ObjectivesStudies examining healthcare workers' exposure to antineoplastic drugs have focused on the drug preparation or drug administration areas. However, such an approach has probably underestimated the overall exposure risk as the drugs need to be delivered to the facility, transported internally and then disposed. The objective of this study is to determine whether drug contamination occurs throughout a facility and, simultaneously, to identify those job categories that are potentially exposed.MethodsThis was a multi-site study based in Vancouver, British Columbia. Interviews were conducted to determine the departments where the drugs travel. Subsequent site observations were performed to ascertain those surfaces which frequently came into contact with antineoplastic drugs and to determine the job categories which are likely to contact these surfaces. Wipe samples were collected to quantify surface contamination.ResultsSurface contamination was found in all six stages of the hospital medication system. Job categories consistently found to be at risk of exposure were nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacy receivers. Up to 11 job categories per site may be at risk of exposure at some point during the hospital medication system.ConclusionWe found drug contamination on select surfaces at every stage of the medication system, which indicates the existence of an exposure potential throughout the facility. Our results suggest that a broader range of workers are potentially exposed than has been previously examined. These results will allow us to develop a more inclusive exposure assessment encompassing all healthcare workers that are at risk throughout the hospital medication system.

Biweekly paclitaxel and cisplatin is an active combination in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, including for patients with previous exposure to anthracyclines.

Introduction Cancer drug therapy costs continue to rise and threaten the sustainability of Canada’s public healthcare system. Previous studies have calculated potential savings utilizing different dosing regimens of cancer treatments. Our objectives were to determine the financial impact of drug wastage and to explore cost-effective dosing regimens for pembrolizumab. Methods This was a retrospective study reviewing data for non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma patients at all six BC Cancer Regional Centres during fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Pembrolizumab waste amounts recorded in pharmacy wastage logs were totalled. Estimates of the number of vials used were compared between vial sharing and non-vial sharing practices to determine the cost differences. Costs for dosing regimens used during fiscal years 2017 and 2018 were compared to 2 mg/kg weight-based dosing (to a maximum of 200 mg), 2 mg/kg dosing rounding down within 5% and 10%, and flat dosing of 200 mg. Results There were a total of 202 non-small cell lung cancer and 182 melanoma patients with 2948 doses dispensed. Documented wastage was valued at $1,829,047.44 (8.65%) and across all six centres, vial sharing could reduce costs by $3,207,600.00 using the 100 mg vials. Compared to fiscal years 2017 and 2018, 2 mg/kg dosing (to a maximum of 200 mg) was the most cost-effective, decreasing costs by $222,719.20; flat dosing of 200 mg was the most expensive, increasing costs by $6,625,260.40. Conclusions Having smaller vial sizes, practicing vial sharing, and using weight-based dosing all improve cost savings. Further investigations on the allocation of resources to optimize drug use and minimize wastage are needed.

The good drug tolerance, response rates, and convenience over weekly treatment suggest this may be a worthwhile regimen.

This article will provide an overview of the evolving nature of cancer treatment, the benefits and challenges of these new treatments, and the leadership strategies required to manage the evolution from a system perspective. The number and complexity of novel cancer therapies, while offering improved patient outcomes, has become a challenge for the healthcare system due to the high cost of these new therapies. In Canada, the implementation of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review and the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance helps to streamline the review and negotiating process and to ensure consistency across provinces. Strategies to support these processes include ensuring safe patient treatment, patient counselling, clinician education, and practice innovation.