Search

What is known and objective Chemotherapy drugs are often administered in combinations with predefined interdependent doses and cycle intervals. As yet, there is no global standardization system to describe these complex regimens in a universally comprehensive manner. The aim of this review is to identify which efforts for standardization have been undertaken and which recommendations for databases and nomenclature of chemotherapy regimens are available. Methods A literature review was performed to identify all peer‐reviewed full‐text articles about oncology therapy regimen codification. In addition, the results of this search were evaluated and consensus recommendations from a European expert panel were subsequently added. Results This review gives an overview of attempts to standardize chemotherapy nomenclature described in the literature, as well as of previously published identified gaps in regimen codification. In addition, we summarized the suggestions for improvement of chemotherapy codification found in the available literature, combining them with the expertise from a European expert panel of oncology pharmacists. What is new and conclusions We believe that one of the most important error‐prevention measures is standardization. However, there is a paucity of data how it may be achieved. Currently available data suggest that standardization has a positive impact on usability for data networks, prescription software, safety and the measurement of the quality of cancer care delivery. Standardization is also a strong pre‐requisite for all discussions including oncology pharmacists and oncologists when evaluating chemotherapy regimen in countries in Europe but also all over the world. The recommendations compiled in this review can help to support overdue standardization efforts in this important therapeutic area., Improving oncology therapy regimen codification: A concise review of the literature and suggestions from an expert panel yielding 21 opportunities for standardization.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Pancreatic cancer is an increasing cause of cancer mortality and has wide variation in treatment and care in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must be carried out only in pancreatic cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

Many studies into surface contamination of hospital environments have demonstrated that occupational exposure to cytotoxics through the dermal route remains a possible risk. In this study, we assess the actual dermal exposure of the hands of pharmacy technicians and cleaning personnel in a panel of hospitals performing tasks that pose a risk of exposure. We compare the dermal exposure to a tentative limit value for cyclophosphamide. Pharmacy technicians and cleaning personnel were asked for hand rinsing after performance of nine tasks previously identified as posing a risk of occupational exposure. All samples were analyzed for the presence and quantity of eight antineoplastic drugs. By using data on both the frequency of the performance of the tasks and the measured dermal contamination during these tasks, weekly exposure to the marker drug (cyclophosphamide) was calculated. In five Dutch hospitals, 70 hand rinse samples and 8 blanks were collected. These were analyzed and results were used to calculate weekly exposure. The tentative limit value used was 0.74 µg of cyclophosphamide. For cleaning personnel, all results remained below this threshold value. For pharmacy technicians, the compounding itself also remained well below the limit; however, the task involving preparatory work, as well as the checking of compounded drugs, had a 13% chance of exceeding the limit. All of the highest values were found when employees were not wearing gloves on these tasks. Cleaning personnel and pharmacy technicians compounding cytotoxic drugs in our study were sufficiently protected from occupational exposure. In contrast, pharmacy technicians who perform preparatory and finishing tasks (before and after the actual compounding) are not protected enough when they do not wear gloves.

Pharmacy technicians are exposed to volatile organic compounds, like the disinfectant isopropyl alcohol (IPA), during the process of aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs. The occupational exposure to nebulized IPA during aseptic compounding has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the exposure to IPA during aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs and to assess compliance with legal and regulatory limits. As a secondary endpoint, the difference between two disinfection methods was compared regarding the exposure to IPA. The exposure to IPA was measured during five working shifts of 8 hr and one shift of 4 hr. The concentration IPA was measured by using a six-gas monitor. Total daily exposure was calculated as 8-hr Time Weighted Average (TWA) air concentration in mg/m3 and compared with an Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) value of 500 mg/m3 and incidental peak exposure of 5,000 mg/m3. To assess whether the 8-hr TWA air concentration meets the legal and regulatory limits the Similar Exposure Groups (SEG) compliance test was used. A paired sample t-test was conducted to assess difference in exposure between two disinfection methods. The average 8-hr TWA exposure to IPA during the six measurements varied from 2.6 mg/m3 to 43.9 mg/m3 and the highest momentary concentration measured was 860 mg/m3. The result of the SEG compliance test was 3.392 (Ur value) and was greater than the Ut value of 2.187 which means the exposure to IPA is in compliance with the OEL value. No significant difference in exposure was shown between two disinfection methods (p = 0.49). In conclusion, exposure to IPA during aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs showed compliance to the OEL values with no significant difference in exposure between two disinfection methods.

