Search

ASCO Standards are evidence-based standards to provide frameworks for best practices in cancer care, following the standards development process as outlined in the ASCO Standards Policies and Procedures Manual. ASCO Standards follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Standards and other guidance ("Guidance") provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 (online only) for more. PURPOSE: To update the ASCO-Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) standards for antineoplastic therapy administration safety in adult and pediatric oncology and highlight current standards for antineoplastic therapy for adult and pediatric populations with various routes of administration and location. METHODS: ASCO and ONS convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel with representation of multiple organizations to conduct literature reviews and add to the standards as needed. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO-ONS Expert Panel to develop antineoplastic safety standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The standards presented here include clarification and expansion of existing standards to include home administration and other changes in processes of ordering, preparing, and administering antineoplastic therapy; the advent of immune effector cellular therapy; the importance of social determinants of health; fertility preservation; and pregnancy avoidance. In addition, the standards have added a fourth verification. STANDARDS: Standards are provided for which health care organizations and those involved in all aspects of patient care can safely deliver antineoplastic therapy, increase the quality of care, and reduce medical errors. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards and www.ons.org/onf. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The optimal management of fever without severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] ≥500/µL) in pediatric patients with cancer is undefined. The previously proposed Esbenshade Vanderbilt (EsVan) models accurately predict bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs) in this population and provide risk stratification to aid management, but have lacked prospective external validation., Materials and Methods: Episodes of fever with a central venous catheter and ANC ≥500/µL occurring in pediatric patients with cancer were prospectively collected from 18 academic medical centers. Variables included in the EsVan models and 7-day clinical outcomes were collected. Five versions of the EsVan models were applied to the data with calculation of C-statistics for both overall BSI rate and high-risk organism BSI (gram-negative and Staphylococcus aureus BSI), as well as model calibration., Results: In 2,565 evaluable episodes, the BSI rate was 4.7% (N = 120). Complications for the whole cohort were rare, with 1.1% (N = 27) needing intensive care unit (ICU) care by 7 days, and the all-cause mortality rate was 0.2% (N = 5), with only one potential infection-related death. C-statistics ranged from 0.775 to 0.789 for predicting overall BSI, with improved accuracy in predicting high-risk organism BSI (C-statistic 0.800-0.819). Initial empiric antibiotics were withheld in 14.9% of episodes, with no deaths or ICU admissions attributable to not receiving empiric antibiotics., Conclusion: The EsVan models, especially EsVan2b, perform very well prospectively across multiple academic medical centers and accurately stratify risk of BSI in episodes of non-neutropenic fever in pediatric patients with cancer. Implementation of routine screening with risk-stratified management for non-neutropenic fever in pediatric patients with cancer could safely reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.

Purpose: Adverse events (AEs) on Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials are manually ascertained using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Despite significant effort, we previously demonstrated that COG typhlitis reporting sensitivity was only 37% when compared with gold standard physician chart abstraction. This study tested an automated typhlitis identification algorithm using electronic health record data., Methods: Electronic health record data from children with leukemia age 0-22 years treated at a single institution from 2006 to 2019 were included. Patients were divided into derivation and validation cohorts. Rigorous chart abstraction of validation cohort patients established a gold standard AE data set. We created an automated algorithm to identify typhlitis matching Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5 that included antibiotics, neutropenia, and non-negated mention of typhlitis in a note. We iteratively refined the algorithm using the derivation cohort and then applied the algorithm to the validation cohort; performance was compared with the gold standard. For patients on trial AAML1031, COG AE report performance was compared with the gold standard., Results: The derivation cohort included 337 patients. The validation cohort included 270 patients (961 courses). Chart abstraction identified 16 courses with typhlitis. The algorithm identified 37 courses with typhlitis; 13 were true positives (sensitivity 81.3%, positive predictive value 35.1%). For patients on AAML1031, chart abstraction identified nine courses with typhlitis, and COG reporting correctly identified 4 (sensitivity 44.4%, positive predictive value 100.0%)., Conclusion: The automated algorithm identified true cases of typhlitis with higher sensitivity than COG reporting. The algorithm identified false positives but reduced the number of courses needing manual review by 96% (961 to 37) by detecting potential typhlitis. This algorithm could provide a useful screening tool to reduce manual effort required for typhlitis AE reporting., Competing Interests: Tamara P. MillerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Gilead Sciences, Thermo Fisher Scientific, AbbVie, United Health Group Aaron J. MasinoEmployment: AiCure Douglas S. HawkinsResearch Funding: Bayer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Jazz Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Pfizer (Inst) Timothy L. LashConsulting or Advisory Role: AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen Richard AplencExpert Testimony: Vorys, Sater, Seymour, and Pease LLPNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.