Descentralización de la elaboración de los tratamientos antineoplásicos. Optimización de los recursos / Decentralisation of the preparation of antineoplastic treatments. Resources

Objetivos: La metodología “Six Sigma” se basa en el análisis de los flujos de trabajo e identificación de los puntos de mejoras con el fin de lograr una máxima eficiencia en los procesos, tanto industriales como sanitarios. El objetivo de este estudio es comparar la eficiencia entre un sistema “clásico” de elaboración de quimioterapia centralizado en el Servicio de Farmacia frente a un modelo descentralizado. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional en el que se analizó la eficiencia de los modelos de elaboración de preparaciones quimioterápicas: 1.- Modelo clásico (MC), a partir del cual se suministran las preparaciones al Hospital de Día de Hematología: las campanas de elaboración de tratamientos y el farmacéutico están presentes en el Servicio de Farmacia.2.- Modelo descentralizado (MD): el farmacéutico y las campanas de preparación de la medicación se encuentran en Hospital de Día de Oncología. La eficiencia de cada sistema se evaluó mediante el tiempo transcurrido desde la recepción de la orden médica hasta la administración de la quimioterapia (TAQ).Resultados: El TAQ siguiendo el MD fue inferior que para el MC: 13,7 [5-28] minutos versus 71,0 [42-96] minutos (p<0,001) con una diferencia media de 57,3 minutos/preparación. El tiempo potencialmente ahorrado con el modelo descentralizado fue de 40,3 horas/día. Conclusiones: Con el presente trabajo hemos querido cuantificar y comparar la eficiencia de los dos modelos de elaboración de mezclas citostáticas, siendo desfavorable para el sistema clásico de centralización para la preparación de la medicación en los Servicios de Farmacia. (AU)

Aims: The «Six Sigma» methodology is based on the analysis of workflows and the identification of areas for improvement in order to achieve maximum efficiency in industrial and healthcare processes. The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency of a «classic» chemotherapy preparation system centralised in the Pharmacy Service versus a decentralised model.Material and methods: Observational study in which the efficiency of the models for the preparation of chemotherapy treatments was analysed: 1.- Classical model (MC), which has the treatment preparation cabinets and a pharmacist located in the Pharmacy Service, and from which the preparations are supplied to the Haematology Day Hospital. 2.- Decentralised model (MD), where both the pharmacist and the medication preparation cabinets are located in the Oncology Day Hospital .For the evaluation of the efficiency of each system, the time elapsed from the receipt of the medical order to the administration of chemotherapy (TAQ) was compared. Results: The TAQ following MD was less than for MC: 13.7 [5-28] minutes versus 71.0 [42-96] minutes (p<0.001) with a mean difference of 57.3 minutes/prescription. The potential time saved with the decentralised model was 40.3 hours/day. Conclusions: The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the efficiency of the two models for the preparation of cytostatic mixtures, showing that the classical centralised system for the preparation of medication in pharmacy services is unfavourable. (AU)

Identifiability of Biologicals: An Analysis Using EudraVigilance, the European Union's Database of Reports of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions.

The relevance of biological therapies for an increasing number of conditions is on the rise. Following the expiry of the initial period of market exclusivity, many of these successful therapies have seen the arrival of biosimilars on the market. The clear identification of the precise medicine responsible for an adverse drug reaction (ADR) report is an important element for pharmacovigilance, allowing timely detection of potential product-specific safety signals. We looked at the identifiability of biologicals up to the level of commercial product name in ADR reports received from European clinical practice between 2011 and December 2019. A good level of identification (91.5%) was observed overall, but at the same time a downward trend was observed in the last 5 years. This reduction in the level of identifiability of biological products (originators and biosimilars) at the commercial name level in general was driven by five widely used substances, whereas the identification of all other biologics stayed consistent over time (at over 90%). We observed that those five substances were used mostly within oncology. The introduction of the first biosimilar in the market did not appear to affect their identifiability. These results show that although the general level of identification at the commercial product name level in ADRs in Europe is robust and generally stable over time, decreasing trends can be down to a few commonly used substances, which need to be monitored to reverse the trend.

Alternative strategies for optimizing treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia with complex clonal architecture.

