Time to complete oncology pharmacist tasks: A joint opinion of the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association and American College of Clinical Pharmacy's Hematology/Oncology Practice and Research Network
Purpose The time to complete oncology pharmacist tasks is needed to determine workload and productivity. The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) and the Hematology/Oncology Practice and Research Network (PRN) of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) partnered with the aim of establishing consensus on the time required to complete oncology pharmacy tasks. Methods Fifteen patient care tasks and 9 non-patient care tasks, commonly completed by oncology pharmacists were each assigned an average amount of time to be completed. This list was then converted into 24 statements and the Delphi survey method was utilized with an expert panel to arrive at consensus between December 2023 and February 2024. Consensus was defined as at least 75% agreement. The complete manuscript was endorsed by HOPA and ACCP Hematology/Oncology PRN. Results Thirty-three pharmacist-experts agreed to participate in this survey with all participating in round 1, and 29 (87.9%) participating in round 2. In round 1, 9 tasks achieved consensus, with 7 of these being classified as patient care associated. Seven statements reaching 65% but less than 75% agreement were deemed to reach borderline consensus. Eight statements failed to achieve at least 65% agreement and were modified based on respondent feedback. In round 2, 15 statements were included with all achieving consensus. At the completion of round 2, all 24 statements reached consensus, and the survey was deemed complete. Conclusion This project produced the first comprehensive consensus statements for the average time for a US-based oncology pharmacist to complete common patient and non-patient care-related tasks.
Ocular toxicities associated with antibody drug conjugates and immunotherapy in oncology: clinical presentation, pathogenesis, and management strategies
Real-world outcomes of brentuximab vedotin maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Is less enough?
7514 Background: The AETHERA trial demonstrated improvement in PFS with 16 cycles of brentuximab vedotin (BV) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in BV-naive patients with high-risk relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r cHL). However, in real world, patients are rarely able to complete all 16 cycles of BV at full dose. We performed a multicenter retrospective study to assess the impact of cumulative dose on toxicity and 2-year PFS. Methods: Patients from 11 institutions across the US who had received at least one cycle of BV maintenance after ASCT for r/r cHL with one of these features were included: primary refractory disease (PRD), extra-nodal disease (END), or relapse < 12 months of diagnosis (RL<12). PFS was compared between the three cohorts based on a total cumulative dose of 28.8 mg/kg (1.8 mg/kg x 16 cycles): C1, those that received >75% (21.7 to 28.8 mg/kg) cumulative dose of BV, C2, those that received between 51% -75% (14.5 to 21.6 mg/kg) dose and C3, those that received ≤ 50% (≤ 14.4 mg/kg) dose. Results: Between July 2015-June 2019, 100 patients with a median age of 34 years (19-70) underwent ASCT for r/r cHL. At relapse, 44% had PRD, 47% had RL<12, 39% had END and 45% had received BV as initial (1%) or salvage (44%) therapy. 71% had CR before ASCT and 23% received >1 line of salvage (>1 SLT). There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the cohorts. Thirty-six patients were in C1, 27 in C2, and 37 in C3. Only 14% of patients received full cumulative dose of BV. The median number of cycles completed was 12. Fifty-seven patients discontinued early: 39 for toxicity, 7 for progression, 5 for patient preference, 2 for cost and 4 for other reasons. Six of the patients who stopped early for progression were in C3. Grade ≥3 adverse events for neuropathy, neutropenia, and infections were 16%, 7%, and 5% respectively. There was no difference in severity of neuropathy in patients who had received BV prior to ASCT (p=.37). The median follow up was 3.37 years (.4–6.35). The 2-year PFS was 85% for all subjects, 94% for C1, 84% for C2, and 72% for C3 (p=.079) (Table). Patients in C3 had worse PFS compared to C1 (p=.035); this difference remained significant after adjusting for five other factors. There was no difference in PFS between C1 and C2 (p=.29). Conclusions: The majority of patients discontinued BV maintenance early due to toxicity. 2-year PFS was robust regardless of cumulative dose of BV. We conclude that total cumulative dose of 28.8 mg/kg of BV maintenance is not necessary and 51%-75% of total BV dose may still attain a similar PFS advantage. [Table: see text]