Elisa De Carlo

Chemotherapy prescribing errors: an observational study on the role of information technology and computerized physician order entry systems

BackgroundChemotherapy administration is a high-risk process. Aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency, type, preventability, as well as potential and actual severity of outpatient chemotherapy prescribing errors in an Oncology Department where electronic prescribing is used.MethodsUp to three electronic prescriptions per patient record were selected from the clinical records of consecutive patients who received cytotoxic chemotherapy between January 2007 and December 2008. Wrong prescriptions were classified as incomplete, incorrect or inappropriate. Error preventability was classified using a four-point scale. Severity was defined according to the Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Severity Scale.ResultsEight hundred and thirty-five prescriptions were eligible. The overall error rate was 20%. Excluding systematic errors (i.e. errors due to an initially faulty implementation of chemotherapy protocols into computerized dictionaries) from the analysis, the error rate decreased to 8%. Incomplete prescriptions were the majority. Most errors were deemed definitely preventable. According to error presumptive potential for damage, 72% were classified as minor; only 3% had the potential to produce major or catastrophic injury. Sixty-eight percent were classified as near misses; adverse drug events had no or little effect on clinical outcome.ConclusionsChemotherapy prescribing errors may arise even using electronic prescribing. Although periodic audits may be useful to detect common errors and guide corrective actions, it is crucial to get the computerized physician order entry system and set-ups correct before implementation.

Prognostic evaluation in palliative care: final results from a prospective cohort study

Prognostic characterization in the initial assessment of patients with advanced cancer disease is an essential step to plan the most appropriate therapeutic program. Since clinical prediction of survival (CPS) may be of limited value, some authors have tried to integrate specific prognostic factors into prognostic multidimensional scores. We carried out a prospective cohort study in two palliative care units to compare the accuracy of the Palliative Prognostic (PaP) Score, the Objective Prognostic Score (OPS), and the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI). In addition, we compared the accuracy of the CPS independently estimated by different healthcare professionals and we tested the role of laboratory results, together with clinical and social factors in predicting survival. Clinical and laboratory data of 334 advanced cancer patients were prospectively collected from the time of in-hospital admission. PaP Score was the most accurate index of survival prediction, followed by PPI; CPS estimates’ accuracy was similar among physicians and nurse. All healthcare professionals tended to underestimate the real survival. Integrating CPS with multidimensional indexes may further improve the patient’s management. The degree of autonomy and the number of metastatic sites were independent prognostic factors for 30-days mortality and overall survival in multivariate analysis.

Inserimento degli inibitori del checkpoint nell'algoritmo decisionale del carcinoma polmonare non a piccole cellule in stadio avanzato

: The checkpoint inhibitors opened a new era in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) initially by replacing second-line standard chemotherapy with docetaxel and subsequently by replacing platinum-based chemotherapy in the first line, albeit in patients selected for a high expression of PD-L1. The decision algorithm has therefore been radically modified for patients who do not have activating mutations. However, we are only at the beginning of a new era from which we expect in the near future the use of immunotherapy in most patients as a first line treatment in substitution or in combination with chemotherapy. These strategies are now the objective of recent studies that have shown a benefit with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy in patients with non-squamous histotype compared to chemotherapy alone or a benefit in patients selected for high mutational burden (TMB) with anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4 compared to chemotherapy alone. However, there are many questions regarding immunotherapy that should be considered in clinical practice as: response evaluation, validation of predictive factors such as TMB potentially complementary to the expression of PD-L1, proper education of the patients and of the medical staff to prompt recognition and adequate management of toxicities. In this article we discuss the current decisional algorithm and future perspectives of treatment with immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC.

Outcomes of ALK positive lung cancer patients treated with crizotinib or second-generation ALK inhibitor: a monoinstitutional experience

Rearrangement in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene is one of the oncogenic drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Several ALK inhibitors (ALKis) have been developed and have demonstrated their efficacy, however the best treatment strategy for ALK positive NSCLC patients has yet to be determined. Our retrospective study has investigated the outcome of 40 ALK-rearranged NSCLC patients treated with two different sequential strategies in our Institute; a “classical group”, treated with crizotinib followed by second or third generation ALKis, and the “experimental group”, treated upfront with a second generation ALK inhibitor. The primary endpoints investigated were Progression-free survival (PFS) and intracranial activity. The analysis has revealed a significant improvement in PFS (p = 0.050) in the experimental group, furthermore none of these patients developed brain metastasis. There was no statistically significant difference in OS, but all patients in the experimental group were still alive after a median follow up of 15 months. Our retrospective analysis suggests that systemic and intracranial efficacy tends to be better in the experimental group; randomized prospective studies could confirm our observations.