Equity, diversity, and inclusion in oncology pharmacy practice: Everyone's business.

INTRODUCTION: Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) is gaining increased attention within all industries healthcare being no exception. The terminology Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and its abbreviation EDI gained popularity in the early 2000's when varied socio-political factors prompted many organisations to examine EDI concepts and how to operationalise them. The growing diversity of our society requires cross-cultural inclusive approaches to increase equity and access to services. METHOD: This unique research is community-led research supported by the British Oncology Pharmacy Association, in which the members of the BOPA community are equal partners to inform action on policies that address EDI. This research was a cross-sectional study involving an online survey of financial BOPA members. RESULTS: Demographic data was extracted, and the quotes were analysed for common themes. The majority of respondents were women, and the largest age group was between 34 and 44. The first cause of microaggressions identified by the respondents was of racial and ethnic origin, followed by marital status and religious nature. Participants described the lack of diversity in senior positions and the microaggressions experienced by those who hold leadership positions. Some participants described how some situations at work made them feel excluded or alienated. The impact of discrimination and bullying/microaggressions extended to patients was also reported. CONCLUSION: Despite strategic directions encompassing this aspect, this research underscores the pressing need for more evidence on the lack of EDI in healthcare institutions. Our findings, located in the pharmacy oncology specialty, have identified the problem and highlighted the potential benefits of addressing it. More needs to be done in training and professional development to address unconscious bias and change behaviours.

Acute kidney injury in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a retrospective real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPi) can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including acute kidney injury (AKI). We investigated the incidence of ICPi-associated AKI (ICPi-AKI) and AKI from other causes (non-ICPi-AKI) in cancer patients treated with ICPi. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of patients receiving ICPi therapy between December 2011 and August 2020. AKI was defined and staged by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes creatinine criteria. The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI and ICPi-AKI. RESULTS: A total of 1037 patients were included in the final analysis. The median age was 63 years, 60% were male, and 22% had pre-existing chronic kidney disease. Overall, 189 patients (18.2%) developed AKI of whom 37 patients (3.6%) had ICPi-AKI. In patients with progressive cancer, AKI was not associated with increased mortality. In treatment responders, non-ICPi-AKI was associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-3.67), whereas ICPi-AKI was not linked to an increased risk of death (adjusted HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.18-1.96). Patients with ICPi-AKI were more likely to have higher AKI stages and less likely to have complete kidney recovery compared with non-ICPi-AKI (54% versus 79%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: AKI was common in cancer patients treated with ICPi. Patients with ICPi-AKI had worse kidney outcomes compared to those with AKI from other causes. However, non-ICPi-AKI was associated with a higher risk of death. These findings emphasise the importance of identifying different sub-phenotypes of AKI.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Delivery of Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment at Guy's Cancer Centre.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the outcome of cancer patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) at our centre to help inform future clinical decision-making around SACT during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Patients receiving at least one episode of SACT for solid tumours at Guy's Cancer Centre between 1 March and 31 May 2020 and the same period in 2019 were included in the study. Data were collected on demographics, tumour type/stage, treatment type (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological-targeted) and SARS-CoV2 infection. RESULTS: A total of 2120 patients received SACT in 2020, compared to 2449 in 2019 (13% decrease). From 2019 to 2020, there was an increase in stage IV disease (62% vs. 72%), decrease in chemotherapy (42% vs. 34%), increase in immunotherapy (6% vs. 10%), but similar rates of biologically targeted treatments (37% vs. 38%). There was a significant increase in 1st and 2nd line treatments in 2020 (68% vs. 81%; p < 0.0001) and reduction in 3rd and subsequent lines (26% vs. 15%; p = 0.004) compared to 2019. Of the 2020 cohort, 2% patients developed SARS-CoV2 infections. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world data from a tertiary Cancer Centre suggest that despite the challenges faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SACT was able to be continued without any significant effects on the mortality of solid-tumour patients. There was a low rate (2%) of SARS-CoV-2 infection which is comparable to the 1.4%-point prevalence in our total cancer population.