Objective The purpose of this study was to identify trends in oncology care that allow one to forecast workforce supply and demand, the training and skills needed by the oncology pharmacist for the likely future of oncology care. Methods Interviews were conducted with experienced oncology pharmacists in leadership roles at 20 organizations balanced by geographic region and type of practice site (academic or community/ambulatory). Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and theme identification. Results Practice sites differed widely in numbers of patient visits, practitioner/patient ratios, residency program presence, and other structural features. Despite this, the majority reported an expectation of growth in cancer patients, oncology physicians, oncology pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, oncology nurses, and advanced practice practitioners in the next two to five years. Fifty percent of sites currently support Post Graduate Year 2 (PGY2) oncology residencies. At least 50% reported routine pharmacist involvement in 12 clinical functions. More future involvement was predicted for immunotherapy (80%) and oral oncolytic therapy (90%). Interprofessional involvement was reported for a broad variety of practice-related committees and patient education teams. Limited pharmacist involvement in credentialing, quality measurement, and value-based reimbursement systems was found. Conclusion Anticipated increases in demand for oncology pharmacists strongly suggest the need for more PGY2 oncology residency programs and on-the-job oncology training programs. Oncology pharmacists are currently involved in many clinical and administrative functions including multidisciplinary management. While a core set of clinical functions has been identified, oncology pharmacists must prepare for the increased use of oral oncology agents and immunotherapy. Pharmacist involvement in value-based reimbursement and other data-based quality outcome measurements should be increased to optimize involvement in team-based patient care.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined oral anticancer treatment utilization patterns among Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE:To assess treatment utilization patterns of newly initiated oral anticancer agents across national samples of Medicare beneficiaries for 5 cancer types: chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), multiple myeloma (MM), metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), and metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS:This retrospective claims analysis used 100% Medicare Chronic Condition Data Warehouse (CCW) Parts A, B, and D files from 2011 to 2014 (for CML, MM, mPC, and mRCC patients) and a 5% random fee-for-service sample from 2011 to 2013 (for mBC patients).Outcomes of interest were the number of 30-day supply prescriptions, adherence, and discontinuation of newly initiated (ie, index) oral anticancer agents indicated for each of the cancers. Adherence was calculated with both the "traditional" proportion of days covered (PDC) approach, measured over a fixed

Over the last decade, numerous drug therapies have emerged for the treatment of multiple myeloma including immunomodulating agents namely thalidomide, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide and proteasome inhibitors namely bortezomib and carfilzomib. These agents have transformed the treatment of multiple myeloma and the role of high-dose chemotherapy followed by stem cell transplantation in the treatment of the disease. There are now studies that evaluate the use of drug therapy as maintenance following autologous stem cell transplantation; these studies have shown improvements in surrogate endpoints such as progression-free survival. Studies that have evaluated thalidomide or lenalidomide maintenance therapy have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit in individuals with multiple myeloma who received high-dose chemotherapy followed by stem cell transplantation. A meta-analysis of thalidomide maintenance therapy did show a possible late survival benefit. The use of dexamethasone, thalidomide, lenalidomide, or combination bortezomib with thalidomide in patients who did not undergo transplantation demonstrated progression-free survival benefit; although there was no OS advantage for these agents in this population. There are a number of important considerations when selecting a drug therapy strategy for maintenance therapy which includes practical considerations such as route of administration and frequency of administration. Additionally, patient-specific elements such as potential toxicities, end-organ function, quality of life, cytogenetics, and previous treatment should be considered. Additional studies are needed to elicit the timing for initiation and duration of maintenance therapy, determine the role of cytogenetics, further characterize possible resistance patterns, and determine the combinations necessary to achieve an optimal increase in OS. Until more data are available, the risks and benefits should be evaluated on a patient-specific basis when deciding to initiate maintenance therapy or observation.

Low serum LDH before ipilimumab treatment is an independent predictor for improved PFS. Furthermore, low serum S100B is an independent predictor for MSS. The number of ipilimumab cycles (>2) is significantly associated with prolonged PFS. Pretreatment calprotectin does not predict the occurrence of autoimmune colitis under ipilimumab therapy.

Purpose Patients with head and neck cancer are at risk for disease- and treatment-related toxicities that may be severe enough to require hospitalization. The risk factors associated with hospitalization in these patients are not well defined. Methods We conducted a single-center, retrospective observational study of patients with head and neck cancer receiving chemotherapy at an academic medical center infusion clinic in a one-year period. The primary objective was to characterize the head and neck cancer population at an academic medical center. Secondary objectives included describing the clinical and social factors associated with hospitalization. Results There were 109 patients with head and neck cancer included in the analysis. Of these patients, 38 (35%) were hospitalized. The factors that were significantly associated with hospitalization on univariable logistic regression were former alcohol abuse, being on a nonstandard of care chemotherapy regimen, and having a chemotherapy agent discontinued. On multivariable logistic regression, the factor that was significantly associated with hospitalization was having a chemotherapy agent discontinued. The most common reasons for hospitalization included shortness of breath/respiratory failure, fever/neutropenic fever, and infection. The most common new supportive care medications prescribed at discharge were stool softeners or laxatives and opioids. Conclusion This study identified several factors which may be useful to identify patients as high risk for hospitalization and the next steps will be to determine and study the role of the pharmacist in preventing hospitalization of these patients. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of adding a pharmacist to the head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team.