 68.3%, respectively. The cumulative incidences of grade II-IV acute GVHD and chronic GVHD were 27.4% and 45%, respectively. Only a minority of patients (11%) required delayed administration of AZA. These findings confirm that AZA-DLI maintenance is both tolerable and effective in reducing the risk of post-transplantation relapse.

Autologous stem-cell collection following VTD or VRD induction therapy in multiple myeloma: a single-center experience.

Triplet-drug regimen bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) are considered as standard of care induction prior autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in myeloma. In addition to improve response rate, induction therapy should preserve an adequate stem-cell collection. In the present retrospective study, we analyzed stem-cell collection in 325 newly diagnosed myeloma patients who received either VTD or VRD induction before ASCT. Stem-cell mobilization consisted of intravenous cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF. Plerixafor was administered preemptively to rescue mobilization. In comparison with VTD, VRD induction was associated with a more frequent use of plerixafor (19.3% versus 5.4%, p = 0.004) and with an increased number of apheresis to reach adequate collection (>2 apheresis required in 42.3% versus 30.2%, p = 0.05). Moreover, more patients experienced collection failure in the VRD group (6% versus 1.8%, p = 0.004). The median number of CD34-positive cells (×106/kg) was lower in the VRD group: 8.5 versus 9.3 (p = 0.05) in the VTD group. The vast majority of patients underwent ASCT (93% versus 98%, in VRD and VTD group, respectively). These data highlight the need of optimal stem-cell collection strategy, especially in the context of tandem transplantation and incorporation of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody into induction.

Anticancer agents and phytotherapy: Interactions that are often unrecognized.

Phytotherapy is the main complementary medicine for which patients afflicted with cancer have recourse but the associated consumption of phytotherapy products gives rise to a risk of interaction with anticancer agents. The aim of this prospective study was to measure the prevalence of the consumption of phytotherapy products as well as their interactions with anticancer agents in a cohort of patients from January 2018 to August 2019. Patients hospitalized in the conventional hematology unit and outpatients who had their prescriptions for oral anticancer agents filled at the hospital pharmacy were questioned about consumption of phytotherapy products by pharmacy externs trained in pharmaceutical interviews. Among the 110 hospitalized patients who answered the questionnaire, 40% (n = 44) used phytotherapy and 5 of them continued to consume it during the cycles of injectable chemotherapy. As a result, 10 interactions were found between the plants and the anticancer agents (prevalence of 27%). Among the 59 outpatients, 17% (n = 10) consumed phytotherapy. Eight interactions were identified (prevalence of 80%). The potential consequences were an increase or a decrease in the concentration of the anticancer agents and an increase in the risk of bleeding, hepatoxicity, and hypokalemia. The consumption of phytotherapy was unknown by a health professional for 44% of hospitalized patients and 60% of the outpatients. The risk of interactions between plants and anticancer agents is not negligible and professionals should be cognizant of this in their daily practice. The availability of tools for training and detection of interactions is indispensable for managing patients undergoing onco-hematology treatments.

Chemotherapy efficacy after first-line immunotherapy in 18 advanced melanoma patients.

In BRAF wild type advanced melanoma, immune checkpoint blockers such as anti-PD1 (anti-programmed cell death 1) are usually continued beyond progression for a hypothetical rare further response. Chemotherapy as a second-line option is considered ineffective by many practitioners based on historical data. Continuing anti-PD1 beyond progression has a high health-economic impact and is not recommended by the FDA. This study aimed to describe the efficacy and survival of advanced melanoma patients who received second-line (or more) chemotherapy after immunotherapy failure.This was a retrospective single center study conducted in a French University Hospital during an 11-month period. All advanced melanoma patients treated with chemotherapy after immunotherapy failure were included.Eighteen patients were analyzed. Therapeutic response to chemotherapy was evaluable in 16 patients: partial response was achieved in 3/16 (19%), stable disease in 1/16 (6%) and progressive disease in 12/16 (75%). Median overall survival from chemotherapy start was 12 months. Median progression-free survival was 5.4 months. The 6-month overall survival rate was 81% and the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 40%.Although the disease control rate with chemotherapy was low (25%), survival data in our study are far superior to those previously published. This could be linked to a high proportion of patients treated with anti-PD1 just prior to chemotherapy, which may suggest a potential synergy between immunotherapy and chemotherapy.

SMABcare study: subcutaneous monoclonal antibody in cancer care: cost-consequence analysis of subcutaneous rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma.

Rituximab is used as a standard of care for follicular lymphoma and is usually administered intravenously. A novel subcutaneous formulation recently showed non-inferior efficacy with similar pharmacokinetic and safety profiles compared to intravenous rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma. This new approach is promising in terms of comfort for patients and time-saving for hospital staff. To evaluate the real-life economic impact of subcutaneous rituximab as maintenance therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma in real life, we conducted a cost-consequence analysis from the hospital's point of view in three French teaching hospitals. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L) was investigated as well as patients' and nurses' perception. Compared to intravenous rituximab, subcutaneous administration showed an estimated cost-saving of €109.20 per patient per cycle (p < 0.001), 78.6% of which could be attributed to the rituximab cost. Health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between the two groups despite tendencies for greater pain in the subcutaneous group and greater anxiety in the intravenous group. Thus, subcutaneous rituximab had a favorable pharmacoeconomic profile, with clinical efficacy similar to that of intravenous rituximab. The subcutaneous form was preferred by almost all patients, but further consideration should be given to improve the patients' experience: a dedicated day unit with trained medical, nursing, and pharmaceutical staff could be helpful.