Background. Erdheim‐Chester disease (ECD) is a rare non‐Langerhans cell histiocytosis. The BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with ECD harboring a BRAF V600E mutation. Successful treatment has also been reported with MEK‐targeted therapies, likely because of the fact that BRAF mutant–negative patients harbor MEK pathway alterations. In our Rare Tumor Clinic, we noted that these patients have frequent drug‐related toxicity, consistent with previous reports indicating the need to markedly lower doses of interferon‐alpha when that agent is used in these patients. Patients and Methods. We performed a review of ten patients with ECD seen at the Rare Tumor Clinic at University of California San Diego receiving 16 regimens of targeted BRAF, MEK, or combined therapies. Results. The median age of the ten patients with ECD was 53 years (range, 29–77); seven were men. The median dose percentage (percent of FDA‐approved dose) tolerated was 25% (range, 25%–50%). The most common clinically significant adverse effects resulting in dose adjustments of targeted therapies were rash, arthralgias, and uveitis. Renal toxicity and congestive heart failure were seen in one patient each. In spite of these issues, eight of ten patients (80%) achieved a partial remission on therapy. Discussion. Patients with ECD appear to require substantially reduced doses of BRAF and MEK inhibitors but are responsive to these lower doses.

Advanced and metastatic squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) are common and difficult-to-treat malignancies. We assessed 75 immunotherapy-treated patients with SCC from a clinically annotated database of 2,651 patients, as well as 9,407 patients from a deidentified database for molecular features that might influence checkpoint blockade response. SCCs had higher tumor mutational burdens (TMB) than non-SCCs (P < 0.0001). Cutaneous SCCs had the highest TMB (P < 0.0001), with 41.3% demonstrating a very high TMB (≥50 mutations/Mb). In immunotherapy-treated patients with SCC, higher TMB (≥12 mutations/Mb) correlated with a trend to higher clinical benefit rate [stable disease ≥ 6 months or partial/complete remission; 60% vs. 29%; (high vs. low TMB); P = 0.06] and significantly longer median time-to-treatment failure (TTF; 9.9 vs. 4.4 months; P = 0.0058). Cutaneous SCCs had the highest clinical benefit [11/15 patients (73%) vs. 20/60 (33%) non-cutaneous (P = 0.008)], TTF (P = 0.0015), and overall survival (P = 0.06) with immunotherapy treatment. In conclusion, among a diverse set of SCCs, higher TMB and cutaneous disease associated with better immunotherapy outcome.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia of adults, with a five-year survival that remains poor (approximately 25%). Knowledge and understanding of AML genomics have expanded tremendously over the past decade and are now included in AML prognostication and treatment decisions. FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) is a Class III receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) expressed primarily in the cell membranes of early hematopoietic progenitor cells, found in 28% of all patients with AML. FLT3 is the second most frequent mutation in adult AML following Nuclear-cytoplasmic shuttling phosphoprotein (NPM1), which is found in 50% of cases.¹ FLT3 inhibitors are promising new molecular therapeutics increasingly becoming standard of care for both newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory FLT3 positive AML. This review will focus on the clinical trials/evidence, similarities, differences, clinical toxicities, and drug interactions relevant to treating clinicians as pertains to 5 FLT3-inhibitors: midostaurin, sorafenib, gilteritinib, crenolanib, and quizartinib.

Introduction: The scope of pharmacy practice has evolved over the last few decades to focus on the optimization of medication therapy. Despite this positive impact, the lack of reimbursement remains a significant barrier to the implementation of innovative pharmacist practice models. Summary: We describe the successful development, implementation and outcomes of three types of pharmacist collaborative care models: (1) a pharmacist with physician oversight, (2) pharmacist–interprofessional teams and (3) physician–pharmacist teams. The outcome measurement of these pharmacist care models varied from the design phase to patient volume measurement and to comprehensive quality dashboards. All of these practice models have been successfully funded by affiliated health systems or grants. Conclusions: The expansion of pharmacist services delivered by clinical faculty has several benefits to affiliated health systems: (1) significant improvements in patient care quality, (2) access to experts in specialty areas, and (3) the dissemination of outcomes with national and international recognition, increasing the visibility of the health system.

Background: Current workforce shortages within the hematopoietic stem cell transplant field necessitate capitalizing on the role of oncology-trained pharmacists. Working within an agreed-upon protocol, pharmacists are able to expand patient care delivery through optimal medication therapy management. Methods: An electronic survey was developed by the Advocacy & Policy Working Committee of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Pharmacy Special Interest Group and distributed to pharmacists involved in the care of hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. The primary objective was to assess the current state of collaborative practice agreements in the hematopoietic stem cell transplant setting. Results: Forty-eight responses representing 41 institutions were returned. Respondents were mostly female (67%) and practiced in the adult setting (83%). Reponses represented a range of practice experience in hematopoietic stem cell transplant with the majority of the hematopoietic stem cell transplant positions (83%) funded by the department of pharmacy at an academic medical center. Of the 48 responses, 22 (46%) respondents reported having collaborative practice agreements in place; 10 (21%) respondents did not currently have collaborative practice agreements, but were planning to implement them; and 16 (33%) respondents did not have collaborative practice agreements at their institution. Clinical activities performed under a collaborative practice agreement included medication selection and dosing modifications, therapeutic drug monitoring, supportive care management, and management of comorbid conditions and chronic diseases. The most commonly cited barrier to establishing collaborative practice agreements was the inability to secure reimbursement for services provided. No respondents reported a negative impact on job satisfaction. Conclusions: The results of this survey provide the pharmacy community with a robust understanding of the current landscape of hematopoietic stem cell transplant pharmacy collaborative practice agreements.