AREAS COVERED: We searched multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, ACM, Embase, IEEE and Ingenta. We explored various evaluation aspects of MD and EMR to gain a better understanding of their complex integration. We reviewed numerous risk management and assessment frameworks related to MD and EMR security aspects and mitigation controls and then identified their common evaluation aspects. Our review indicated that previous evaluation frameworks assessed MD and EMR independently. To address this gap, we proposed an evaluation framework based on the sociotechnical dimensions of health information systems and risk assessment approaches for MDs to evaluate MDI-EMR integratively.
EXPERT OPINION: The emergence of MDI-EMR cyber threats requires appropriate evaluation tools to ensure the safe development and application of MDI-EMR. Consequently, our proposed framework will continue to evolve through subsequent validations and refinements. This process aims to establish its applicability in informing stakeholders of the safety level and assessing its effectiveness in mitigating risks for future improvements.
METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus investigator's choice chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine/carboplatin). QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) were prespecified. PROs were analyzed for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥1 PRO assessment. Change in PRO scores from baseline were assessed at week 15 (latest time point at which completion/compliance rates were ≥60%/≥80%). Time to deterioration (TTD) in PROs was defined as time to first onset of ≥ 10-point worsening in score from baseline.
RESULTS: PRO analyses included 317 patients with tumor PD-L1 CPS ≥10 (pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy; n = 217; placebo plus chemotherapy, n = 100). There were no between-group differences in change from baseline to week 15 in QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL; least-squares mean difference, -1.81 [95% CI, -6.92 to 3.30]), emotional functioning (-1.43 [-7.03 to 4.16]), physical functioning (-1.05 [-6.59 to 4.50]), or EQ-5D VAS (0.18 [-5.04 to 5.39]), and no between-group difference in TTD in QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL, emotional functioning, or physical functioning.
CONCLUSIONS: Together with the efficacy and safety findings, PRO results from KEYNOTE-355 support pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a standard of care for patients with advanced TNBC with tumor PD-L1 (CPS ≥10).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative, explanatory case study evaluated PhIS in ambulatory pharmacies in a hospital and a clinic. Data were collected through observations, interviews, and document analysis. We applied the socio-technical interactive analysis (ISTA) framework to investigate the socio-technical interactions of pharmacy information systems that lead to unintended consequences. We then adopted the human-organization-process-technology-fit (HOPT-fit) framework to identify their contributing and dominant factors, misfits, and mitigation measures.
RESULTS: We identified 28 unintended consequences of PhIS, their key contributing factors, and their interrelations with the systems. The primary causes of unintended consequences include system rigidity and complexity, unclear knowledge, understanding, skills, and purpose of using the system, use of hybrid paper and electronic documentation, unclear and confusing transitions, additions and duplication of tasks and roles in the workflow, and time pressure, causing cognitive overload and workarounds. Recommended mitigating mechanisms include human factor principles in system design, data quality improvement for PhIS in terms of effective use of workspace, training, PhIS master data management, and communication by standardizing workarounds.
CONCLUSION: Threats to information quality emerge in PhIS because of its poor design, a failure to coordinate its functions and clinical tasks, and pharmacists' lack of understanding of the system use. Therefore, safe system design, fostering awareness in maintaining the information quality of PhIS and cultivating its safe use in organizations is essential to ensure patient safety. The proposed evaluation approach facilitates the evaluator to identify complex socio-technical interactions and unintended consequences factors, impact, and mitigation mechanisms.
METHOD: A qualitative case study evaluation was conducted at a 620-bed public teaching hospital in Malaysia using interview, observation, and document analysis to investigate the features and functions of alert appropriateness and workflow-related issues in cardiological and dermatological settings. The current state map for medication prescribing process was also modelled to identify problems pertinent to CDS alert appropriateness.
RESULTS: The main findings showed that CDS was not well designed to fit into a clinician's workflow due to influencing factors such as technology (usability, alert content, and alert timing), human (training, perception, knowledge, and skills), organizational (rules and regulations, privacy, and security), and processes (documenting patient information, overriding default option, waste, and delay) impeding the use of CDS with its alert function. We illustrated how alert affect workflow in clinical processes using a Lean tool known as value stream mapping. This study also proposes how CDS alerts should be integrated into clinical workflows to optimize their potential to enhance patient safety.
