Comparing different robots available in the European market for the preparation of injectable chemotherapy and recommendations to users.

INTRODUCTION: Recent advances in technology have made it possible to develop robots for preparing injectable anticancer drugs. This study aims to compare characteristics between robots available in the European market in 2022 and to help future pharmacy users in their choices. METHODS: Three sources of data were used: (1) a review of published articles in the MEDLINE database from November 2017 to end of June 2021 on chemotherapy-compounding robots used in hospital; (2) all manufacturers' documentation, and (3) demonstrations of robot operations in real hospital conditions and discussions with users and manufacturers. Robot characteristics included number of robots installed, general technical characteristics, type of injectable chemotherapy produced and compatible materials, productivity data, preparation control methods, residual manual tasks, chemical and microbiological risk management, cleaning method, software, and implementation time. RESULTS: Seven robots commercialized were studied. Several technical characteristics have to be taken into account in selecting the robot whose match the specific needs of a particular hospital, and which often require rethinking the current production workflow as well as the organization of the pharmacy unit. In addition to increasing productivity, the robots improve the quality of production thanks to better traceability, reproducibility, and precision of sampling. They also improve user protection against chemical risk, musculoskeletal disorders, and needle wounds. Nevertheless, when robotization is being planned, there are still numerous residual manual tasks to keep in mind. CONCLUSION: Robotization of the production of injectable anticancer drugs is booming within anticancer chemotherapy preparation pharmacy units. Feedback from this experience needs to be further shared with the pharmacy community regarding this significant investment.

Clinical and economic impact of clinical oncology pharmacy in cancer patients receiving injectable anticancer treatments: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Clinical pharmacy can reduce drug-related iatrogenesis by improving the management of adverse effects of drugs, limiting drug-drug interactions, and improving patient adherence. Given the vulnerability of cancer patients and the toxicity of injectable anticancer drugs, clinical pharmacy service (CPS) could provide a significant clinical benefit in cancer care. This review aims to synthesize existing evidence on clinical pharmacy's impact on patients treated with intravenous anticancer drugs. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed/Medline database from January 2000 to December 2021, associating the keywords: clinical pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, pharmacist, oncology, and chemotherapy. To be eligible for inclusion, studies have to report clinical pharmaceutical services for patients treated with intravenous chemotherapy with a clinical and/or economic impact. RESULTS: Forty-one studies met the selection criteria. Various CPS were reported: medication reconciliation, medication review, and pharmaceutical interview with patient. There was a lack of randomized study (n = 3; 7.3%). In one randomized controlled trial, pharmaceutical intervention significantly improved quality of life of patients receiving pharmaceutical care during injectable anticancer drugs courses. Economical results appear to show positive impact of clinical pharmacy with cost savings reported from 3112.87$ to 249 844€. Although most studies were non-comparative, they highlighted that clinical pharmacy tend to limit chemotherapy side effects and drug-related problems, improve quality of life and satisfaction of patients and healthcare professional, and a positive economic impact. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacy can reduce adverse drug events in cancer patients. More robust and economic evaluations are still required to support its development in everyday practice.

Assessment of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Outpatients Taking Oral Anticancer Drugs Included in the Real-Life Oncoral Program.

Background In previous studies, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been shown to improve survival in cancer patients. The aim of the present study was to assess symptoms potentially related to adverse events experienced by cancer outpatients treated by oral anticancer agents (OAAs) using PROs. Methods Between September 2018 and May 2019, outpatients starting OAAs were included in a 12-week follow-up to assess 15 symptoms listed in the National Cancer Institute PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, using a 5-point scale of severity or frequency. Patients were requested to alert a referral nurse or pharmacist when they self-assessed high-level (level 3 or 4) symptoms. Results 407 questionnaires were completed by 63 patients in which 2333 symptoms were reported. Almost three-quarters (74.6%) reported at least one high-level symptom. The symptoms that were most commonly experienced were fatigue (>9 in 10 patients; 13.2% of symptoms declared), various psychological disorders (>9 in 10 patients; 28.6% of symptoms declared) and general pain (>8 in 10 patients; 9.4% of symptoms declared). Conclusion PROs are appropriate to detect potential adverse events in cancer outpatients treated by OAAs. This study is the first step for integrating the patient's perspective in a digital e-health device in routine oncology care.

High-dose cyclophosphamide for hard-to-treat patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a phase II result.

BACKGROUND: High-dose cyclophosphamide to treat solid refractory tumors demonstrated meaningful activity, while data to treat lymphoma remain scarce. This study aims to assess high-dose cyclophosphamide to treat relapsed or refractory lymphoma. METHODS: A phase II study included adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, previously treated by ≥2 prior lines with no other available option of therapy. High-dose cyclophosphamide was given intravenously 3 g/m2 over two consecutive days and repeated once at 28 days in responding patients. Rituximab 375 mg/m2 intravenously was added in patients not refractory to anti-CD20 antibody. RESULTS: Forty-two patients with median age 65 [56-70] years were included. Patients had previously received a median of four lines of therapies. Tumor types were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n = 26; 62%), indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 10; 24%), or mantle lymphoma (n = 6; 14%). Hematologic and non-hematologic grade 3-5 toxicities occurred in 42 (100%) and 18 (43%) of patients, respectively. The overall response rate was 45%. CONCLUSION: One to two cycles of high-dose cyclophosphamide in hard-to-treat patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma demonstrated a favorable safety and efficacy profile. This regimen could serve as a bridge to modern cellular therapy with CAR-T cell.