PURPOSE: Take-home cancer drugs (THCDs) have become a standard treatment of many cancers. Robust guidelines have been developed for intravenous chemotherapy drugs, but few exist for THCDs with a focus on decentralized models. Hence, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) established the Oncology Pharmacy Task Force (OPTF) to develop consensus-based recommendations on best practices for THCDs to ensure that patients receive safe, consistent, high-quality care in the community once they leave the cancer center/practice with a prescription. METHODS: The OPTF included 34 members with comprehensive representation. Guidance from leading authorities was extracted through literature review, thematically analyzed, and synthesized to develop 29 recommendations. The consensus process (> 70% agreement) included a three-step modified Delphi method followed by an extensive review process. RESULTS: Sixteen recommendations were developed: training and education for providers (2), drug access (1), prescribing (4), patient and family/caregiver education (3), communication (1), dispensing (3), monitoring for patient adherence and adverse effects (1), and incident reporting (1). CONCLUSION: Through a rigorous methodology, the OPTF derived a robust set of recommendations similar to the ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society and ASCO/National Community Oncology Dispensing Association guidelines, further validating and strengthening the applicability across multiple jurisdictions, including those with decentralized models. Unique aspects in a decentralized model include the need for two pharmacy professionals, with one doing cognitive verification of the script and the other dispensing the medication; moreover, they optimize interprofessional communication between community providers and the cancer center/practice health care team.

Background: Toxicity management is a challenge with cancer treatment, including oral anticancer drugs. A review of claims data showed that a majority of publically funded oral anticancer drugs were filled in the community where pharmacists may not necessarily possess the specialized knowledge, skills, and experience required to provide effective patient care. A survey of community pharmacists in Ontario was conducted to identify the behaviours and preferences of community pharmacists specific to the management of treatment-related toxicities in order to standardize cancer care in this area. Methods: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to approximately 5000 community pharmacists. The 21-question survey gathered information on the demographic profile of the pharmacists, basic geographic and socioeconomic variables associated with their practice setting, current toxicity management practices, education and training needs, and preferences for communicating with other providers. Results: Of 349 pharmacists, almost all (94.9%) were interested in managing chemotherapy-related toxicities as part of their work, but the majority (77.1%) did not feel that their current level of pharmacy training has provided them with an oncology education sufficient for the demands of their practice. Approximately 52% of respondents indicated that they have reached out to the health care provider at a cancer centre, and of those, 72.7% reported that their questions were resolved within 48 h. More than half of all survey respondents (53.9%) indicated that they would prefer to receive a response within 12 h from cancer centres. Conclusions: The results of this study support the need to provide community pharmacists with oncology-specific training and timely correspondences from providers at prescribing institutions in order to manage toxicities.

394 Background: Data regarding the benefits of FFX and GnP in patients (pts) with initially uLAPC is limited. FFX and GnP have been universally publicly funded for first-line uLAPC in Ontario, Canada, since April 2015. The aims of this study are to determine (1) the overall survival (OS) of pts receiving FFX and GnP, (2) the surgical conversion rate of FFX and GnP, and (3) whether resection is associated with better OS in pts with uLAPC in an unselected, real world population. Methods: All pts in Ontario who started first-line FFX, GnP or gemcitabine (G) for uLAPC between April 2015 and March 2016 were identified in Cancer Care Ontario’s New Drug Funding Program database. They were linked to the Ontario Cancer Registry and other population-based databases to ascertain baseline characteristics (age, sex, performance status (PS), locating of tumor, income quintile, and rural residence) and outcomes (pancreatic cancer resection and vital status). Crude and adjusted models of OS were generated using Kaplan-Meier the method and Cox regression. Surgical resection was modelled as a time-dependent variable to examine its association with OS. Results: We identified 147 pts with uLAPC (mean age = 65, 44% female, 31% ECOG PS 0, 61% PS 1, 60% pancreatic head). Ninety (61.2%), 40 (27.2%) and 17 (11.6%) patients were treated with FFX, GnP and G, respectively. With a median follow-up of 7.5 months, median OS was not reached. The 6-month OS rate was 87.8%, 75.1% and 76.4% for FFX, GnP and G, respectively (p = 0.33). Resection occurred in 12 (8.2%) patients, with 10 (11.1%) and 2 (5.0%) treated with FFX and GnP, respectively ( p= 0.34). Surgical resection after initial chemotherapy was not associated with better OS in multivariable analysis (HR 0.26, 95%CI 0.03-1.98, p= 0.19). Conclusions: Pts with uLAPC treated with FFX and GnP appeared to have a reasonable OS in the real world, with > 75% of pts alive at 6 months. Surgical conversion rate in this unselected population appeared to be less than other single institutional studies. The current findings do not appear to show an early surgical benefit, but longer follow-up will be required to assess the potential long-term benefit of surgery.