CONCLUSION: The design and implementation of CDS alerts should be aligned with and incorporate socio-technical factors. Process improvement methods such as Lean can be used to enhance the appropriateness of CDS alerts by identifying inefficient clinical processes that impede the fit of these alerts into clinical workflow.
METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 209 sites in 29 countries, we randomly assigned patients 2:1 with untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer using a block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel; paclitaxel; or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. Randomisation was stratified by type of on-study chemotherapy (taxane or gemcitabine-carboplatin), PD-L1 expression at baseline (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1 or <1), and previous treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, centrally confirmed triple-negative breast cancer; at least one measurable lesion; provision of a newly obtained tumour sample for determination of triple-negative breast cancer status and PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. The sponsor, investigators, other study site staff (except for the unmasked pharmacist), and patients were masked to pembrolizumab versus saline placebo administration. In addition, the sponsor, the investigators, other study site staff, and patients were masked to patient-level tumour PD-L1 biomarker results. Dual primary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival assessed in the PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and intention-to-treat populations. The definitive assessment of progression-free survival was done at this interim analysis; follow-up to assess overall survival is continuing. For progression-free survival, a hierarchical testing strategy was used, such that testing was done first in patients with CPS of 10 or more (prespecified statistical criterion was α=0·00411 at this interim analysis), then in patients with CPS of 1 or more (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis, with partial alpha from progression-free survival in patients with CPS of 10 or more passed over), and finally in the intention-to-treat population (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819518, and is ongoing.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 9, 2017, and June 12, 2018, of 1372 patients screened, 847 were randomly assigned to treatment, with 566 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 281 patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff, Dec 11, 2019), median follow-up was 25·9 months (IQR 22·8-29·9) in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 26·3 months (22·7-29·7) in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Among patients with CPS of 10 or more, median progression-free survival was 9·7 months with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 5·6 months with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·86; one-sided p=0·0012 [primary objective met]). Median progression-free survival was 7·6 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·74, 0·61-0·90; one-sided p=0·0014 [not significant]) among patients with CPS of 1 or more and 7·5 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·82, 0·69-0·97 [not tested]) among the intention-to-treat population. The pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with PD-L1 enrichment. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event rates were 68% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 67% in the placebo-chemotherapy group, including death in <1% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 0% in the placebo-chemotherapy group.
INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with CPS of 10 or more. These findings suggest a role for the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.
FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve focus group discussions (n = 64) were conducted with women with breast cancer from two public and three private hospitals. This study specifically focused on (a) health costs, (b) nonhealth costs, (c) employment and earnings, and (d) financial assistance. Thematic analysis was used.
RESULTS: Financial needs related to cancer treatment and health care varied according to the participant's socioeconomic background and type of medical insurance. Although having medical insurance alleviated cancer treatment-related financial difficulties, limited policy coverage for cancer care and suboptimal reimbursement policies were common complaints. Nonhealth expenditures were also cited as an important source of financial distress; patients from low-income households reported transport and parking costs as troublesome, with some struggling to afford basic necessities, whereas participants from higher-income households mentioned hired help, special food and/or supplements and appliances as expensive needs following cancer. Needy patients had a hard time navigating through the complex system to obtain financial support. Irrespective of socioeconomic status, reductions in household income due to loss of employment and/or earnings were a major source of economic hardship.
CONCLUSION: There are many unmet financial needs following a diagnosis of (breast) cancer even in settings with universal health coverage. Health care professionals may only be able to fulfill these unmet needs through multisectoral collaborations, catalyzed by strong political will.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As unmet financial needs exist among patients with cancer across all socioeconomic groups, including for patients with medical insurance, financial navigation should be prioritized as an important component of cancer survivorship services, including in the low- and middle-income settings. Apart from assisting survivors to understand the costs of cancer care, navigate the complex system to obtain financial assistance, or file health insurance claims, any planned patient navigation program should also provide support to deal with employment-related challenges and navigate return to work. It is also echoed that costs for essential personal items (e.g., breast prostheses) should be covered by health insurance or subsidized by the government.