Purpose Palliative cancer patients can benefit from deprescribing of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Tools and guidelines developed for the geriatric population are mainly available. This systematic review gives an overview of available guidelines and tools to deprescribe for palliative cancer patients. Methods A systematic search was carried out using the databases SCOPUS and PubMed. Studies focused on palliative cancer patients were included. Results The search identified 137 studies of which 15 studies were included in this systematic review. Six of the included tools were developed specifically for cancer patients. One of these tools was externally validated and applied in several studies and settings. Guidelines or tools that were not specifically developed for cancer patients but that were applied on cohorts of palliative cancer patients were also included. Conclusion Tools developed for geriatric patients contain drugs that are not inappropriate when used in the palliative cancer care setting. Tools developed for cancer patients are more suitable and can be applied in combination with stepwise methods to individualize deprescribing per patient. The tools and guidelines described in this systematic review can be used to further implement deprescribing in the clinical routine for palliative cancer patients.

Background and importance Several studies have shown that antineoplastic drug contamination is found on various work surfaces in hospitals and varies widely on wards. The MASHA project (research about environmental contamination by cytotoxics and management of safe handling procedures) was to set up to conduct new research, in cooperation with the European Society for Medical Oncology, into contamination levels in hospital wards. Aim and objectives To obtain an overview of the current levels of cytotoxic contamination in European hospital wards and increase awareness among healthcare workers and their employers about the risks associated with working with hazardous drugs, and to provide them with additional measures to improve safety. Material and methods The assessment of surface contamination with cytotoxic drugs was done by evaluating wipe samples collected from four comparable surfaces on the wards (work benches, floors, armrest of patient’s chair and lids of waste containers). Each sample was analysed for the presence of five commonly used cytotoxic drugs (cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, paclitaxel, gemcitabine and total platinum for platinum drugs), using ICP-MS for total platinum and LC-MS/MS for other substances. Results The database includes results collected from 28 hospital units from 16 European countries. Of the 560 samples collected, 268 were positive (48%). Measurable amounts of at least one substance were detected on investigated surfaces in every hospital: 21/28 (75%) hospitals had over 30% positive samples. Contamination was detected mostly on the floors (58%), armrests (50%), lids (42%) and work benches (40%). The highest values were found for cyclophosphamide (380 ng/cm2) and 5-fluorouracil (130 ng/cm2) on the lids. The highest number of positive results were recorded with platinum drugs (33%), 5-fluorouracil (25%), gemcitabine (19%) and cyclophosphamide (18%). Substances were detected on 45/112 of surfaces (40%) which had not been used for cytotoxic drug preparation on the day of the wipe sampling. Conclusion and relevance Contamination is detectable on the ward but at different levels in different hospitals. Cleaning procedures are still not effective. Therefore, evaluation of exposure of healthcare workers is crucial. Greater collaboration with medical and nurse societies, to improve safe handling procedures in hospitals and thus improve the safety of all healthcare workers, is required. References and/or acknowledgements No conflict of interest.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer who are treated with monoclonal antibodies are at risk for developing infusion reactions. However, for some monoclonal antibodies, the incidence of infusion reactions is low or can be lowered by the use of adequate premedication schedules. It is often feasible to increase the infusion rate/lower the post-administration observation time. This review gives an overview of infusion reactions and the possibility of accelerating infusion rates.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on infusion reactions and infusion rates for all monoclonal antibodies that are licensed in the European Union for treatment of solid tumors or hematological malignancies, found by a literature search, were included in this review.RESULTS: For 11 out of the 21 monoclonal antibodies data exceeding the registration text were found and described. Faster infusion schedules are possible for bevacizumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, panitimumab, and rituximab.CONCLUSION: We propose optimal infusion schedules for each drug.