PURPOSE: Extending the safety agenda from parenteral to oral chemotherapy was identified as a provincial improvement priority in the 2014-2019 Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Systemic Treatment Provincial Plan. Elimination of handwritten prescriptions for oral chemotherapy was one of the specific goals and led to a provincial quality improvement (QI) initiative involving systemic treatment facilities across 14 regional cancer programs. METHODS: The initiative was centrally organized by CCO but locally implemented by the regional partners. CCO provided templates and tools, such as preprinted orders (PPOs), project charters, and an evaluation plan, and facilitated cross-jurisdictional knowledge sharing and exchange. Regions had flexibility in determining their local implementation strategies and were responsible for conducting chart audits to evaluate implementation success. Each participating hospital completed 3 audits—at baseline, immediately after implementation (audit 1), and 1 year later (audit 2)—using either a clinic-based or an outpatient pharmacy–based assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-five facilities providing systemic treatment participated. At baseline, the provincial average for the use of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) or PPOs for prescribing oral chemotherapy was 71%. After implementation of the QI initiative, the provincial average for the use of CPOE or PPO increased to 91% at audit 1 and 95% at audit 2. CONCLUSION: Although not all facilities met the goal of 100% CPOE or PPO compliance, the QI initiative led to improvement in safe prescribing practices for oral chemotherapy. A coordinated QI approach between a central decision maker and local partners can be an effective strategy to encourage high-quality cancer care and promote a culture of safety across a jurisdiction.

105 Background: Chemotherapy (chemo) is associated with a significant risk of toxicity, which often peaks between ambulatory visits. Consequently, effective remote symptom management support is essential to optimize self-management and resource use, including emergency department visits and hospitalizations (ED+H) during chemo. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility, acceptability and effects of a telephone management intervention on symptomatic toxicity and resource use during chemo for early stage breast cancer (EBC). Methods: A prospective study of telephone-based toxicity management among women receiving neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemo for EBC was undertaken at one urban and one rural site in Ontario, Canada. The intervention consisted of two standardized calls by nurses assessing common toxicities after each chemo (call 1 within 3 days and call 2 within 8-10 days). Primary outcome measures were feasibility and acceptability based on patient (pt) and clinician feedback. Efficacy was evaluated by self-reported ED+H. Results: Between 09/2013 and 12/2014, 77 women with EBC were enrolled (mean age 55 years). Most commonly used regimens were AC-paclitaxel (58%) and FEC-docetaxel (16%). 78% of pts received primary GCSF prophylaxis. Adherence with calls was 82%; mean call duration was 9 minutes. The intervention was well received by both pts and clinicians. 97% of pts indicated they liked receiving the calls and 94% would recommend this protocol be offered to all pts receiving chemo. Clinicians and pts felt the calls reduced pt anxiety by providing just-in-time education and counselling. Twenty five (33%) pts reported at least one ED+H during chemo, lower than the historical rate of 44% for this population in Ontario. Challenges included introducing an intervention that involved both routine clinical personnel and research staff and incorporating the calls into existing work responsibilities. Conclusions: Telephone-based toxicity management during ESB chemo is feasible, perceived as valuable by clinicians and pts, and may be associated with lower rates of acute care use. Larger scale evaluations of this approach focusing on effectiveness are warranted.