Integrated System for the Proactive Analysis on Infection Risk at a University Health Care Establishment Servicing a Large Area in the South of Italy.

OBJECTIVES: Our study proposes the use of a proactive system to manage risk combining the new Risk Identification Framework by the World Health Organization, the Lean method, and the hospital's Procedure Analysis.The system was tested for the prevention of surgical site infections in the University Hospital of Naples "Federico II" on the surgical paths, where they were usually applied individually. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study from March 18, 2019, to June 30, 2019, at the University Hospital "Federico II" of Naples, Italy (Europe).The study is structured in 3 phases: phase 1, application of each proactive risk management tool (March 18-April 15, 2019); phase 2, analysis and integration of the results, and elaboration of an overview of critical and control points (April 15-20, 2019); and phase 3, evaluation of the outcomes as variation of surgical site infection's incidence between the 3-month period of the 2019 and the same period of the 2018, when each tool was implemented separately (April 30-June 30, 2019). RESULTS: (1) The application of the single tool has detected different criticalities; (2) the combined system allowed us to draw a risk map and identify "improving" macroareas; and (3) the infection rate, with the application of this system, was equal to 1.9%; in the same period of the previous year, it was equal to 4%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that "integrated system" has been more effective to proactively identify surgical route risks compared with the application of each single instrument.

Risk Management Activities in a Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Team at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Results of a Prospective Analysis.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to highlight sources of harm that could negatively affect the lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) activities to reduce the level of risk of each factor. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used by a board of multi-health care professionals of the lung cancer MDT to identify the main processes, subprocesses, and risk factors of the multidisciplinary pathway of patients with lung cancer. A semiquantitative matrix was built with a five-point scale for probability of harm (likelihood) and severity of harm (consequences) according to the international risk management standards (ISO 31000-2018). The risk level was calculated by multiplying likelihood × consequences. Mitigation strategies have been identified and applied by the MDT to reduce risks to acceptable levels. RESULTS: Three main processes (outpatient specialist visit, MDT discussion, and MDT program implementation), eight related subprocesses, and 16 risk factors were identified. Four risk factors (25%) were related to outpatient specialist visit, seven (43.75%) to case discussion, and five (31.25%) to program implementation. Overall, two risk factors were assigned a low-risk level (12.5%), 11 a moderate-risk level (68.75%), one (6.25%) a high-risk level, and two (12.5%) a very high-risk level. After the implementation of mitigation measures, the new semiquantitative risk analysis showed a reduction in almost all hazardous situations: two risk factors (12.5%) were given a very low level, six (37.5%) a low level, seven (43.75%) a moderate level, and one (6.25%) a very high level. CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary risk assessment analysis is applicable to MDT activities by using an ad hoc risk matrix: if the hazard is identified and monitored, the risk could be reduced and managed in a short time.

BRAF Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

RAF family proteins are serine-threonine kinases that play a central role in the MAPK pathway which is involved in embryogenesis, cell differentiation, cell proliferation and death. Deregulation of this pathway is found in up to 30% of all human cancers and BRAF mutations can be identified in 1.5-3.5% of NSCLC patients. Following the positive results obtained through the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAF-mutant melanoma, the same combination was prospectively assessed in BRAF-mutant NSCLC. In cohort B of the BRF113928 trial, 57 pretreated NSCLC patients were treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib: an ORR of 68.4%, a disease control rate of 80.7%, a median PFS of 10.2 months and a median OS of 18.2 months were observed. Similar results were reported in the first-line setting (cohort C), with an ORR of 63.9%, a DCR of 75% and a median PFS and OS of 10.2 and 17.3 months, respectively. The combination was well tolerated: the main adverse events were pyrexia (64%), nausea (56%), diarrhoea (56%), fatigue (36%), oedema (36%) and vomiting (33%). These positive results led to the approval of the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib for the treatment of BRAF V600E metastatic NSCLC patients regardless of previous therapy. Ongoing research should better define the role of new generation RAF inhibitors for patients with acquired resistance, the activity of chemo-immunotherapy or the combination of TKIs with chemotherapy or with immunotherapy in patients with BRAF-mutated cancers.

Lurbinectedin in small cell lung cancer.

Few treatment options are available for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in progression after a first-line therapy. A novel therapeutic approach is represented by lurbinectedin, a synthetic derivative of trabectedin that works by inhibiting oncogenic transcription and promoting apoptosis in tumor cells. A phase II basket trial demonstrated the activity of lurbinectedin at the dose of 3.2 mg/m2 in patients with SCLC who had failed a previous chemotherapy, with a response rate of 35.2%, a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 3.5 months, and a median overall survival (mOS) of 9.3 months. Common severe adverse events (grades 3-4) were hematological disorders, including anemia (9%), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). On the basis of the positive results of this phase II study, on June 2020, lurbinectedin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration as second line for SCLC patients in progression on or after platinum-based therapy. The subsequent phase III trial comparing the combination of lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin vs. CAV (cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin, and vincristine) or topotecan did not demonstrate an improvement in overall survival, although the experimental arm showed a superior safety profile. Combinations of lurbinectedin with other drugs, cytotoxic agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors, are currently under investigation. The results of these studies should better define the optimal clinical application of lurbinectedin.

