Postoperative Restrictive Opioid Protocols and Durable Changes in Opioid Prescribing and Chronic Opioid Use.

Importance: Changes in postsurgical opioid prescribing practices may help reduce chronic opioid use in surgical patients. Objective: To investigate whether postsurgical acute pain across different surgical subspecialties can be managed effectively after hospital discharge with an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days and whether this reduction in prescribed opioids is associated with reduced new, persistent opioid use. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective cohort study with a case-control design, a restrictive opioid prescription protocol (ROPP) specifying an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days after discharge from surgery along with standardized patient education was implemented across all surgical services at a tertiary-care comprehensive cancer center. Participants were all patients who underwent surgery from August 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were the rate of compliance with the ROPP in each surgical service, the mean number of prescription days and refill requests, type of opioid prescribed, and rate of conversion to chronic opioid use determined via a state-run opioid prescription program. Postsurgical complications were also measured. Results: A total of 4068 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [13.8] years; 2528 women [62.1%]) were included, with 2017 in the pre-ROPP group (August 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019) and 2051 in the post-ROPP group (February 1, 2019, to July 31, 2019). The rate of compliance with the protocol was 95%. After implementation of the ROPP, mean opioid prescription days decreased from a mean (SD) of 3.9 (4.5) days in the pre-ROPP group to 1.9 (3.6) days in the post-ROPP group (P < .001). The ROPP implementation led to a 45% decrease in prescribed opioids after surgery (mean [SD], 157.22 [338.06] mean morphine milligram equivalents [MME] before ROPP vs 83.54 [395.70] MME after ROPP; P < .001). Patients in the post-ROPP cohort requested fewer refills (367 of 2051 [17.9%] vs 422 of 2017 [20.9%] in the pre-ROPP cohort; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in surgical complications. The conversion rate to chronic opioid use decreased following ROPP implementation among both opioid-naive patients with cancer (11.3% [143 of 1267] to 4.5% [118 of 2645]; P < .001) and those without cancer (6.1% [19 of 310] to 2.7% [16 of 600]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, prescribing an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days to surgical patients after hospital discharge was feasible for most patients, led to a significant decrease in the number of opioids prescribed after surgery, and was associated with a significantly decreased conversion to long-term opioid use without concomitant increases in refill requests or significant compromises in surgical recovery.

Oncologist uptake of comprehensive genomic profile guided targeted therapy.

We describe the extent to which comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) results were used by oncologists to guide targeted therapy selection in a cohort of solid tumor patients tested as part of standard care at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center June 2016-June 2017, with adequate follow up through September 2018 (n = 620). Overall, 28.4% of CGP tests advised physicians about targeted therapy use supported by companion diagnostic or practice guideline evidence. Post-test targeted therapy uptake was highest for patients in active treatment at the time of order (86% versus 76% of treatment naïve patients), but also took longer to initiate (median 50 days versus 7 days for treatment naïve patients), with few patients (2.6%) receiving targeted agents prior to testing. 100% of patients with resistance variants did not receive targeted agents. Treatment naïve patients received immunotherapy as the most common alternative. When targeted therapy given off-label or in a trial was the best CGP option, (7%) of patients received it. Our data illustrate the appropriate and heterogeneous use of CGP by oncologists as a longitudinal treatment decision tool based on patient history and treatment needs, and that some patients may benefit from testing prior to initiation of other standard treatments.

Treatment recommendations to cancer patients in the context of FDA guidance for next generation sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of next generation sequencing (NGS) by the FDA is advancing the use of genomic-based precision medicine for the therapeutic management of cancer as standard care. Recent FDA guidance for the classification of genomic variants based on clinical evidence to aid clinicians in understanding the actionability of identified variants provided by comprehensive NGS panels has also been set forth. In this retrospective analysis, we interpreted and applied the FDA variant classification guidance to comprehensive NGS testing performed for advanced cancer patients and assessed oncologist agreement with NGS test treatment recommendations. METHODS: NGS comprehensive genomic profiling was performed in a CLIA certified lab (657 completed tests for 646 patients treated at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center) between June 2016 and June 2017. Physician treatment recommendations made within 120 days post-test were gathered from tested patients' medical records and classified as targeted therapy, precision medicine clinical trial, immunotherapy, hormonal therapy, chemotherapy/radiation, surgery, transplant, or non-therapeutic (hospice, surveillance, or palliative care). Agreement between NGS test report targeted therapy recommendations based on the FDA variant classification and physician targeted therapy treatment recommendations were evaluated. RESULTS: Excluding variants contraindicating targeted therapy (i.e., KRAS or NRAS mutations), at least one variant with FDA level 1 companion diagnostic supporting evidence as the most actionable was identified in 14% of tests, with physicians most frequently recommending targeted therapy (48%) for patients with these results. This stands in contrast to physicians recommending targeted therapy based on test results with FDA level 2 (practice guideline) or FDA level 3 (clinical trial or off label) evidence as the most actionable result (11 and 4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found an appropriate "dose-response" relationship between the strength of clinical evidence supporting biomarker-directed targeted therapy based on application of FDA guidance for NGS test variant classification, and subsequent treatment recommendations made by treating physicians. In view of recent changes at FDA, it is paramount to define regulatory grounds and medical policy coverage for NGS testing based on this guidance.