Objectives The primary aim of the study was to compare environmental and external (cross-) contamination of traces of cytostatics, during preparation of 5-fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide using a robotic system (APOTECAchemo) or the conventional manual compounding procedure. The secondary aim was to validate the cleaning procedure of the robot. Methods Eighty ready-to-administer (RTA) infusion bags with 5-fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide or sodium chloride were compounded using both techniques on 3–5 days. Wipe samples were taken from several locations in the compounding room before and after cleaning, and also from the technician’s gloves. These samples were analysed for 5-fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide concentrations using GC/MS/MS. Key findings A total of 284 wipe samples were collected during the study (113 from the manual and 171 from the robotic process). External contamination on the outside of infusion bags was 3.75% for both manual and robotic compounding. For manual compounding, external cross-contamination occurred on 2.5% of the prepared infusion bags. External cross-contamination occurred on 1.25% of the infusion bags for the robotic procedure. Inside the compounding room, 9% of the environmental wipe samples were contaminated in case of manual production and 24% for robotic compounding. Since 50% of the contaminated environmental samples for the robotic system were taken after cleaning, the cleaning procedure was extended and parameter setting for cyclophosphamide handling was performed. After this, residual environmental or external contamination was no longer detectable. Conclusion Comparison of both preparation methods showed that external (cross-)contamination of infusion bags was lower using the robotic system. An optimized cleaning procedure showed the best results in environmental contamination for the robot.

Objectives Patients who are no longer eligible for curative treatment often suffer from multiple complaints and require a multidisciplinary treatment approach. We incorporated two pharmacists in the palliative team, one hospital pharmacist and one pharmacist who were trained as a community pharmacist. The objective of our study was to evaluate their contribution to the palliative team. Methods During 13 months, the two pharmacists participated in all regular patient reviews and rounds and were available for individual consultation by all members of the palliative team on a daily basis. Each intervention (consults at request or during the patient rounds) was logged and categorised. Key findings During the study period, 115 patients were under the care of the palliative treatment team. The pharmacists were actively involved in 107 of these (93%). Pharmacists interventions occurred in 76% of patients, with an average of 1.5 interventions per patient. The most common intervention types were giving general therapeutic advice, starting of a drug for an uncontrolled symptom and stopping a drug that was given as prophylaxis. When comparing the contribution of the hospital pharmacist and the outpatient pharmacist, their interventions overlapped with regard to starting drugs, choice of drugs and side-effect management. However, interventions on parenteral drugs or optimising the route of administration mostly came from the hospital pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist more often intervened in increasing adherence and stopping drugs. Conclusion The palliative pharmacist team adds expertise to the palliative treatment team, with an active contribution in 76% of patients.

Introduction: Patients, who are starting systemic treatment for an oncological disease, receive a large amount of information on their treatment at multiple time points from several different healthcare professionals. In the OLVG hospital in Amsterdam, the information provision was harmonized in a multiprofessional treatment team. Afterward, the satisfaction with drug information was measured in ambulatory patients. Methods: The clinical care pathway of the oncology patient who receives antineoplastic drug treatment was mapped out, identifying the different moments where information can be given and by whom. In 3 multidisciplinary meetings, the different time points for patient contact were assigned to one of the healthcare professionals and the content of the information to be given was agreed upon by the team. For measurement of patient satisfaction, the validated Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale (SIMS) questionnaire was used during a 1-week period at the oncology day-care department. Results: Information at each contact with the patient was standardized in a map of the patients' clinical care pathway. Forty-eight patients returned a SIMS questionnaire showing a high overall satisfaction rate of 81%. Conclusion: This study has shown that harmonizing information provision to patients on anticancer drug treatment is feasible and results in high levels of information satisfaction in oncology patients.

