Search

The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, launched in 2012, includes oncology-specific recommendations to promote evidence-based care and deimplementation of low-value practices. However, it is unclear to what extent the campaign has prompted practice change. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the uptake of cancer-specific CW recommendations focusing on the period before the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Grimshaw's deimplementation framework to thematically group the findings and extracted information on implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators from articles reporting on active implementation. In the 98 articles addressing 32 unique recommendations, most reported on passive changes in adherence pre-post publication of CW recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and reduction in staging imaging for early breast cancer were the most commonly evaluated recommendations. Most articles assessing passive changes in adherence pre-post CW publication reported improvement. All articles evaluating active implementation (10 of 98) reported improved compliance (range: 3%-73% improvement). Most common implementation strategies included provider education and/or stakeholder engagement. Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were common barriers; common facilitators included the use of technology and provider education to increase provider buy-in. Given the limited uptake of oncology-specific CW recommendations thus far, more attention toward supporting active implementation is needed. Effective adoption of CW likely requires a multipronged approach that includes building stakeholder buy-in through engagement and education, using technology-enabled forced functions to facilitate change along with policy and reimbursement models that disincentivize low-value care. Professional societies have a role to play in supporting this next phase of CW., Competing Interests: Monika K. KrzyzanowskaThis author is an Editor for JCO Oncology Practice. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Lilly, IpsenResearch Funding: Eisai (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Lilly (Inst) Vishal KukretiHonoraria: Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Kirin Kyoto, Eusa PharmaceuticalConsulting or Advisory Role: AmgenNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Take-home cancer drugs (THCDs) have become a standard treatment of many cancers. Robust guidelines have been developed for intravenous chemotherapy drugs, but few exist for THCDs with a focus on decentralized models. Hence, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) established the Oncology Pharmacy Task Force (OPTF) to develop consensus-based recommendations on best practices for THCDs to ensure that patients receive safe, consistent, high-quality care in the community once they leave the cancer center/practice with a prescription., Methods: The OPTF included 34 members with comprehensive representation. Guidance from leading authorities was extracted through literature review, thematically analyzed, and synthesized to develop 29 recommendations. The consensus process (> 70% agreement) included a three-step modified Delphi method followed by an extensive review process., Results: Sixteen recommendations were developed: training and education for providers (2), drug access (1), prescribing (4), patient and family/caregiver education (3), communication (1), dispensing (3), monitoring for patient adherence and adverse effects (1), and incident reporting (1)., Conclusion: Through a rigorous methodology, the OPTF derived a robust set of recommendations similar to the ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society and ASCO/National Community Oncology Dispensing Association guidelines, further validating and strengthening the applicability across multiple jurisdictions, including those with decentralized models. Unique aspects in a decentralized model include the need for two pharmacy professionals, with one doing cognitive verification of the script and the other dispensing the medication; moreover, they optimize interprofessional communication between community providers and the cancer center/practice health care team., Competing Interests: Kathy VuStock and Other Ownership Interests: Incyte Vishal KukretiHonoraria: Amgen, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, CelgeneNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Lymphomas often present a diagnostic challenge, and for some a delay in diagnosis can negatively influence outcomes of therapy. We established a nurse practitioner-led lymphoma rapid diagnosis clinic (LRDC) with the goal of reducing wait times to definitive diagnosis. We examined the initial 30-month experience of the LRDC, and results were compared with time periods before implementation of the clinic to determine program impact., Methods: All patients referred to LRDC with suspicion of lymphoma from June 1, 2015 to Nov 30, 2017 were evaluated. Time from initial consultation to diagnosis was compared with patients diagnosed at our center with lymphoma in 2008 and 2012. Patient symptoms and relevant laboratory/imaging findings were collected to identify patterns of presentation and predictive factors for benign diagnoses., Results: Of the 126 patients evaluated, 66 (52%) had confirmation of lymphoma diagnosis. Median time to lymphoma diagnosis was 16 days for patients assessed in LRDC and 28 days for historical controls ( P < .001). By univariable analysis, lymph node size greater than 3.4 cm and presence of mediastinal or abdominal adenopathy increased the likelihood of a diagnosis of malignancy, whereas younger age, being a nonsmoker, and prior rheumatologic condition were associated with a nonmalignant diagnosis. In multivariable analysis, lymph node size, age, and prior rheumatologic diagnosis remained significant., Conclusion: Establishing a nurse practitioner-led LRDC was effective in shortening time to diagnosis of lymphoma. Younger age, smaller lymph node size, and prior rheumatologic disorder reduced the likelihood of a cancer diagnosis in our patient population.

