PURPOSE: Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti–PD-1- or anti–PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS: Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was –0.06 months (95% CI, –5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, –4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION: Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.

Purpose: To decrease drug waste and cost by implementing automated chemotherapy dose rounding rules in the electronic health record (EHR). Dose rounding of chemotherapy is a recognized method for reducing drug waste, and professional organizations have published guidelines recommending dose rounding when possible. Summary: On the basis of current literature and guideline recommendations, Mayo Clinic developed system-wide consensus to allow dose rounding for biologic and chemotherapy agents to the nearest vial size if rounding resulted in the dose being within 10% of the originally calculated dose or to a convenient measurable volume, based on concentration of the drug, if rounding to the nearest vial size resulted in the dose being outside the 10% range. Oncology pharmacists reviewed and analyzed all drugs listed in the EHR used in injectable form for the treatment of cancer and developed dose rounding rules. The rules were implemented and applied at the dose calculation stage before provider signature. From January to June 2019, approximately 40,000 cancer treatment doses were administered. The rounding rules saved a total of 9,814 vials of drug, of which 5,329 were for biologic agents and 4,485 were for oncolytic drugs. This resulted in a total 6-month cost savings of $7,284,796 (in 2019 dollars; biologics, $5,727,402; oncolytics, $1,557,394). Conclusion: Systematic implementation of dose rounding rules utilizing the EHR can result in significant reduction of drug waste and realization of savings.

Objective: To review the new indication of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib for the adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2−), axillary lymph node (LN) positive early breast cancer (EBC) at high risk of recurrence and a Ki-67 ≥20%. Data Sources: A literature search was performed through PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website (February 1, 2018, to December 23, 2021) to identify relevant information. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Human and animal studies related to pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of abemaciclib were identified. Data Synthesis: Addition of abemaciclib to standard of care endocrine therapy (ET) for patients with high-risk clinicopathologic features and Ki-67 ≥20% demonstrated 30% reduction in the risk of developing invasive disease and distant recurrence. At 15.5 months, abemaciclib + ET demonstrated a significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) vs ET alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.93, P = 0.01). At 27 months, IDFS benefit was maintained (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.82, P < 0.0001). Diarrhea occurred in more than 80% of patients in the abemaciclib arm. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review describes the clinical applicability of adjuvant abemaciclib for patients with HR+, HER2− EBC at high risk for recurrence. Conclusion: Adjuvant abemaciclib significantly reduces the risk for early development of invasive disease and distant recurrence in patients with HR+, HER2− node positive EBC. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the impact of adjuvant abemaciclib on late disease recurrence and survival outcomes.

Objective: This study is a comprehensive review of the clinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and clinical applicability of amivantamab-vmjw for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion (exon20ins) mutation. Data Synthesis: The literature search to identify clinical trials returned only the CHRYSALIS phase 1 study. In a phase I trial, amivantamab-vmjw was associated with an overall response rate (ORR) of 40% (95% CI, 29–51) in the EGFR exon20ins NSCLC patient population (n = 81) after platinum-based chemotherapy. There were 3 complete responses (CRs) and 29 partial responses (PRs). The median duration of response (DOR) was 11.1 months (95% CI, 6.9—not reached; NR). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.5–10.9), and overall survival (OS) was 22.8 months (95% CI, 14.6—NR). Application to Clinical Practice: This review summarizes the pharmacology, clinical evidence, and use of amivantamab-vmjw for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon20ins mutation. Conclusion: The FDA approval of amivantamab-vmjw, the first bispecific antibody to target the exon20ins mutation, represents an important advancement in the treatment of patients with NSCLC with limited effective treatment options. The initial findings of the CHRYSALIS trial demonstrate an overall tumor response benefit with an acceptable safety profile.

PURPOSE: Globally, cancer drug expenditure exceeds $185 in US dollars (USD) billion, with the United States contributing $75 (USD) billion. Many cancer drug doses are calculated on the basis of body weight or body surface area, which often results in leftover drug in partially used single-dose vials (SDVs). The cost of wasted drug is a huge financial burden on the US health care system. We evaluated the cost savings resulting from the reduction of SDV wastage, achieved through the implementation of automated dose rounding rules in electronic health records (EHRs). METHODS: Mayo Clinic implemented automated dose rounding rules within the EHR. These rules were designed to round calculated doses to the nearest SDV if the vial size closely matched the original calculated dose, within a 10% threshold. We assessed doses administered between January 2019 and December 2021, and computed cost-savings, waste reduction, and cost of waste for chemotherapy drugs. RESULTS: In 3 years, 36.1% of doses were rounded down, 35.8% were rounded up, and 28.1% were exact doses. By rounding doses down to a vial size, we achieved cost-savings of $39.75 (USD) million and prevented 62,065 SDV of cancer drugs from going to waste. By rounding doses up, we avoided wasting $9.95 (USD) million worth of drugs. However, there were still instances where the rounding fell outside of the 10%, resulting in wasted drugs worth $25 (USD) million. CONCLUSION: The substantial burden imposed on patients and the US health care system because of cancer drug wastage is of significant concern. Although the automated dose rounding system represents a partial solution for this issue, a comprehensive approach involves the imperative development of policy and legislative solutions to effectively mitigate the challenges associated with cancer drug waste.

Introduction: The treatment of cancer is associated with high risk for toxicity and high cost. Strategies to enhance the value, quality, and safety of cancer care are often managed independently of one another. Oncology stewardship is a potential framework to unify these efforts and enhance outcomes. This landscape survey establishes baseline information on oncology stewardship in the United States. Methods: The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) distributed a 38-item survey composed of demographic, institutional, clinical decision-making, support staff, metrics, and technology sections to 675 HOPA members between 9 September 2022 and 9 October 2022. Results: Most organizations (78%) have adopted general pharmacy stewardship practices; however, only 31% reported having established a formalized oncology stewardship team. More than 70% of respondents reported implementation of biosimilars, formulary management, and dose rounding as oncology stewardship initiatives in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Frequently cited barriers to oncology stewardship included lack of clinical pharmacist availability (74%), lack of oncology stewardship training (62%), lack of physician/provider buy-in (32%), and lack of cost-saving metrics (33%). Only 6.6% of survey respondents reported their organization had defined “value in oncology.” Lack of a formalized stewardship program was most often cited (77%) as the rationale for not defining value. Conclusions: Less than one-third of respondents have established oncology stewardship programs; however, most are providing oncology stewardship practices. This manuscript serves as a call to action for stakeholders to work together to formalize oncology stewardship programs that optimize value, quality, and safety for patients with cancer.