Search Results

Background: Increasing use of oral chemotherapy drugs increases the challenges for drug and patient management. An oral chemotherapy management clinic was developed to provide patients with oral chemotherapy management, concurrent medication (CM) education, and symptom management services. This evaluation aims to measure the need and effectiveness of this practice model due to scarce published data. Methods: This is a case series report of all patients referred to the oral chemotherapy management clinic. Data collected included patient demographics, depression scores, CMs, and types of intervention, including detection and management outcomes collected at baseline, 3-day, 7-day, and 3-month follow-ups. Persistence rate was monitored. Secondary analysis assessed potential cost avoidance. Results: A total of 86 evaluated patients (32 men and 54 women, mean age of 63.4 years) did not show a high risk for medication nonadherence. The 3 most common cancer diagnoses were rectal, pancreatic, and breast, with capecitabine most prescribed. Patients had an average of 13.7 CMs. A total of 125 interventions (detection and management of adverse drug event detection, compliance, drug interactions, medication error, and symptom management) occurred in 201 visits, with more than 75% of interventions occurring within the first 14 days. A persistence rate was observed in 78% of 41 evaluable patients. The total estimated annual cost avoidance per 1.0 full time employee (FTE) was $125,761.93. Conclusions: This evaluation demonstrated the need for additional support for patients receiving oral chemotherapy within standard of care medical service. A comprehensive oral chemotherapy management referral service can optimize patient care delivery via early interventions for adverse drug events, drug interactions, and medication errors up to 3 months after initiation of treatment.

Background: Tobacco cessation after a cancer diagnosis can extend patient survival by improving outcomes for primary cancer and preventing secondary cancers. However, smoking is often unaddressed in cancer care, highlighting the need for strategies to increase treatment reach and cessation. This study examined a low-burden, point-of-care tobacco treatment program (ELEVATE) featuring an electronic health record–enabled smoking module and decision support tools to increase the reach and effectiveness of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. Methods: This study included adult outpatient tobacco smokers (n=13,651) in medical oncology, internal medicine, and surgical oncology clinics from a large midwestern healthcare system. We examined reach and effectiveness of ELEVATE with 2 comparisons: (1) preimplementation versus postimplementation of ELEVATE and (2) ELEVATE versus usual care. Data were evaluated during 2 time periods: preimplementation (January through May 2018) and postimplementation (June through December 2018), with smoking cessation assessed at the last follow-up outpatient encounter during the 6 months after these periods. Results: The proportion of current tobacco smokers receiving cessation treatment increased from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (1.6%–27.9%; difference, 26.3%; relative risk, 16.9 [95% CI, 9.8–29.2]; P<.001). Compared with 27.9% treatment reach with ELEVATE in the postimplementation time period, reach within usual care clinics ranged from 11.8% to 12.0% during this same period. The proportion of tobacco smokers who subsequently achieved cessation increased significantly from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (12.0% vs 17.2%; difference, 5.2%; relative risk, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1–1.5]; P=.002). Compared with 17.2% smoking cessation with ELEVATE in the postimplementation time period, achievement of cessation within usual care clinics ranged from 8.2% to 9.9% during this same period. Conclusions: A low-burden, point-of-care tobacco treatment strategy increased tobacco treatment and cessation, thereby improving access to and the impact of evidence-based cessation treatment. Using implementation strategies to embed tobacco treatment in every healthcare encounter promises to engage more smokers in evidence-based treatment and facilitate smoking cessation, thereby improving care cancer for patients who smoke.

Background: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. Patients and Methods: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. Results: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. Conclusions: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.