Risk Analysis in Healthcare Organizations: Methodological Framework and Critical Variables.

PURPOSE: A risk assessment matrix is a widely used tool for analyzing, assessing and setting priorities in risk management in many fields. This paper overviews critical variables, advantages, disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses of this tool, according to the ISO 31000 risk management framework. RESULTS: Risk assessment is one of the key stages in the Risk Management Process and involves specific steps: identifying hazards, analyzing and evaluating all possible risks. Several methods are developed to assess risks in the literature. A risk matrix method, also called "decision matrix risk assessment (DMRA) technique", is a systematic approach used to determine the risk level and to compare different risks and define which threats need to be controlled first. The actors involved in risk assessment are called on to manage different issues related to the choice of the most appropriate methodological approach, the assessment of the adequacy of the existing control measures, the articulation of risk consequence domains, the definition of the impact-consequences, the explanation of risk likelihood scales and the development of a risk matrix. CONCLUSION: We highlighted a number of recommendations in order to address these issues, especially useful when healthcare organizations provide insufficient guidance on how to use risk matrices as well as what to do in response to the existing criticisms on their use.

Angiogenesis Inhibitors in Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Inhibition of angiogenesis has been demonstrated to be an efficacious strategy in treating several tumors. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is the most important protein with proangiogenic functions and it is overexpressed in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF, showed a promising activity in combination with etoposide and cisplatin as first-line treatment of patients with extended stage (ES)-SCLC and two randomized studies confirmed that bevacizumab improved PFS, but failed to prolong OS. Instead, disappointing results have been observed with endostar, sunitinib, sorafenib, vandetanib, and thalidomide in combination with chemotherapy in the first-line setting, with sunitinib in the maintenance setting, with sunitinib, cediranib and nintedanib as single agents or ziv-aflibercept in combination with topotecan in second-line setting. Only anlotinib improved OS and PFS as third-line therapy in Chinese patients with SCLC, and it was approved with this indication in China. Future challenges are the evaluation of the role of angiogenesis inhibitors in combination with immune- checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy in SCLC patients and the identification of predictive biomarkers of response to both agents.

Clinical trials and drug cost savings for Italian health service.

BACKGROUND: The cost of anticancer drugs is constantly growing. The aim of this study was determine the impact in terms of cost reduction for anticancer drug in the Italian Health Service due to patient participation in clinical trials. METHODS: We evaluated the cost of drugs administered to patients treated in clinical trials at the National Cancer Institute of Naples in a four-week time period. Patients with a diagnosis of different cancers were considered, including adjuvant therapy and treatment for advanced disease, pharma sponsored and investigator initiated phase I, II and III clinical studies. We defined the expected standard treatment for each patient and we calculated the cost of the standard antineoplastic drugs that should be administered in clinical practice outside clinical trials. We used the market price of drugs to determine the cost savings value. Costs other than drugs were not included in the cost saving calculation. RESULTS: From 23.10.2017 to 17.11.2017, 126 patients were treated in 34 pharma sponsored and investigator initiated clinical trials, using experimental drugs provided free of charge by the sponsors, for an overall number of 152 cycles of therapy. If these patients were treated with conventional therapies in clinical practice the cost of antineoplastic drugs would account for 517,658 Euros, with an average of 5487 Euros saved per patients for a period of 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials with investigational antineoplastic drugs provided free of charge by Sponsors render considerable cost savings, with a tangible benefit in clinical and administrative strategies to reduce drug expenditures.

Costs of clinical trials with anticancer biological agents in an Oncologic Italian Cancer Center using the activity-based costing methodology.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the estimated "per patient" total cost for a single Oncologic Italian Cancer Center participating in a multicenter clinical trial with new anticancer biological agents using the activity-based costing (ABC) methodology. METHODOLOGY: Nine randomized phase 3 clinical trials employing biological agents at the National Cancer Institute of Napoli, Italy, were analyzed to indentify "per patient" costs of each trial, according to the ABC methodology. The average consumption of resources for a patient completing the entire planned treatment was estimated for each trial. Through interviews of the personnel (doctors, nurses and technicians) and by analyses of the clinical trials protocols, the main activities of the 9 clinical trials were identified and, for each trial, the complete health care pathway of the patients and the treatment programmes were minutely reconstructed. Drug costs were not included because provided by Sponsors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The average costs of the pre-study, treatment, monitoring, follow-up, audit, and administrative activities accounted for 2.357, 4.783, 700, 372, 1.263, and 9 Euro, respectively. The average total cost estimated for all "per patient" activities, including overhead costs, was 11.379 Euro. Staff costs accounted for € 5.988, while costs of diagnostic test accounted for 3.494 Euro. Clinical trials with immunotherapeutic drugs accounted for higher costs (+601 Euro as oncological staff costs, +1.318 Euro as intermediate services cost and +384 Euro as overheads). CONCLUSIONS: The average total cost estimated for all "per patient" activities of a clinical trial with new anticancer biological agents was 11.379 Euro using the ABC methodology.