In silico simulation of pre-clinical and clinical data may accelerate pre-clinical and clinical trial advances, leading to benefits for therapeutic outcomes, toxicity and cost savings. Combining this with clonal architecture data may permit truly personalized therapy. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) exhibits clonal diversity, evolution and selection, spontaneously and under treatment pressure. We apply a dynamic simulation model to published CLL clonal architecture data to explore alternative therapeutic strategies, focusing on BTK inhibition. By deriving parameters of clonal growth and death behavior we model continuous vs time-limited ibrutinib therapy, and find that, despite persistence of disease, time to clinical progression may not differ. This is a testable hypothesis. We model IgVH-mutated CLL vs unmutated CLL by varying proliferation and find, based on the limited available data about clonal dynamics after such therapy, that there are differences predicted in response to anti-CD20 efficacy. These models can suggest potential clinical trials, and also indicate what additional data are needed to improve predictions. Ongoing work will expand modeling to agents such as venetoclax and to T cell therapies.

Applicability of the PACIFIC trial results in patients not eligible for the PACIFIC trial: Canadian rapid consensus statement and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The PACIFIC study established durvalumab as a standard of care for consolidation therapy in patients treated with radical intent chemoradiation for stage III inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. In clinical practice, many patients are not eligible for trials, yet radical intent chemoradiation may still be used. METHODS: A virtual anonymous tumour board Delphi-model was used in order to generate consensus on the use of durvalumab in six clinical situations where chemoradiation is used in clinical practice and recommended in guidelines, yet not PACIFIC eligible. Two anonymous iterations were sent and recommendations were circulated for approval and comment. Results are presented using a modified PICOT format (patients, intervention, control, outcomes, and ongoing trials). RESULTS: In three of the scenarios, consensus was reached and recommendations were for the use of consolidation durvalumab, but being respectful of potentially increased toxicity/reduced benefit in comparison to PACIFIC results (treatment of stage IIB inoperable, recurrent mediastinal disease, and residual gross disease post attempted surgical removal). There was a recommendation against using durvalumab in resected stage III disease with R1 or R0 margins, even if chemoradiation were considered. There was not consensus on the use of consolidation durvalumab in the setting of oligometastatic disease or in the setting of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma or combined small cell carcinoma. CONCLUSION: Treatment of 'real-world' lung cancer often involves chemoradiation in settings outside of stage III and eligible for the PACIFIC study. This paper offers recommendations in these scenarios based on a consensus approach.

Patterns of care for older patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer in the immunotherapy era.

BACKGROUND: Historically, older patients with advanced lung cancer have often received no systemic treatment. Immunotherapy has improved outcomes in clinical trials, but its dissemination and implementation at the population level is not well-understood. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) diagnosed age 66 or older from 2012 to 2015 was conducted using SEER-Medicare. Treatment patterns within one year of diagnosis were ascertained. Outcomes included delivery of (a) any systemic therapy; (b) any second-line infusional therapy, following first-line infusional therapy; and (c) any second-line immunotherapy, following first-line infusional therapy. Trends in care patterns associated with second-line immunotherapy approvals in 2015 were assessed using generalized additive models. Sociodemographic and clinical predictors of treatment were explored using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 10 303 patients, 5173 (50.2%) received first-line systemic therapy, with little change between the years 2012 (47.5%) and 2015 (50.3%). Among 3943 patients completing first-line infusional therapy, the proportion starting second-line infusional treatment remained stable from 2012 (30.5%) through 2014 (32.9%), before increasing in 2015 (42.4%) concurrent with second-line immunotherapy approvals. Factors associated with decreased utilization of any therapy included age, black race, Medicaid eligibility, residence in a high-poverty area, nonadenocarcinoma histology, and comorbidity; factors associated with increased utilization of any therapy included Asian race and Hispanic ethnicity. Among patients who received first-line infusional therapy, factors associated with decreased utilization of second-line infusional therapy included age, Medicaid eligibility, nonadenocarcinoma histology, and comorbidity; Asian race was associated with increased utilization of second-line infusional therapy. CONCLUSION: United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of immunotherapy for the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in 2015 were associated with increased rates of any second-line treatment, but disparities based on social determinants of health persisted.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: B-Cell Lymphomas, Version 3.2019.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) and follicular lymphoma (FL) are the most common subtypes of B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphomas in adults. Histologic transformation of FL to DLBCL (TFL) occurs in approximately 15% of patients and is generally associated with a poor clinical outcome. Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors have shown promising results in the treatment of relapsed/refractory FL. CAR T-cell therapy (axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel) has emerged as a novel treatment option for relapsed/refractory DLBCL and TFL. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas regarding the treatment of TFL and relapsed/refractory FL and DLBCL.

Optimizing Adjuvant Therapy for Localized Colon Cancer and Treatment Selection in Advanced Colorectal Cancer.