Objectives As yet, there is no European data standard for naming and describing oncology regimens. To enable real-world cancer treatment data comparisons, the Oncology Data Network created a unified reference database for systemic anti-cancer regimens used in practice across Europe. Data are extracted from clinical systems and mapped to a single standard called the “Core Regimen Reference Library (CRRL)”. An automated matching algorithm has been designed based on: drug combinations; administration schedule; and dosing and route of administration. Incomplete matches are flagged for expert review. The aim of this pilot study is to have an expert pharmacist panel test the algorithm’s feasibility by comparing computerised and manual matching of regimens that are currently in use in different European countries. Methods The combined team pooled a diverse sample of 47 reference regimens used in Europe for solid and haematological cancers. These were then codified to the developed common data standard and the algorithm was used to match them to the CRRL. The expert pharmacist panel from the European Society of Oncology Pharmacy (ESOP) selected 12 regimens from the sample set, ranging from simple to complex, and performed a single-blind test of the algorithm, by systematically matching each original regimen to the CRRL. Results ESOP validated the algorithm’s feasibility based on full concurrence between manual and computer matches thereby validating the algorithm rules and logic with regard to what defines the core characteristics of a regimen and how to compare similarities and differences. Conclusions ESOP’s validation of the matching algorithm and approach to curating a master library provides confidence in their utility for reliable comparison of real-world regimen usage across Europe.

Background Lung cancer patients have a high risk for drug–drug interactions, as they use numerous types of concomitant medicines including antineoplastic agents, cancer treatment co-medication, and medicines aimed at several types of comorbidities. Objective The primary objective of this study is to determine the incidence and the clinical relevance of the drug–drug interactions between antineoplastic agents and regular medication used by lung cancer patients. Secondary objectives are (i) to determine the effectiveness of the medication review by the hospital pharmacists concerned, (ii) to establish which patients are most at risk of drug–drug interactions and (iii) to determine whether physicians comply with advice given by hospital pharmacists. Setting This prospective study was undertaken in a Dutch hospital pharmacy, at Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis (OLVG), Amsterdam. Methods All lung cancer patients receiving one or more cytotoxic agents during the period 21 June 2010 till 2 December 2014 at OLVG were included. The medication list of the patients was obtained electronically from the community pharmacy and checked for interactions by a hospital pharmacist. Interactions that required intervention according to the national database were the only ones taken into account. Interventions were recorded in the patients’ electronic charts. All medication reviews were cross-checked and analyzed by an independent pharmacist at the end of the study period. Main outcome measure Prevalence and clinical relevance of drug–drug interactions between antineoplastic agents and other types of medication in lung cancer patients. Results A total of 298 lung cancer patients were included in this study. In 53 patients (18%), a total of 73 interactions with potential clinical relevance were found. The most frequent interaction was between cytostatics and coumarins while the most relevant one was between cisplatin and furosemide. According to statistical analysis, gender as well as the number of drugs prescribed were significant predictors for drug–drug interactions. Eighty-four percent of the interactions were discovered by pharmacists during daily routine. In 92% of the cases, the pulmonary physicians complied with the advice of the pharmacist. Conclusion Eighteen percent of lung cancer patients treated with cytotoxic therapy had one or more relevant drug–drug interactions. This study shows that medication surveillance by a hospital pharmacist is necessary to prevent possible negative drug–drug interactions. Further research should focus on the clinical outcome of the interactions as well as on interactions between cytostatics and alternative medicines and/or over-the-counter medicines.

Background Cytostatic drugs are increasingly being prepared with a cytostatic robot, though it is not known whether the dose of the final product is more accurate after automated or manual preparation. This study is the first to compare accuracy and precision of automated preparations with manual preparations by measuring volumes and drug concentrations. Methods The accuracy and precision of automated and manual preparations were compared by gravimetric and concentration measurements. During ten days 80 solutions were prepared; 40 robot preparations and 40 manual preparations. With both preparation methods, 20 methotrexate (MTX) and 20 cyclophosphamide (CP) bags were compounded. We simulated normal working conditions by performing the preparations on Monday till Friday. The MTX and CP concentrations were measured with validated ultra high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) methods on the last preparation day. Results With UHPLC analysis, dose accuracy (mean dose error) of robotic or manual preparation of MTX were 1.70% and 0,96% respectively. With gravimetric analysis, these values were 0.50% and 1.96%. Precision (standard error) of the robotic preparation for MTX was significantly smaller than that of manual preparation (p Dose accuracy (mean dose error) of robotic or manual preparation of CP, with UHPLC analysis, were 6.10% and 5.20% respectively. With gravimetric analysis, these values were 0,67% and 0,18%. Conclusion We conclude that both robotic and manual compounding produce accurate cytostatic products in which the mean percentage of active substance differs by less than 10% from the prescribed amount. Both preparation methods are compliant with the Dutch Medicines Act and the European Pharmacopoeia.