METHODS: This is a multicenter observational study of first-line afatinib in Malaysian patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients' demographic, clinical and treatment data, as well as resistance mechanisms to afatinib were retrospectively captured. The statistical methods included Chi-squared test and independent t-test for variables, Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test for survival, and Cox regression model for multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Eighty-five patients on first-line afatinib from 1st October 2014 to 30th April 2018 were eligible for the study. EGFR mutations detected in tumors included exon 19 deletion in 80.0%, exon 21 L858R point mutation in 12.9%, and rare or complex EGFR mutations in 7.1% of patients. Among these patients, 18.8% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4, 29.4% had symptomatic brain metastases and 17.6% had abnormal organ function. Afatinib 40 mg or 30 mg once daily were the most common starting and maintenance doses. Only one-tenth of patients experienced severe side-effects with none having grade 4 toxicities. The objective response rate was 76.5% while the disease control rate was 95.3%. At the time of analysis, 56 (65.9%) patients had progression of disease (PD) with a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 14.2 months (95% CI, 11.85-16.55 months). Only 12.5% of the progressed patients developed new symptomatic brain metastases. The overall survival (OS) data was not mature. Thirty-three (38.8%) patients had died with a median OS of 28.9 months (95% CI, 19.82-37.99 months). The median follow-up period for the survivors was 20.0 months (95% CI, 17.49-22.51 months). Of patients with PD while on afatinib, 55.3% were investigated for resistance mechanisms with exon 20 T790 M mutation detected in 42.0% of them.
CONCLUSIONS: Afatinib is an effective first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC with a good response rate and long survival, even in patients with unfavorable clinical characteristics. The side-effects of afatinib were manageable and T790 M mutation was the most common resistance mechanism causing treatment failure.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of scalp cooling among breast cancer patients in our study population.
METHODS: Consecutive breast cancer patients receiving FE75C, FE100C, FE100C-D, docetaxel75 or docetaxel, and cyclophosphamide (TC) at our treatment center were recruited and allocated to the treatment (scalp cooling, DigniCapTM system) or control group in this prospective nonrandomized controlled study. The assessment of alopecia was carried out using the World Health Organization grading system and clinical photographs.
RESULTS: Seventy patients were recruited, but only 25 completed the study and were evaluable for analysis. Five of 12 patients (42%) in the scalp cooling group managed to preserve hair. Two of three patients who received FE75C and TC regimens had minimal hair loss. All patients treated with FE100C had severe hair loss. Half of all patients who received scalp cooling throughout chemotherapy rated the treatment as reasonably well tolerated. The most common reason for discontinuing scalp cooling was intolerance to its side effects.
CONCLUSION: Scalp cooling is potentially effective in reducing CIA caused by docetaxel, TC, and FE75C chemotherapy regimen. However, it was not well tolerated by our study population. The dropout rate was high, and this needs to be taken into consideration when pursuing further trials in a similar setting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Here we reported the initial experience of aflibercept / FOLFIRI in combination. We evaluated treatment-related adverse events (AEs), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: The majority of the patients experienced gastrointestinal toxicity (grade 1-2), with diarrhea (52%), mucositis (52%), and nausea/vomiting (20%) being largely observed. Neutropenia (16%) and febrile neutropenia (8%) were common grade 3-4 hematological events. Aflibercept-related toxicity was managed as per practice guidelines. No grade 5 event was reported. Median PFS was 6.12 months (95% CI, 4.80-7.20) and OS was 12 months (95% CI, 9.80-14.18). The partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) rates were 25% (95% CI: 23.4-27.0), 37.5% (95% CI: 31.6-43.3), and 37.5% (95% CI: 22.5-52.5), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Aflibercept/FOLFIRI can be administered safely in a second line setting to Malaysian patients with mCRC, as the AEs experienced were generally reversible and manageable. The safety and efficacy outcomes were consistent with those observed in Western populations.