Impact of coronavirus of 2019 on the delivery of pharmacy services to patients with cancer: An international survey of oncology pharmacy practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus of 2019 pandemic has necessitated vast and rapid changes in the way oncology pharmacy services are delivered around the world. METHODS/AIMS: An international survey of oncology pharmacists and technicians was conducted via the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners and collaborating global pharmacy organisations to determine the impact that the coronavirus of 2019 has had on pharmacy service delivery, pharmacy practitioners and oncology practice. RESULTS: The survey received 862 responses from 40 different countries from September to October 2020. The majority of respondents were pharmacists (n = 841, 97.6%), with 24% involved in the direct care of patients with the coronavirus of 2019. Of the survey participants, 55% increased their time working remotely, with remote activities including dispensing, patient assessment/follow-up and attending multi-disciplinary rounds. Respondents reported a 72% increase in the use of technology to perform remote patient interaction activities and that participation in educational meetings and quality improvement projects was reduced by 68% and 44%, respectively. Workforce impacts included altered working hours (50%), cancelled leave (48%) and forced leave/furloughing (30%). During the pandemic, respondents reported reduced access to intensive care (19%) and anti-cancer (15%) medications. In addition, 39% of respondents reported reduced access to personal protective equipment, including N95 masks for chemotherapy compounding. Almost half of respondents (49%) reported that cancer treatments were delayed or intervals were altered for patients being treated with curative intent. A third of practitioners (30%) believed that patient outcomes would be adversely impacted by changes to pharmacy services. Sixty-five percent of respondents reported impacts on their mental health, with 12% utilising support services. CONCLUSION: The coronavirus of 2019 pandemic has altered the way oncology pharmacy services are delivered. These results demonstrate the adaptability of the oncology pharmacy profession and highlight the importance of formal evaluation of the varied practice models to determine the evidence-based practices that enhance pharmacy services and, thus, should be reinstated as soon as practical and reasonable.

Global oncology pharmacy response to COVID-19 pandemic: Medication access and safety.

Response, action, and adaptation of the way health services are delivered will impact our ability to provide optimized and continuity of care while acting within resource constraints imposed by COVID-19. Care for patients with cancer is particularly important given increased infection rates and worse outcomes from COVID-19 in this patient population, as well as potential adverse outcomes if treatment pathways need to be compromised. In this commentary, we provide a global oncology pharmacy perspective (including both developed and developing nations) on how COVID-19 has impacted access to and delivery of cancer therapies. This perspective was prepared by the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners, with input from national and regional oncology pharmacy practice groups (42 practice leaders from 28 countries and regions) who contributed to a snapshot survey between 10 and 22 April 2020. Specifically, we highlight challenges related to safe handling of hazardous drugs and maintaining high-quality medication safety standards that have impacted various stakeholders.

Real-World Treatment and Outcomes in ALK-Rearranged NSCLC: Results From a Large U.S.-Based Database.

Introduction: ALK-rearranged advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) represents 4% of all NSCLCs, and multiple ALK-targeted therapies (ALK-inhibitors) are now available for use. Little is known about changes in treatment patterns, or how prognostic factors and sequence of therapy may impact overall survival in the real-world setting. We aim to describe initial and subsequent treatments used, survival outcomes, prognostic factors, and the impact of treatment on overall survival in the largest (N = 739) real-world cohort of patients with ALK+ aNSCLC reported in the literature. Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study with data drawn from a U.S.-based electronic health record-derived, deidentified database. Eligible patients were diagnosed with ALK+ aNSCLC between 2011-2020 and were treated in multiple different cancer clinics and across multiple geographic regions throughout the United States. Results: From a cohort of 63,667 patients with aNSCLC, 739 patients with ALK+ NSCLC were eligible for analysis, median age was 63 years, 54% patients were female, and 85% were managed in community setting. More than 168 different treatment sequences were observed, and treatment utilization changed over time. Cohort median overall survival was 37 months (95% confidence interval: 33-45). Positive prognostic factors were as follows: never-smoking history, younger age, treatment in an academic setting, and initial early stage at diagnosis. Initial treatment with a second-generation ALK-inhibitor was associated with improved survival compared with chemotherapy. Conclusions: For people with ALK+ aNSCLC, this study has identified several important clinical prognostic factors and is practice affirming; first-line treatment with a second-generation ALK-inhibitor improves survival compared with chemotherapy.

Optimal first-line treatment for metastatic ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer-a narrative review.

Background and Objective: First-line treatment options for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) whose tumors harbour anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements have rapidly evolved from chemotherapy, to the first in class ALK-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) crizotinib in 2011, and now include no fewer than five Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved ALK inhibitors. However, while superiority to crizotinib has been established, head-to-head clinical trials comparing newer generation ALK inhibitors are lacking, and decisions on optimal first-line treatment must be based on analysis of the relevant trials, with attention to systemic and intracranial efficacy, toxicity profile as well as consideration of patient factors and preferences. Here we aim to synthesise findings from review of these trials and to describe options for optimal first-line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC. Methods: A literature review of relevant randomised clinical trials was undertaken using Embase database. There were no limitations to time frame or language applied. Key Content and Findings: Crizotinib was established as the standard of care first-line treatment for patients with ALK+ aNSCLC in 2011. Since this time, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib and lorlatinib have all demonstrated superiority as first-line treatments compared to crizotinib, based on progression free survival, intra-cranial efficacy, and side-effect profiles. Conclusions: Options for optimal first-line treatment for ALK+ aNSCLC include alectinib, brigatinib and lorlatinib. This review serves as a resource summarizing data from key clinical trials with ALK inhibitors to aid in decision making when tailoring treatment for patients. Future research in the field includes real world analysis of efficacy and toxicity of next-generation ALK-inhibitors, identification of mechanisms of tumor persistence and acquired resistance, development of novel ALK inhibitors, and use of ALK-TKIs in earlier stage disease.