Purpose: Systemic treatment (ST) computerized prescriber order entry (CPOE) and preprinted orders (PPO) are proven to reduce errors. There is no known guidance in oncology to facilitate high-quality, accurate regimen development and review; hence, this was identified as a system-wide gap. This provincial initiative aimed to improve the quality of oncology regimens through a comprehensive review of systemic treatment (ST) regimens and the development of standards., Methods: A system-wide analysis of all active regimens (both CPOE and PPO) to ensure they were built as intended was conducted in 2015. Thirty-five hospitals (on behalf of 75 treatment facilities) were asked to report any unintentional discrepancies and details of the maintenance review process. Discrepancies were compiled, categorized, and analyzed for potential to cause harm. In addition, a multidisciplinary expert working group was formed to create best practice recommendations., Results: The review yielded a 94% response rate and took a total of 18 months to complete (70% completed within 9 months). The average number of regimens reviewed was 336 (range, 15 to 700; n = 9). Unintentional discrepancies were reported by nine hospitals (27%). A total of 369 discrepancies were reported (average, 55 per hospital), and 28 were deemed to have a moderate potential for harm. Only two hospitals (6%) had an established maintenance process; now, all have standard processes for review. Consensus-based recommendations for ST-CPOE and PPO regimen development and maintenance were developed., Conclusion: The review identified unintentional discrepancies and, because of the potential for patient harm, corrective action has been taken. Identified discrepancies have been amended, and standard regimen development and maintenance review processes are now implemented system-wide to improve the quality and safety of systemic treatment delivery.

Purpose: Intravenous (IV) compounding safety has garnered recent attention as a result of high-profile incidents, awareness efforts from the safety community, and increasingly stringent practice standards. New research with more-sensitive error detection techniques continues to reinforce that error rates with manual IV compounding are unacceptably high. In 2014, our team published an observational study that described three types of previously unrecognized and potentially catastrophic latent chemotherapy preparation errors in Canadian oncology pharmacies that would otherwise be undetectable. We expand on this research and explore whether additional potential human failures are yet to be addressed by practice standards., Methods: Field observations were conducted in four cancer center pharmacies in four Canadian provinces from January 2013 to February 2015. Human factors specialists observed and interviewed pharmacy managers, oncology pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacy assistants as they carried out their work. Emphasis was on latent errors (potential human failures) that could lead to outcomes such as wrong drug, dose, or diluent., Results: Given the relatively short observational period, no active failures or actual errors were observed. However, 11 latent errors in chemotherapy compounding were identified. In terms of severity, all 11 errors create the potential for a patient to receive the wrong drug or dose, which in the context of cancer care, could lead to death or permanent loss of function. Three of the 11 practices were observed in our previous study, but eight were new. Applicable Canadian and international standards and guidelines do not explicitly address many of the potentially error-prone practices observed., Conclusion: We observed a significant degree of risk for error in manual mixing practice. These latent errors may exist in other regions where manual compounding of IV chemotherapy takes place. Continued efforts to advance standards, guidelines, technological innovation, and chemical quality testing are needed.

Purpose: For patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive lymphoma, we hypothesized that gemcitabine-based therapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is as effective as and less toxic than standard treatment., Patients and Methods: We randomly assigned 619 patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma to treatment with gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP) or to dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin (DHAP). Patients with B-cell lymphoma also received rituximab. Responding patients proceeded to stem-cell collection and ASCT. Coprimary end points were response rate after two treatment cycles and transplantation rate. The noninferiority margin for the response rate to GDP relative to DHAP was set at 10%. Secondary end points included event-free and overall survival, treatment toxicity, and quality of life., Results: For the intention-to-treat population, the response rate with GDP was 45.2%; with DHAP the response rate was 44.0% (95% CI for difference, -9.0% to 6.7%), meeting protocol-defined criteria for noninferiority of GDP (P = .005). Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis. The transplantation rates were 52.1% with GDP and 49.3% with DHAP (P = .44). At a median follow-up of 53 months, no differences were detected in event-free survival (HR, 0.99; stratified log-rank P = .95) or overall survival (HR, 1.03; P = .78) between GDP and DHAP. Treatment with GDP was associated with less toxicity (P < .001) and need for hospitalization (P < .001), and preserved quality of life (P = .04)., Conclusion: For patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive lymphoma, in comparison with DHAP, treatment with GDP is associated with a noninferior response rate, similar transplantation rate, event-free survival, and overall survival, less toxicity and hospitalization, and superior quality of life., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Lenalidomide is an oral immunomodulatory drug with multiple effects on the immune system and tumor cell microenvironment leading to inhibition of malignant cell growth. Based on encouraging reports of lenalidomide in relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), we investigated the first-line use of single-agent lenalidomide in CLL., Patients and Methods: Using a starting dose of lenalidomide 10 mg/d for 21 days of a 28-day cycle and weekly 5-mg dose escalations to a target of 25 mg, we encountered severe toxicities (tumor lysis, fatal sepsis) in the first two patients enrolled. The study was halted and the protocol amended to a more conservative regimen: starting dose of lenalidomide 2.5 mg with monthly escalations to a target dose of 10 mg, and extended tumor lysis prophylaxis and monitoring. Gene expression profiles from patient samples before and after 7 days of lenalidomide were performed., Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled on the amended protocol. No further tumor lysis events were reported. Tumor flare was common (88%) but mild. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia occurred in 72% of patients, with only five episodes of febrile neutropenia. The overall response rate was 56% (no complete responses). Although rapid peripheral lymphocyte reductions were observed, rebound lymphocytoses during the week off-therapy were common. Lenalidomide-induced molecular changes enriched for cytoskeletal and immune-related genes were identified., Conclusion: Lenalidomide is clinically active as first-line CLL therapy and is well-tolerated if a conservative approach with slow dose escalation is used. A lenalidomide-induced molecular signature provides insights into its immunomodulatory mechanisms of action in CLL.