Safety outcomes of rapid- versus standard-infusion rate oxaliplatin.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that the oxaliplatin dose of 85 mg/m2 used in various gastrointestinal cancer regimens may be infused over a rapid rate of 85 min instead of the standard time of 120 min. We evaluated the safety outcomes of rapid administration of oxaliplatin compared to standard infusion. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, cohort study by chart review. Adult patients who received oxaliplatin as part of a FOLFOX, FOLFOXIRI, or FOLRINOX chemotherapy regimen from January 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021, were included. Primary outcomes were the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) and treatment modification of oxaliplatin due to adverse drug events. Secondary outcomes included peripheral neuropathy (PN), myelosuppressive signs, and oxaliplatin-related emergency department visit and/or hospital admission. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients were included (90 and 88 in the rapid-rate and standard-rate groups, respectively). Rapid-rate oxaliplatin was not associated with increased HSR or difference in toxicity requiring dose reduction, delayed dose, or slowed infusion rate, but was associated with increased rate of permanent discontinuation of oxaliplatin, 7.8% and 1.1% in the rapid-rate group and standard-rate groups, respectively (p = 0.032). Peripheral neuropathy occurred in 72.2% and 42% of patients in the rapid-rate group and standard-rate groups, respectively (relative risk for PN, 2.09; 95%, CI: 1.43-3.04; p < .001). There were no differences in any other adverse drug event measured. CONCLUSION: Rapid-rate oxaliplatin was associated with minimal treatment modifications; however, there was an increase in PN incidence. A faster rate of oxaliplatin administration may not be worth the increased risk of PN.

Improving Outpatient Infusion Clinic Wait Times at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Many factors contribute to long wait times for patients on the day of their chemotherapy infusion appointments. Longer wait time leads to nonoptimal care, increased costs, and decreased patient satisfaction. We conducted a quality improvement project to reduce the infusion wait times at a Comprehensive Cancer Center. METHODS: A multidisciplinary working group of physicians, infusion center nurses, pharmacists, information technology analysts, the Chief Medical Officer, and patient advocates formed a working group. Wait times were analyzed, and the contributing factors to long wait time were identified. Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles were implemented and included labeling patients ready to treat earlier, loading premedications into the medication dispensing system, increasing the number of pharmacy staff, and improving communication using a secure messaging system. The outcome measure was time from patient appointment to initiation of first drug at the infusion center. The secondary outcome measure was patient wait time satisfaction on the basis of Press Ganey score. RESULTS: Postintervention, the mean time from appointment to initiation of first drug decreased 17.6 minutes (P < .001; 95% CI, 16.3 to 18.9), from 58.1 minutes to 40.5 minutes (43.5% decrease). Patient wait time satisfaction score increased 8.9 points (P < .001; 95% CI, 6.0 to 11.82), from 76.2 to 85.1 (11.7% increase). CONCLUSION: Exploring real-time data and using a classic quality improvement methodology allowed a Comprehensive Cancer Center to identify deficiencies and prevent delays in chemotherapy initiation. This significantly improved patient wait time and patient satisfaction.