Ultrarestrictive Opioid Prescription Protocol for Pain Management After Gynecologic and Abdominal Surgery.

Importance: Opioids are routinely prescribed for postoperative home pain management for most patients in the United States, with limited evidence of the amount needed to be dispensed. Opioid-based treatment often adversely affects recovery. Prescribed opioids increase the risk of chronic opioid use, abuse, and diversion and contribute to the current opioid epidemic. Objective: To evaluate whether after hospital discharge, postsurgical acute pain can be effectively managed with a markedly reduced number of opioid doses. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case-control cohort study, an ultrarestrictive opioid prescription protocol (UROPP) was designed and implemented from June 26, 2017, through June 30, 2018, at a single tertiary-care comprehensive cancer center. All patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery were included. Patients undergoing ambulatory or minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic approach) were not prescribed opioids at discharge unless they required more than 5 doses of oral or intravenous opioids while in the hospital. Patients who underwent a laparotomy were provided a 3-day opioid pain medication supply at discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total number of opioid pain medications prescribed in the 60-day perioperative period, requests for opioid prescription refills, and postoperative pain scores and complications were evaluated. Factors associated with increased postoperative pain, preoperative and postoperative pain scores, inpatient status, prior opioid use, and all opioid prescriptions within the 60-day perioperative window were monitored among the case patients and compared with those from consecutive control patients treated at the center in the 12 months before the UROPP was implemented. Results: Patient demographics and procedure characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 cohorts of women (605 cases: mean [SD] age, 56.3 [14.5] years; 626 controls: mean [SD] age, 55.5 [13.9] years). The mean (SD) number of opioid tablets given at discharge after a laparotomy was 43.6 (17.0) before implementation of the UROPP and 12.1 (8.9) after implementation (P < .001). For patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery, the mean (SD) number of opioid tablets given at discharge was 38.4 (17.4) before implementation of the UROPP and 1.3 (3.7) after implementation (P < .001). After ambulatory surgery, the mean (SD) number of opioid tablets given at discharge was 13.9 (16.6) before implementation of the UROPP and 0.2 (2.1) after implementation (P < .001). The mean (SD) perioperative oral morphine equivalent dose was reduced to 64.3 (207.2) mg from 339.4 (674.4) mg the year prior for all opioid-naive patients (P < .001). The significant reduction in the number of dispensed opioids was not associated with an increase the number of refill requests (104 patients [16.6%] in the pre-UROPP group vs 100 patients [16.5%] in the post-UROPP group; P = .99), the mean (SD) postoperative visit pain scores (1.1 [2.2] for the post-UROPP group vs 1.4 [2.3] for pre-UROPP group; P = .06), or the number of complications (29 cases [4.8%] in the post-UROPP group vs 42 cases [6.7%] in the pre-UROPP group; P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of a UROPP was associated with a significant decrease in the overall amount of opioids prescribed to patients after gynecologic and abdominal surgery at the time of discharge for all patients, and for the entire perioperative time for opioid-naive patients without changes in pain scores, complications, or medication refill requests.

Breadth of Genetic Testing Selected by Patients at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of patients at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome to select the extent of genetic testing personally preferred and the impact of demographic factors on the breadth of testing pursued. METHODS: A single-institution cohort was enumerated consisting of patients referred for clinical genetic counseling secondary to risk of HBOC syndrome. This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients seen for genetic counseling; all patients completed an epidemiologic questionnaire and provided personal and family medical histories. Patients meeting guidelines for testing were offered testing at 3 levels: single gene/condition (Single), small panels with highly penetrant genes (Plus), and large panels with high and moderately penetrant genes (Next). Associations between personal or family-related factors and breadth of testing selected were investigated. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using Student t and χ tests, as appropriate. Joint classification tables were used to test for effect modification, and a log-binomial model was used to compute rate ratios (RR) with a threshold of P < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: We identified 253 patients who underwent genetic counseling for HBOC syndrome. Most patients were personally affected by cancer (63.6%), reported at least some college (79.2%), met the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for BRCA testing (94.5%), and opted to undergo genetic testing (94.1%). Most (84.9%) patients opted for panel testing. An increased likelihood of choosing Next-level testing was found to be associated with patients having any college experience (RR, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.30), as well as being unaffected by cancer (RR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical genetic counseling is a highly specialized service, which should be provided to patients at risk of hereditary cancer syndromes. Although some epidemiologic factors can predict a patient's preference for testing breadth, patients were sufficiently able to self-identify the level of testing they were comfortable with after receiving genetic counseling. Most practitioners do not have the time or expertise to provide the degree of counseling needed to enable and empower patients to choose the level of testing they are comfortable with. When available, referral to genetic counselors remains an important component of comprehensive care for women with a personal or family history of cancer suggestive of hereditary risk.