Which hematology/oncology patients are high priority for ambulatory clinical pharmacist review? A three-round Delphi survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

INTRODUCTION: Prioritization and acuity tools have been leveraged to facilitate targeted and efficient clinical pharmacist interventions. However, there is a lack of established pharmacy-specific acuity factors in the ambulatory hematology/oncology setting. Therefore, National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Pharmacy Directors Forum conducted a survey to establish consensus on acuity factors associated with hematology/oncology patients that are high priority for ambulatory clinical pharmacist review. METHODS: A three-round electronic Delphi survey was conducted. During the first round, respondents were asked an open-ended question to suggest acuity factors based on their expert opinion. Respondents were then asked in the second round to agree or disagree with the compiled acuity factors, in which those with ≥75% agreement were included in the third round. The final consensus was defined as a mean score ≥3.33 on a modified 4-point Likert scale (4 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree) during the third round. RESULTS: A total of 124 hematology/oncology clinical pharmacists completed the first round of the Delphi survey (invitation response rate, 36.7%), of which 103 completed the second round (response rate, 83.1%) and 84 the third round (response rate, 67.7%). A final consensus was achieved for 18 acuity factors. Acuity factors were identified in the following themes: antineoplastic regimen characteristics, drug interactions, organ dysfunction, pharmacogenomics, recent discharge, laboratory parameters, and treatment-related toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi panel of 124 clinical pharmacists achieved consensus on 18 acuity factors that would identify a hematology/oncology patient as a high priority for ambulatory clinical pharmacist review. The research team envisions incorporating these acuity factors into a pharmacy-specific electronic scoring tool.

Stick With Intravenous or Give Subcutaneous a Shot? Time and Other Considerations When Evaluating Cancer Drug Formulations.

Time and other considerations when evaluating a switch to newer drug formulations (eg, subQ vs IV).

Evaluation of intervention to prevent hypomagnesemia in cervical cancer patients receiving combination cisplatin and radiation treatment.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of increasing the magnesium (Mg(2+)) supplementation in the pre- and posthydration of patients receiving cisplatin plus radiation (CisXRT) to prevent chemotherapy-induced hypomagnesemia (CIH) events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on newly diagnosed cervical cancer patients receiving CisXRT. The first prospective intervention to prevent CIH was to increase the pre- and posthydration Mg(2+) from 1 to 2 g. After completion of the first intervention, the analysis demonstrated the persistent occurrence of CIH on cycle 3, and later, a second intervention was implemented to increase Mg(2+) to 3 g in the pre- and posthydration. Patients that failed to complete at least five cycles or received cisplatin in combination with another chemotherapy regimen were excluded from the study. Baseline group included 70 patients that had received CisXRT prior to any changes in magnesium supplementation. RESULTS: There were 62.8% (44/70) and 32.6% (22/70) of patients with episodes of CIH in the baseline and first intervention groups, respectively (P = 0.007). In the second intervention group, a 49.6% decrease in the total number of episodes compared to control group was observed. Patients in the second intervention group showed a 100% improvement incidence of persistent CIH over the two other cohorts (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The increase of Mg(2+) to 2 g for the initial two cycles and then to 3 g with the third cycle of CisXRT therapy prevented episodes of CIH and decreased associated treatment delays.

Prevention and management of radiation-induced dermatitis, mucositis, and xerostomia.

PURPOSE: Current strategies for preventing and managing radiation-induced dermatitis, mucositis, and xerostomia are reviewed, with an emphasis on pharmacologic interventions. SUMMARY: Nearly two thirds of all patients with cancer receive radiation therapy during the course of treatment, frequently resulting in acute skin and mucosal toxicities. The severity of radiotherapy-associated toxicities varies according to multiple treatment- and patient-related factors (e.g., total radiation dose and dose fractionation schedule, volume of organ or tissue irradiated, use of concurrent versus sequential chemotherapy, comorbid conditions, functional performance status). Three major radiation toxicities encountered in clinical practice are (1) radiation dermatitis, typically managed with a variety of topical agents such as water-based moisturizing creams or lotions, topical steroids, antiinflammatory emulsions, and wound dressings, (2) radiation-induced oral mucositis, which can be managed through proper basic oral care practices, appropriate pain management, and the use of medicated mouthwashes and oral rinses and gels, and (3) radiation-induced xerostomia, which can be alleviated with saliva substitutes, moistening agents, and sialagogues. Pharmacists involved in the care of patients receiving radiotherapy can play an important role in optimizing symptom control, educating patients on self-care strategies, and adverse effect monitoring and reporting. CONCLUSION: Radiation-induced dermatitis, mucositis, and xerostomia can cause significant morbidity and diminished quality of life. Pharmacologic interventions for the prevention and treatment of these toxicities include topical agents for dermatitis; oral products, analgesics, and palifermin for mucositis; and amifostine, saliva substitutes, and pilocarpine for xerostomia.

The role of trastuzumab in the management of salivary ductal carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: Salivary ductal carcinoma (SDC) is a high-grade malignancy, and molecular studies show frequent overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). We reviewed our experience with molecular-targeted therapy using trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive SDC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of all patients treated with trastuzumab for HER2-tested SDC at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1997 and 2011 were reviewed. RESULTS: Thirteen patients with SDC overexpressing HER2 were treated with trastuzumab as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. Ten of these had 3+ immunohistochemistry or HER2 gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Patients underwent therapy in the surgical adjuvant setting (n=2), as a component of combined therapy for advanced disease (n=8), or as single therapy near end of life (n=3). Treatment efficacy via radiographic review for response could not be assessed. CONCLUSION: Trastuzumab should undergo prospective therapeutic clinical trials, in SDC which will likely require international cooperation.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma.

UNLABELLED: PURPOSE The etiology, diagnosis, staging, and management of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) are reviewed, with an emphasis on clinical trials of newer approaches to first-line, second-line, and adjuvant chemotherapy. SUMMARY: In the past decade, more effective chemotherapy regimens have been developed for patients with MPM, a rapidly progressing disease linked to a history of asbestos exposure in about 70% of cases. Patients with MPM often require multimodal treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and adjuvant or neoadjuvant (presurgical) chemotherapy. The current standard of first-line chemotherapy for MPM is cisplatin or carboplatin in combination with pemetrexed, an antifolate compound that has been shown to increase the cytotoxic effects of platinum-based drugs. In Phase II and III clinical trials, combination therapy with pemetrexed and either cisplatin or carboplatin yielded some of the highest rates of tumor response (21-41%) and overall survival (about 12-14 months) reported to date. Dual-agent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin plus gemcitabine or pemetrexed) followed by radical surgery with or without radiotherapy has been reported to yield median survival of up to 23-29 months in small clinical trials, but larger randomized controlled studies are needed to better define the role of neoadjuvant therapy in MPM management. Other chemotherapeutic agents that have been used against MPM, with variable results, include gemcitabine, vinorelbine, taxanes, anthracyclines, and molecular-targeted agents. CONCLUSION: Treatment approaches for MPM include surgery, radiation, and systemic chemotherapy. MPM carries a poor prognosis, but recent studies of pemetrexed and platinum analogue combination therapies have demonstrated improved response rates over other treatments.