Beyond cabazitaxel: Late line treatments in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer: A retrospective multicentre analysis.

AIMS: Multiple life-prolonging therapies are available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, the optimal treatment strategy following progression through standard treatment with docetaxel, androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) and cabazitaxel, remains unclear. We aimed to describe treatment patterns in men with mCRPC following progression on standard treatments and determine whether subsequent treatment choice impacts overall survival. METHODS: Clinicopathologic and treatment data were extracted from the electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) for patients who had received docetaxel, ARSIs and cabazitaxel in any order. Data were analyzed to compare groups that did versus did not receive subsequent systemic therapy. Treatment sequences, median duration of treatment, and median overall survival (mOS) were reported for each treatment group. RESULTS: Ninety-eight eligible patients were identified, with 51 receiving subsequent systemic therapy. Those who received further treatment were younger (68 vs. 71 years, p < .01) but did not have any other differences in clinicopathologic features compared to those who received no further treatment. Patients who received upfront docetaxel were more likely to proceed to subsequent treatment (p = .02). Subsequent systemic therapies varied, the most common being carboplatin-based regimens (n = 13, 25.5%) and many patients were rechallenged with ARSI (n = 10, 19.6%) or docetaxel (n = 6, 11.8%). There was no difference in mOS according to subsequent systemic therapy (p = .09). CONCLUSION: This retrospective multicenter analysis demonstrates the variation in treatment sequences used for mCRPC in the real-world setting. In the absence of high quality, prospective evidence, our results suggest that subsequent treatment choice does not influence survival outcomes and the optimal choice is guided by individual patient and disease-related factors.

Pilot Study of Patients' Preferences for Immediate Resection Versus a Watch and Wait Approach After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: In patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation, it may be reasonable to adopt a watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy rather than proceed to immediate resection of the rectum. Patient preferences for this strategy are unknown. The primary aim of the current study was to determine the feasibility of assessing hypothetical recurrence and survival differences that relevant patients would tolerate to avoid immediate resection of the rectum. A secondary aim included estimating patients' tolerance thresholds and the factors that might predict them. METHODS: We developed a study-specific written questionnaire based on a previously validated instrument. Hypothetical time tradeoff tasks were used to determine the recurrence rate patients would accept to adopt a W&W strategy and the survival benefit that would be needed to justify choosing immediate resection over W&W. Feasibility was measured on the basis of response rate, the stated ease of completion and the satisfaction of task, and time used. RESULTS: Twenty of 31 potentially eligible patients completed the study-specific questionnaire. The majority of respondents felt that questions were clear (70%) and not hard to understand (65%). The median acceptable recurrence risk to adopt a W&W strategy was 20% (interquartile range [IQR], 10%-35%). Patients required a median of 2.0 extra years of survival (IQR, 1.0-3.0 years) over a baseline 7.0 years, and they required a median extra 10% (IQR, 4%-19%) over baseline 70% survival rates to justify immediate resection. CONCLUSION: Measuring the preferences of patients with rectal cancer using time tradeoff methods seemed to be feasible. Larger studies are needed to confirm how acceptable a W&W strategy would be for relevant patients.

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer service delivery: results from an international survey of oncology clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: To report clinician-perceived changes to cancer service delivery in response to COVID-19. DESIGN: Multidisciplinary Australasian cancer clinician survey in collaboration with the European Society of Medical Oncology. SETTING: Between May and June 2020 clinicians from 70 countries were surveyed; majority from Europe (n=196; 39%) with 1846 COVID-19 cases per million people, Australia (AUS)/New Zealand (NZ) (n=188; 38%) with 267/236 per million and Asia (n=75; 15%) with 121 per million at time of survey distribution. PARTICIPANTS: Medical oncologists (n=372; 74%), radiation oncologists (n=91; 18%) and surgical oncologists (n=38; 8%). RESULTS: Eighty-nine per cent of clinicians reported altering clinical practices; more commonly among those with versus without patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (n=142; 93% vs n=225; 86%, p=0.03) but regardless of community transmission levels (p=0.26). More European clinicians (n=111; 66.1%) had treated patients diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with Asia (n=20; 27.8%) and AUS/NZ (n=8; 4.8%), p<0.001. Many clinicians (n=307; 71.4%) reported concerns that reduced access to standard treatments during the pandemic would negatively impact patient survival. The reported proportion of consultations using telehealth increased by 7.7-fold, with 25.1% (n=108) of clinicians concerned that patient survival would be worse due to this increase. Clinicians reviewed a median of 10 fewer outpatients/week (including non-face to face) compared with prior to the pandemic, translating to 5010 fewer specialist oncology visits per week among the surveyed group. Mental health was negatively impacted for 52.6% (n=190) of clinicians. CONCLUSION: Clinicians reported widespread changes to oncology services, in regions of both high and low COVID-19 case numbers. Clinician concerns of potential negative impacts on patient outcomes warrant objective assessment, with system and policy implications for healthcare delivery at large.