Evaluation of pharmacist interventions in a head and neck medical oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Head and neck cancers (HNC) are a complex and heterogeneous group of cancers, often necessitating a multidisciplinary approach across the care continuum. Oncology pharmacists are uniquely qualified to play a vital role on a multidisciplinary team and provide specialized care to optimize medication therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review evaluating the role of a board-certified oncology pharmacist in the head and neck oncology clinic at an academic, comprehensive cancer center from April 2017 through March 2018. The primary objective of the study was to describe the types of interventions made by the oncology pharmacists. Secondary objectives included quantifying time spent on patient education and number of prescriptions sent to pharmacies. RESULTS: The pharmacist had 873 encounters with 151 patients, resulting in 2080 interventions. Approximately 57% of the interventions were performed in the clinic. Patient education (58%), facilitation of new prescriptions or refill requests (49.9%), and supportive care management (32.6%) were the most frequent interventions. The oncology pharmacist spent 154.1 h on patient education and sent 811 prescriptions to pharmacies, with 63.6% of prescriptions sent to the institution's cancer center pharmacy. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of an oncology pharmacist in the HNC team optimized patient care through comprehensive and timely interventions across the care continuum. Our study is the first to highlight the vital role oncology pharmacists have in improving the overall quality of care of HNC patients. Future directions include exploring the impact of oncology pharmacist interventions on select Quality Oncology Practice Initiative measures by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Positive Surgical Margins in the 10 Most Common Solid Cancers.

A positive surgical margin (PSM) following cancer resection oftentimes necessitates adjuvant treatments and carries significant financial and prognostic implications. We sought to compare PSM rates for the ten most common solid cancers in the United States, and to assess trends over time. Over 10 million patients were identified in the National Cancer Data Base from 1998-2012, and 6.5 million had surgical margin data. PSM rates were compared between two time periods, 1998-2002 and 2008-2012. PSM was positively correlated with tumor category and grade. Ovarian and prostate cancers had the highest PSM prevalence in women and men, respectively. The highest PSM rates for cancers affecting both genders were seen for oral cavity tumors. PSM rates for breast cancer and lung and bronchus cancer in both men and women declined over the study period. PSM increases were seen for bladder, colon and rectum, and kidney and renal pelvis cancers. This large-scale analysis appraises the magnitude of PSM in the United States in order to focus future efforts on improving oncologic surgical care with the goal of optimizing value and improving patient outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab for Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck.

Background: The CheckMate 141 trial found that nivolumab improved survival for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC). Despite the improved survival, nivolumab is much more expensive than standard therapies. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the treatment of HNC. Methods: We constructed a Markov model to simulate treatment with nivolumab or standard single-agent therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic platinum-refractory HNC. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and probability of toxicity, were derived from clinical trial data, while costs (in 2017 US dollars) and health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed as dollar per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, with values of less than $100 000/QALY considered cost-effective from a health care payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess model uncertainty. Results: Our base case model found that treatment with nivolumab increased overall cost by $117 800 and improved effectiveness by 0.400 QALYs compared with standard therapy, leading to an ICER of $294 400/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the cost of nivolumab, though nivolumab only became cost-effective if the cost per cycle decreased from $13 432 to $3931. The model was not particularly sensitive to assumptions about survival. If one assumed that all patients alive at the end of the CheckMate 141 trial were cured of their disease, nivolumab was still not cost-effective (ICER $244 600/QALY). Conclusion: While nivolumab improves overall survival, at its current cost it would not be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with HNC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Elective Neck Dissection in Patients With Clinically Node-Negative Oral Cavity Cancer.

Purpose Recently, a large randomized trial found a survival advantage among patients who received elective neck dissection in conjunction with primary surgery for clinically node-negative oral cavity cancer compared with those receiving primary surgery alone. However, elective neck dissection comes with greater upfront cost and patient morbidity. We present a cost-effectiveness analysis of elective neck dissection for the initial surgical management of early-stage oral cavity cancer. Methods We constructed a Markov model to simulate primary, adjuvant, and salvage therapy; disease recurrence; and survival in patients with T1/T2 clinically node-negative oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Transition probabilities were derived from clinical trial data; costs (in 2015 US dollars) and health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as dollar per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than $100,000/QALY considered cost effective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to examine model uncertainty. Results Our base-case model found that over a lifetime the addition of elective neck dissection to primary surgery reduced overall costs by $6,000 and improved effectiveness by 0.42 QALYs compared with primary surgery alone. The decrease in overall cost despite the added neck dissection was a result of less use of salvage therapy. On one-way sensitivity analysis, the model was most sensitive to assumptions about disease recurrence, survival, and the health utility reduction from a neck dissection. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that treatment with elective neck dissection was cost effective 76% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Conclusion Our study found that the addition of elective neck dissection reduces costs and improves health outcomes, making this a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with early-stage oral cavity cancer.