Robotic chemotherapy compounding: A multicenter productivity approach.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to compare productivity of the KIRO Oncology compounding robot in three hospital pharmacy departments and identify the key factors to predict and optimize automatic compounding time. METHODS: The study was conducted in three hospitals. Each hospital compounding workload and workflow were analyzed. Data from the robotic compounding cycles from August 2017 to July 2018 were retrospectively obtained. Nine cycle specific parameters and five productivity indicators were analysed in each site. One-to-one differences between hospitals were evaluated. Next, a correlation analysis between cycle specific factors and productivity indicators was conducted; the factors presenting a highest correlation to automatic compounding time were used to develop a multiple regression model (afterwards validated) to predict the automatic compounding time. RESULTS: A total of 2795 cycles (16367 preparations) were analysed. Automatic compounding time showed a relevant positive correlation (ǀrs|>0.40) with the number of preparations, number of vials and total volume per cycle. Therefore, these cycle specific parameters were chosen as independent variables for the mathematical model. Considering cycles lasting 40 minutes or less, predictability of the model was high for all three hospitals (R2:0.81; 0.79; 0.72). CONCLUSION: Workflow differences have a remarkable incidence in the global productivity of the automated process. Total volume dosed for all preparations in a cycle is one of the variables with greater influence in automatic compounding time. Algorithms to predict automatic compounding time can be useful to help users in order to plan the cycles launched in KIRO Oncology.

Evaluation of the efficacy of a self-cleaning automated compounding system for the decontamination of cytotoxic drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Low surface contamination levels of hazardous drugs in compounding areas can be used as indicators of exposure and efficacy of cleaning procedures. We report the efficacy results of the KIRO® Oncology self-cleaning automated compounding system for decontamination of cytotoxic drugs, assessed in an oncology health center using a sanitizing method and an alkaline method. METHODS: The study was conducted for six-days over a three-week period. A mixture with known levels of 5-fluorouracil, ifosfamide, cyclophosphamide, gemcitabine, etoposide, methotrexate, paclitaxel, docetaxel and carboplatin was added to the KIRO® Oncology's compounding area surface before each self-cleaning method was used. Contamination levels were determined, with a surface wipe sampling kit, at the end of the self-cleaning process. RESULTS: Background surface contamination for quantified levels of cytotoxic drugs during routine use of KIRO® Oncology was below limit of quantification (99.8% for all cytotoxic drugs analyzed. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence on the efficacy of the KIRO® Oncology automatic self-cleaning system for surface area decontamination during the preparation of cytotoxic drugs.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: ADVICE (Actual Data of Vomiting Incidence by Chemotherapy Evaluation) study.

PURPOSE: This study aims to determine the incidence of nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), under medical practice conditions and the accuracy with which physicians perceive CINV. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients receiving MEC between April 2012 and May 2013 were included. Patients completed a diary of the intensity of nausea and number of vomiting episodes. Complete response and complete protection were assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Of 261 patients included, 240 were evaluated. Median age was 64 years, 44.2 % were female and 11.2 % were aged less than 50 years; 95.3 % of patients received a combination of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) antagonist + corticosteroid as antiemetic treatment. Vomiting within 5 days of chemotherapy administration occurred in 20.8 %, nausea in 42 % and significant nausea in 23.8 % of patients. An increase in the percentage of patients with significant nausea (from 9.4 to 21.7 %) and vomiting (from 9.2 to 16.5 %) was observed from the acute to the delayed phase. Complete response was 84.2 % in the acute phase, 77 % in the late phase and 68.9 % in overall period. Complete protection was 79.5 % in the acute phase, 68.8 % in the late phase and 62.4 % throughout the study period. Physicians estimated prophylaxis would be effective for 75 % of patients receiving MEC, compared with 54.1 % obtained from patients' diary. CONCLUSION: Despite receiving prophylactic treatment, 31 % of patients did not achieve a complete response and 38 % complete protection. In general, nausea was worse controlled than vomiting. The results also showed the late phase was worse controlled than the acute phase in all variables. Healthcare providers overestimated the effectiveness of antiemetic prophylaxis.

Assessing health outcomes: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcomes in oncology.

PURPOSE: This study investigates the clinical impact of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) monitoring apps/web interfaces, aimed at symptom-management, in cancer patients undergoing outpatient systemic antineoplastic treatment. Additionally, it explores the advantages offered by these applications, including their functionalities and healthcare team-initiated follow-up programmes. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using a predefined search strategy in MEDLINE. Inclusion criteria encompassed primary studies assessing symptom burden through at-home ePRO surveys in adult cancer patients receiving outpatient systemic antineoplastic treatment, whenever health outcomes were evaluated. Exclusion criteria excluded telemedicine-based interventions other than ePRO questionnaires and non-primary articles or study protocols. To evaluate the potential bias in the included studies, an exhaustive quality assessment was conducted, as an additional inclusion filter. RESULTS: Among 246 identified articles, 227 were excluded for non-compliance with inclusion/exclusion criteria. Of the remaining 19 articles, only eight met the rigorous validity assessment and were included for detailed examination and data extraction, presented in attached tables. CONCLUSION: This review provides compelling evidence of ePRO monitoring's positive clinical impact across diverse cancer settings, encompassing various cancer types, including early and metastatic stages. These systems are crucial in enabling timely interventions and reducing communication barriers, among other functionalities. While areas for future ePRO innovation are identified, the primary limitation lies in comparing clinical outcomes of reviewed articles, due to scale variability and study population heterogeneity. To conclude, our results reaffirm the transformative potential of ePRO apps in oncology and their pivotal role in shaping the future of cancer care.

Defining a Standard Set of Health Outcomes for Patients With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck in Spain.

PURPOSE: A systematic, standardized collection of health outcomes during patient treatment and follow-up, relevant from the perspective of all stakeholders, is a crucial step toward effective and efficient disease management. This project aimed to define a standard set of health outcomes for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). METHODS: The project was led and coordinated by a scientific committee (SC). It comprised: (1) a literature review (to identify variables used during SCCHN management); (2) 1st-SC meeting (to select the variables for presentation during nominal groups-NG); (3) five NG (n=42 experts) and four interviews with patients (to reach consensus on the variables for inclusion); and (4) final-SC meeting (to review the results of NG ensuring consensus on the variables where consensus was not reached). RESULTS: Experts agreed to include the following variables in the standard set: treatment-related (treatment intent and type, response to treatment, treatment toxicity/complication, treatment completion), degree of health (performance status, patient-reported health status, pain, dysphonia, feeding and speech limitations, body image alteration, tracheotomy), survival (overall and progression-free survival, cause of death), nutritional (weight, nutritional intervention), other variables (smoking status, alcohol consumption, patient satisfaction with aftermath care, employment status), and case-mix variables (demographic, tumor-related, clinical and nutritional factors). CONCLUSIONS: This project may pave the way to standardizing the collection of health outcomes in SCCHN and promote the incorporation of patients' perspective in its management. The information provided through the systematic compilation of this standard set may define strategies to achieve high-quality, patient-centered care.