Trends in the delivery of care to oncology patients in the United States: Emphasis on the role pharmacists on the healthcare team.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify trends in oncology care that allow one to forecast workforce supply and demand, the training and skills needed by the oncology pharmacist for the likely future of oncology care. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with experienced oncology pharmacists in leadership roles at 20 organizations balanced by geographic region and type of practice site (academic or community/ambulatory). Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and theme identification. RESULTS: Practice sites differed widely in numbers of patient visits, practitioner/patient ratios, residency program presence, and other structural features. Despite this, the majority reported an expectation of growth in cancer patients, oncology physicians, oncology pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, oncology nurses, and advanced practice practitioners in the next two to five years. Fifty percent of sites currently support Post Graduate Year 2 (PGY2) oncology residencies. At least 50% reported routine pharmacist involvement in 12 clinical functions. More future involvement was predicted for immunotherapy (80%) and oral oncolytic therapy (90%). Interprofessional involvement was reported for a broad variety of practice-related committees and patient education teams. Limited pharmacist involvement in credentialing, quality measurement, and value-based reimbursement systems was found. CONCLUSION: Anticipated increases in demand for oncology pharmacists strongly suggest the need for more PGY2 oncology residency programs and on-the-job oncology training programs. Oncology pharmacists are currently involved in many clinical and administrative functions including multidisciplinary management. While a core set of clinical functions has been identified, oncology pharmacists must prepare for the increased use of oral oncology agents and immunotherapy. Pharmacist involvement in value-based reimbursement and other data-based quality outcome measurements should be increased to optimize involvement in team-based patient care.

Current status and future directions of the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab in oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To provide the clinician with an update and the current status and future direction of approved immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in oncology. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed search from January 1, 1966 to March 13, 2015 was performed using the key terms ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, lambrolizumab, nivolumab, immune checkpoint inhibitor, MDX-010, MDX-101, BMS-734016, MK-3475, SCH 900475, MDX-1106, BMS-936558, ONO-4538, CTLA-4, PD-1, or PD-L1 and cancer, oncology, or neoplasm. Additional references were identified from the investigators(') personal files, recent oncology meetings, review articles, clinical guidelines, and package inserts. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All English-language clinical trials assessing the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab in cancer were considered. The PubMed search resulted in 215 trials; 33 met inclusion criteria. A further 28 trials were identified from the above sources; 61 trials from 2005 to 2015 were included. We consolidated and clarified treatment recommendations for the management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), assessed response criteria, and calculated the clinical utility of leading tumor profiling options. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ipilimumab and nivolumab, but not pembrolizumab, have an overall survival (OS) advantage over chemotherapy first line in unresectable/metastatic melanoma. Nivolumab has an OS advantage versus chemotherapy in second-line squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Data in other settings are promising. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are better tolerated than ipilimumab. Further validation of response criteria is needed. Tumor profiling to predict clinical benefit is premature but promising. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment landscape in oncology is quickly evolving with the advent of ICIs.

Pembrolizumab for the treatment of PD-L1 positive advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors marked an important advancement in the development of cancer therapeutics. Pembrolizumab is a selective humanized IgG4 kappa monoclonal antibody that inhibits the programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor, an integral component of immune checkpoint regulation in the tumor microenvironment. The drug is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced melanoma and metastatic squamous and nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several published studies demonstrate that single-agent pembrolizumab is safe and has efficacy in patients with NSCLC. Many ongoing protocols are investigating the role of pembrolizumab in combination with other agents in lung cancer and various other cancer types. We review the available data on pembrolizumab in NSCLC and examine the role of potential predictive biomarkers of response to therapy.

Immune-Related Adverse Events, Need for Systemic Immunosuppression, and Effects on Survival and Time to Treatment Failure in Patients With Melanoma Treated With Ipilimumab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab is a standard treatment for metastatic melanoma, but immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are common and can be severe. We reviewed our large, contemporary experience with ipilimumab treatment outside of clinical trials to determine the frequency of use of systemic corticosteroid or anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNFα) therapy and the effect of these therapies on overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively the medical records of patients with melanoma who had received treatment between April 2011 and July 2013 with ipilimumab at the standard dose of 3 mg/kg. We collected data on patient demographics, previous and subsequent treatments, number of ipilimumab doses, irAEs and how they were treated, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 298 patients, 254 (85%) experienced an irAE of any grade. Fifty-six patients (19%) discontinued therapy because of an irAE, most commonly diarrhea. Overall, 103 patients (35%) required systemic corticosteroid treatment for an irAE; 29 (10%) also required anti-TNFα therapy. Defining TTF as either starting a new treatment or death, estimated median TTF was 5.7 months. Twelve percent of patients experienced long-term disease control without receiving additional antimelanoma therapy. OS and TTF were not affected by the occurrence of irAEs or the need for systemic corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: IrAEs are common in patients treated with ipilimumab. In our experience, approximately one-third of ipilimumab-treated patients required systemic corticosteroids, and almost one-third of those required further immune suppression with anti-TNFα therapy. Practitioners and patients should be prepared to treat irAEs and should understand that such treatment does not affect OS or TTF.