Results from the pivotal IDEA trial, which evaluated 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, are incorporated into the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer. The guidelines recommend that for patients with low-risk stage III disease, the preferred regimen is CAPEOX for 3 months or FOLFOX for 3 to 6 months. For patients with high-risk stage III disease, the preferred regimen is CAPEOX for 3 to 6 months or FOLFOX for 6 months. In metastatic disease, tumor sidedness should be a consideration when choosing a biologic. For BRAF-mutated disease, several triplets are now recommended options. Importantly, for a subset of patients with metastatic disease, new to the NCCN Guidelines is the incorporation of nivolumab and pembrolizumab as subsequent therapy for those with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient tumors.

The Changing Treatment Landscape for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Urothelial carcinoma is the predominant histologic type of bladder cancer. After 30 years of minimal progress in the treatment of advanced-stage disease, recent advances in the genomic characterization of urothelial cancer and breakthroughs in bladder cancer therapeutics have rejuvenated the field. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab are among the exciting recent novel therapeutic advances gaining approvals by the FDA for treatment of advanced-stage urothelial carcinoma. Yet the challenge for clinicians is to determine the optimal choice of agents as first-line or second-line therapy and which offers the best chance for overall survival for the individual patient in this rapidly changing field.

Updates to the Management of Kidney Cancer.

Several updates were made to the 2018 NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer. Adjuvant sunitinib is the first adjuvant therapy to be endorsed by the panel for patients with stage II and III clear cell histology renal cell carcinoma (RCC; category 2B). A promising new treatment-ipilimumab plus nivolumab for patients at intermediate and poor risk in the frontline setting-was added to the guidelines as well. Cabozantinib was added as a first-line option for poor- and intermediate-risk patients with advanced RCC.

Role of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for approximately 13% of all lung cancer diagnoses each year. SCLC is characterized by a rapid doubling time, early metastatic spread, and an unfavorable prognosis overall. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: Most patients with SCLC will respond to initial treatment; however, the majority will experience a disease recurrence and response to second-line therapies is poor. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be an option given the success in other diseases. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted using Medline (1946-July week 1, 2017) and Embase (1996-2017 week 28) with the search terms small cell lung cancer combined with nivolumab or ipilimumab or pembrolizumab or atezolizumab or tremelimumab or durvalumab. Five clinical trials, including extended follow-up for 2, that evaluated immune checkpoint inhibitors in limited stage or extensive stage SCLC were included. RESULTS: In 2 phase 2 trials, ipilimumab was added to upfront chemotherapy. In both trials, an improvement in progression-free survival was seen. Toxicity, when combined with a platinum and etoposide, was significant. In a confirmatory phase 3 trial, ipilimumab did not prolong overall survival when added to first-line chemotherapy. Overall, response rates were similar between the placebo and ipilimumab groups. A phase 1/2 trial evaluated nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in recurrent SCLC. Results revealed that nivolumab monotherapy and the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab were relatively safe and had antitumor activity. Pembrolizumab has been evaluated in a multicohort, phase 1b trial. Preliminary data showed a durable response in the second-line setting. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of overall survival data and significant toxicity associated with the combination of ipilimumab with first-line chemotherapy, this treatment is not a reasonable option at this time. Nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab is a valid option for recurrent SCLC.

Subcutaneous Rituximab for the Treatment of B-Cell Hematologic Malignancies: A Review of the Scientific Rationale and Clinical Development.

Rituximab (MabThera®/Rituxan®), a chimeric murine/human monoclonal antibody that binds specifically to the transmembrane antigen CD20, was the first therapeutic antibody to enter clinical practice for the treatment of cancer. As monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy, rituximab has been shown to prolong progression-free survival and, in some indications overall survival, in patients with various B-cell malignancies, while having a well-established and manageable safety profile and a wide therapeutic window. As a result, rituximab is considered to have revolutionized treatment practices for patients with B-cell malignancies. A subcutaneous (SC) formulation of rituximab has been developed, comprising the same monoclonal antibody as the originally marketed formulation [rituximab concentrate for solution for intravenous (IV) infusion], and has undergone a detailed, sequential clinical development program. This program demonstrated that, at fixed doses, rituximab SC achieves non-inferior serum trough concentrations in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with comparable efficacy and safety relative to the IV formulation. The added benefit of rituximab SC was demonstrated in dedicated studies showing that rituximab SC allows for simplified and shortened drug preparation and administration times resulting in a reduced treatment burden for patients as well as improved resource utilization (efficiency) at the treatment facility. The improved efficiency of delivering rituximab's benefit to patients may broaden patient access to rituximab therapy in areas with low levels of healthcare resources, including IV-chair capacity constraints. This article is a companion paper to G. Salles, et al., which is also published in this issue. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.