Immunotherapy and associated immune-related adverse events at a large UK centre: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The development and rapid uptake of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) has changed the outlook for patients with cancer. However, CPIs have different adverse event (AE) profiles to other systemic therapies, and prompt AE management is essential to assure optimal outcomes. In order to understand what and when adverse events are experienced, reported and managed during CPI treatment, a mixed methods study was conducted, including a case note review of patients who were receiving immunotherapy and semi-structured interviews with patients to understand their experience, management and reporting of AEs after receiving immune CPI treatment. METHODS: This mixed methods study was conducted at a large cancer hospital in the United Kingdom. A case note review identified how and where patients reported AEs. Data relating to patients with lung, bladder, prostate and head & neck cancers who received CPI treatment between 01/04/2015 and 31/07/2018 were extracted from e-prescribing databases and clinical data were included for analysis at a single time point (31 July 2018). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients receiving CPI treatment, exploring experience of AEs and reasons for delays in AE reporting and management. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were included in the case note review, with 78 AEs being experienced by 36 patients (58%), including one patient experiencing 10 AEs. Serious AEs were experienced by 12 patients (19%) and ten AEs (17%) required oral steroids as treatment. The majority of AEs were reported to clinicians prior to further dosing, although milder AEs were often not addressed until subsequent clinic appointments. Interviews with 13 patients yielded major themes: variability, causality, decision making and impact. CONCLUSION: Most CPI-associated AEs are manageable if reported and treated promptly. Both the case note review and interviews found that reporting of non-serious AEs is often left until routine clinic visits, despite impacting patient experience, leaving the opportunity for AEs to be left unreported and implying a potential benefit for real time monitoring. Our study highlights a need to provide patients with reminders around AEs and their timely reporting even when apparently innocuous; patients must understand that AEs can occur at any cycle and even following treatment completion.

Cholangiocarcinoma miscoding in hepatobiliary centres.

INTRODUCTION: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) are sub-divided into intrahepatic (iCCA) or extrahepatic (eCCA). eCCA are further subdivided into perihilar (pCCA) and distal (dCCA). Current and previous versions of the WHO International Coding of Disease and Oncology classifications (ICD) have separate topography codes for iCCA and eCCA, but none for pCCA. Over recent decades, multiple studies report rising incidence rates of iCCA with declining rates of eCCA, without reference to pCCA. We hypothesised the lack of a specific code for pCCA has led to errors CCA coding, specifically with miscoding of pCCA as iCCA. METHODS: Clinical notes of cases coded as hepatobiliary carcinoma using ICD-10 criteria (C22.1/Intrahepatic Bile Duct carcinoma, C24.0/Extrahepatic Bile Duct carcinoma, C23X/Malignant Neoplasm Gall Bladder, C22.0/Malignant Neoplasm Liver Cell Carcinoma) over a 2 year period (2015-2017), were reviewed by two independent clinicians at three independent UK regional HepatoPancreatoBiliary centres. The agreed final diagnosis was compared to the originally allocated ICD-10 code. RESULTS: Of the 625 CCA cases fully reviewed, 226 were coded as C22.1/iCCA. 98 (43%) of these were true iCCA and coded correctly, while 76 cases (34%) were actually pCCA. 92% all pCCA cases were incorrectly coded as iCCA. CONCLUSION: CCA coding misclassification in UK HPB centres is common, particularly the miscoding of pCCA, which is extrahepatic and the commonest form of CCA, as iCCA. This may be contributing to apparent rising incidence rates of iCCA. Our findings confirm the need to implement distinct topographical codes for iCCA, pCCA and dCCA in future iterations of ICD.