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.

Objective The objective of this study is to develop a systematic approach to standardize the use of auxiliary labels for oral oncology drugs. Design The project was multi-phased: environmental scan of auxiliary labels used at six BC Cancer Agency centre pharmacies, develop guidelines to support auxiliary labels standardization, develop inclusion criteria for common warnings and standardize warnings based on guiding principles and evidence (Canadian Compendium of Pharmaceutical Specialties, BC Cancer Agency Cancer Drug Manual, British National Formulary, literature). Results Consistent auxiliary labels use was rare (7% of drugs). No explicit methodology for determining previous auxiliary labels use was identified. Guiding principles developed include auxiliary labels supplement counselling and drug-specific patient handouts; a maximum of four auxiliary labels (limited container size and alert fatigue); identify hazardous drugs with auxiliary labels; auxiliary labels not intended for universal warnings (e.g., keep out of reach of children); warnings prioritized by impact on storage, efficacy (e.g., administration instructions), toxicity (including interactions) and other clinical issues. Inclusion criteria were developed for warnings on pregnancy, crushing/chewing, taking with plenty of water, drowsiness/dizziness, alcohol, grapefruit juice, hazardous and sunlight exposure. First list of standardized auxiliary labels was completed in June 2014. Conclusion A systematic approach was developed to determine and prioritize auxiliary labels for oral oncology drugs. This has led to a standardized and more accurate labelling throughout the six BC Cancer Agency centres' pharmacies.