Assessment of adherence to cancer-associated venous thromboembolism guideline and pharmacist's impact on anticoagulant therapy.

PURPOSE: Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) can cause many unfavorable health outcomes. Many institutions have published guidelines, but implementation of these guidelines in cancer clinics is still under investigation. This study aimed to evaluate the guideline adherence and identify potential gaps between the recommendations and their implications in clinics. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted between September and December 2018 at oncology inpatient and ambulatory settings. The guideline adherence rate was assessed for inpatients during hospital stay by using 8 criteria developed based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guideline on Cancer Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease Version 1.2018. Guideline-based recommendations were proposed to the consultant physician in case of non-adherence. Khorana risk scores were calculated for each patient at outpatient clinics. In cases where the score was found to be ≥ 3, the consultant physician was informed. RESULTS: A total of 100 inpatients and 200 ambulatory patients were included in the study. The guideline adherence rates ranged between 59 and 100% for 5 out of 8 pre-defined criteria, whereas the rate for others remained at 0-1%. A significant increase was observed in the adherence rates for initiation of prophylaxis at admission and determination of correct dose of an anticoagulant after recommendations being implemented (p < 0.001, McNemar test). Eleven patients were identified as at high-risk of VTE at ambulatory setting; however, an initiation of an anticoagulant was not considered by the consultant physicians. CONCLUSION: There are potential problems in implementation of guideline recommendations, which leads to low adherence rate. Therefore, liason with pharmacists and consultants for individual risk assessment and monitoring of patients will help to increase guideline adherence rates.

Prognostic value of the 2017 World Health Organization Classification System for gastric neuroendocrine tumors: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Gastric neuroendocrine tumors (G-NETs) are rare tumors, but their incidence is gradually increasing. Despite the existence of many classification systems, determining prognosis and planning treatment in patients with G-NETs remains a clinical challenge. In this study, the prognostic value of the World Health Organization (WHO) 2017 grading system and the effect of surgery on survival in low grade neuroendocrine tumors were investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: G-NETs who were diagnosed between January 2000 and May 2017 were included in the study. Patients' demographic characteristics, treatment details, and survival data were obtained from medical charts. Pathological samples were re-classified according to the WHO 2017 grading system. RESULTS: Of the total 94 evaluated patients, 50 (53.2%) were classified with G1 NETs, 37(39.4%) with G2 NETs, 4(4.2%) with well-differentiated G3 NETs, and the remaining 3 patients with poorly differentiated G3 neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC). The median follow-up time was 83.2 months. There was a statistically significant difference in 5-year progression free survival (PFS) between G1 tumors (100%) and G2 tumors (76%) (p<0.001). However, there was no statistically significant deference in 5-year overall survival rate (OS) for G1 (97%) and G2 (82%) tumors (p=0.141). When G2 and G1 NETs were compared according to their surgical approach, radical surgery was more frequently performed in patients with G2 tumors (p<0.001). However, radical surgery did not improve PFS in G1 and G2 NETs. CONCLUSION: The WHO 2017 NET classification system may have low prognostic value for determining the prognosis of patients with G1 and G2 tumors. Radical surgery for G1 and G2 NETs did not improve PFS in our study.

Risk assessment of febrile neutropenia and evaluation of G-CSF use in patients with cancer: a real-life study.

PURPOSE: The guidelines suggest using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for febrile neutropenia (FN) as prophylaxis in chemotherapy protocols with the risk of 10-20% after assessment of patient's risk factors. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the risk of FN by using the Patient Risk Score (PRS) and evaluating G-CSF use and its side effects by a clinical pharmacist at an outpatient clinic. METHODS: The study was conducted from May 2017 until November 2017 at the University Hospital oncology outpatient clinic. Patients who receive chemotherapy protocols with FN risk of 10-20% and > 20% and were initiated G-CSF were included. The patients' risk factors were assessed by the PRS, and the side effects were monitored for 3 months by a clinical pharmacist via a patient self-reported monitoring card. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients were included (286 interviews) in the study. There was a significant increase between the first and third visits on the PRS total scores of patients (p = 0.034). The patterns of G-CSF use showed that 34.7% undertreated, 22.8% overtreated, and 42.3% of patients were correctly treated for the prophylaxis. The severity of G-CSF-related musculoskeletal pain was increased on the second and third days of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The use of G-CSFs for FN prophylaxis is recommended; however, there may be a group of patients who are inadequately or unnecessarily treated. Therefore, patients should be assessed for the risk of developing FN in each cycle of chemotherapy and a regular risk assessment by using the PRS can be implemented in the monitoring process.