3.9 Article

Prevalence of Off-Label Use of Oral Oncolytics at a Community Cancer Center

Journal

JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages E139-E143

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2014.001354

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Oral oncolytics are becoming increasingly utilized for cancer treatment, but the frequency of off-label oral oncolytic use is not well described. The extent of off-label oral oncolytic use is a concern because the clinical benefits of such use to patients may not outweigh adverse health outcomes or cost concerns. Methods: Prescription data for January 2011 through November 2013 from the St. Lukes Mountain States Tumor Institute (MSTI) Oral Chemotherapy program (OCP) was retrospectively analyzed. Use was classified as on-label if the cancer site, stage, and line of therapy met the FDA-approved indication. All other uses were classified as off-label. Off-label use was further evaluated by whether it conformed to and was supported by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendations. Results: Twelve hundred and six first-fill oral chemotherapy prescriptions were reviewed, representing 990 unique patients and 44 individual medications. On-label use amounted to 71% and off-label use amounted to 29%. Eighty-eight percent of off-label uses were supported by NCCN guideline recommendations. A total of 3.3% of all prescriptions analyzed were for off-label uses not supported by NCCN guideline recommendations. The top five oral chemotherapies prescribed for off-label uses were capecitabine, temozolomide, lenalidomide, abiraterone, and everolimus. Conclusion: Oral chemotherapies are more often used on label than off label in current practice at our community cancer center. The majority of off-label use of oral oncolytics in this study was supported by NCCN guideline recommendations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available