Search

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors across cancer programs has created the need for standardized patient assessment, education, monitoring, and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, a practical step-wise approach detailing the implementation of cancer immunotherapy in routine practice was developed. The approach focuses on four key steps: (1) identification of patient educators; (2) development of patient education materials; (3) development of patient monitoring tools; (4) involvement and education of multidisciplinary teams. Here, we provide an in-depth description of what was included in each step and how we integrated the different elements of the program. For each step, resources, tools, and materials that may be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and multidisciplinary teams were developed or modified based on existing materials. At our centre, the program led to improved patient comprehension of irAEs, the ability to act on symptoms (patient self-efficacy), and low rates of emergency room visits at first presentation for irAEs. We recognize that centres may need to tailor the approaches to their institutional policies and encourage centres to adapt and modify the forms and tools according to their needs and requirements.

2032 Background: ICIs have unique side effects of immune related adverse events (irAEs). For early detection and management of irAEs, at a large community hospital we implemented a standard IO nursing baseline assessment, education and monitoring program. We studied it’s impact on a patient’s irAE reporting and self-efficacy (confidence to manage symptoms) of ICIs. Methods: Prospective study conducted at William Osler Health System, Brampton, Canada from May 2018-December 2019. Patients aged > = 18, English speaking that received an ICI for cancer were included. Patients underwent a standardized baseline nursing assessment and education class. Patients identified at the assessment as high risk (risk of grade 3/4 irAE >20%) had weekly nurse proactive calls. Cancer Behaviour Inventory – Brief Version (CBI-B) (Heitzmann et al, 2011) was used to evaluate patient’s self-efficacy. Results: Eighty patients were enrolled. Median follow up of 4.1 months. Baseline demographics: median age 69, 70% males, 77% Caucasian, 81% ECOG 0/1, 66% had English as their first language and 19% highest education was elementary, 30% high school, 26% trade diploma and 21% post-secondary. Fourty-one percent had limited cancer health literacy (measured by CHLT6 (Dumenci et al, 2014)). ICIs prescribed were 70% monotherapy anti-PD1/PDL1, 13% combination nivolumab/ipilimumab, 17% anti-PD1/PDL1 + chemotherapy/other therapies. Majority had a diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (55%), melanoma (19%) and renal cell carcinoma (9%). A statistically significant improvement in the average CBI-B scores were found pre and post baseline assessment/education (p < 0.001) and this improvement was maintained over time at follow-up visits (non-significant change in scores from post education results). Fourty-three percent of patient’s experienced > 1 irAE. Most were grade 1/2 at time of detection (65%). Method of detection was mainly by patient self-reporting (62%), followed by proactive calls (27%). Only 3 patients had detection of an irAE with an ER visit. Rate of discontinuation of ICIs due to toxicity was 8.8%. Conclusions: In this diverse patient population with almost half of patients having limited cancer health literacy, a standardized IO baseline assessment, education and monitoring program resulted in improved patient self-efficacy with most irAEs detected by self-reporting and proactive calls. Our IO program can be a model for other oncology programs.