Safe handling of hazardous drugs.

Background: This evidence-based practice guideline was developed to update and address new issues in the handling of hazardous drugs including being compliant with NAPRA (National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities) and USP 800 (United States Pharmacopeia) standards, the use of personal protective equipment and treatment in diverse settings including in the home setting. Methods: This guideline was developed from an adaptation and endorsement of existing guidelines and from three systematic reviews. Prior to publication, this guideline underwent a series of peer, patient, methodological and external reviews to gather feedback. All comments were addressed and the guideline was amended when required. This guideline applies to and is intended for all health care workers who may come into contact with hazardous drugs at any point in the medication circuit. Results: The recommendations represent a reasonable and practical set of procedures that the intended users of this guideline should implement to minimize the opportunity for accidental exposure. These recommendations are not limited to just the point of care, but cover the entire chain of handling of cytotoxics from the time they enter the institution until they leave in the patient or as waste. Conclusions: Decreasing the likelihood of accidental exposure to cytotoxic agents within the medication circuit is the main objective of this evidenced-based guideline. The recommendations differ slightly from previous guidelines due to new evidence.

Risk reduction strategies for BRCA1/2 hereditary ovarian cancer syndromes: a clinical practice guideline.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this guideline is to make recommendations regarding the care of women who harbour a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in BRCA1 and BRCA2. METHODS: Draft recommendations were formulated based on evidence obtained through a systematic review of RCTs, comparative retrospective studies and guideline endorsement. The draft recommendations underwent an internal review by clinical and methodology experts, and an external review by clinical practitioners. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1 guideline, 5 systematic reviews, and 15 studies that met the eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: In women who harbour a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening for ovarian cancer is not recommended. Risk-reducing surgery is recommended to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. In the absence of contraindications, premenopausal women undergoing RRSO should be offered hormone therapy until menopause. Systemic hormone replacement therapy, is not recommended for women who have had a personal history of breast cancer. RRSO should be considered for breast cancer risk reduction in women younger than 50 years. After a breast cancer diagnosis, RRSO for breast cancer mortality reduction can be considered within two years to women who harbour a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in BRCA1 if younger than the recommended age range for ovarian cancer risk reduction. RRSO before the age of 40 and specifically for breast cancer treatment in BRCA2 should be considered only if recommended by their breast cancer oncologist. Following RRSO, it is not recommended to do surveillance for peritoneal cancer.

The Use of Systemic Treatment in the Maintenance of Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is often diagnosed at later stages when treatment options are limited. Maintenance therapy may prolong the time to disease progression and potentially increase overall survival. Secondarily, it may increase the proportion of patients eligible for second-line therapy at the time of progression. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the use of systemic treatment in the maintenance of patients with NSCLC. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for phase III randomized controlled trials comparing maintenance systemic treatment against another systemic treatment or placebo in patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had received a minimum of four prior cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Meta-analyses were conducted with clinically homogenous trials. RESULTS: Fourteen randomized controlled trials with 22 publications were included. The overall survival benefit was strongest for maintenance therapy with pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC (hazard ratio = 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.86) but not significant for patients with squamous NSCLC. There was also an overall survival benefit with maintenance therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but the magnitude of the benefit was smaller than with pemetrexed (hazard ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.94). Docetaxel or gemcitabine as maintenance chemotherapies did not have an impact on overall survival. CONCLUSION: For patients with advanced, stable stage IIIB/IV NSCLC whose disease has not progressed after four to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy, the overall survival benefits were strongest for pemetrexed maintenance therapy followed by epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor maintenance therapy.