Background: ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Colorectal cancer: essential requirements for quality care Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death in Europe and has wide variation in outcomes among countries. Increasing numbers of older people are contracting the disease, and treatments for advanced stages are becoming more complex. A growing number of survivors also require specialist support. High-quality care can only be a carried out in specialised CRC units or centres which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Such units or centres are far from universal in all European countries. It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the essential requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship. Conclusion: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality CRC service. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a 'one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary units or centres must be guaranteed for all those with CRC. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Background: ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Sarcoma: essential requirements for quality care Sarcomas - which can be classified into soft tissue and bone sarcomas - are rare, but all rare cancers make up more than 20% of cancers in Europe, and there are substantial inequalities in access to high-quality care. Sarcomas, of which there are many subtypes, comprise a particularly complex and demanding challenge for healthcare systems and providers. This paper presents essential requirements for quality cancer care of soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. High-quality care must only be carried out in specialised sarcoma centres (including paediatric cancer centres) which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Access to such units is far from universal in all European countries. It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for high-quality comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis and follow-up, to treatment, to improve survival and quality of life for patients. Conclusion: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality service for soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a 'one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary teams is guaranteed to all patients with sarcoma. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Background Hyperkalemia is a potentially dangerous electrolyte abnormality with a reported incidence of 1-10 % in hospitals. Patients are especially at risk of developing this complication if they use a combination of potassium supplements and potassium sparing diuretics or renin-angiotensin-aldosterone- system (RAAS) inhibitors. Previous studies on the occurrence of hyperkalemia in patients who use multiple potassium influencing drugs simultaneously were either small in sample size or did not investigate the full range of drugs involved. Objective To assess the prevalence of hyperkalemia and to identify risk factors for its development in hospitalised patients using potassium supplements, potassium-sparing diuretics and/or RAAS-inhibitors concurrently. Setting The study was conducted at the Onze Lieve Vrouwe Hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands from January 2009 to May 2010. Method A retrospective, nested case-control study included hospitalised patients who used a combination of potassium-influencing drugs. Cases were patients with serum potassium C5.5 mmol/l, controls were patients with normal serum potassium levels. Cases and controls were included in a ratio of 1:2. The following known risk factors associated with hyperkalemia were recorded and statistically analyzed: diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, decreased renal function, advanced age, gender and use of heparin, digoxin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, beta-blockers, calcineurin antagonists and trimethoprim. Main outcome measure Identify risk factors for the development of hyperkalemia as a result of the concurrent use of potassium supplements, RAAS inhibitors and/or potassium-sparing diuretics. Results Of 774 patients included in this study, 52 patients developed hyperkalemia; a prevalence of 6.7 %. The only risk factor found to be significantly associated with hyperkalemia was lowered renal function, expressed as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) \50 ml/min (adjusted OR 5.08; 95 % CI 2.46-10.48). None of the other tested risk factors was identified as significant. Conclusion This study showed that decreased renal function (eGFR\50 ml/min) was associated with a fivefold increased risk for hyperkalemia in patients using potassium-influencing drugs. While previous studies showed that hyperkalemia substantially increases below a threshold of eGFR\30 or 40 ml/min, we observed a lower threshold of eGFR \50 ml/min. It is therefore recommended that physicians should be particularly alert while monitoring the use of potassium-influencing drugs in patients with decreased renal function.