Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Fondation de l'Avenir | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
During the last few years, the medical care of oncohematologic cancers diagnosed patients was shaken by the arrival of new therapies : targeted therapies. Very efficient, these therapies use the oral pathway in most cases, and are taken at home. These treatments show plenty of drug interactions and side effects aren't rare and require, in their own, a rigorous follow up in order to reduce their occurrence, intensity and their impact on patients' quality of life. A bad management of the treatment could lead to an inacceptable toxicity, or to its premature interruption.
With all the new administration and follow up strains in mind, we want to elaborate the medical pathway structure for these patients by reinforcing the nurse coordination and by integrating another healthcare professional : the hospital pharmacist, which is a professional especially implicated in the drug delivery, the control of drug interactions and medical advices relative to the given drug.
Private healthcare professionals (referring physicians, pharmacists, private nurses), unsufficiently trained and informed about these new treatments and their side effects, are asking for further information concerning the drugs prescribed to their patients, and are willing to keep open a communication line for the home follow up.
These patients, who are autonomously taking their medication, are in need to be informed and supported to insure the good management of the drug, while taking in account their environment, their knowledge of their cancer and treatment and also of all the issues that could occur during their therapy, in order to resolve them.
We propose a multidisciplinary medical care taking place at the very beginning of an oral therapy treatment, in order to ensure the security of the drug administration. Patients and healthcare professionals will be closely followed during the first two treatment cycles. After this, side-effects incidence are less frequent and the usual oncohematologic follow up is sufficient.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| MinOS arm | Experimental | Patients are followed according to MinOS protocol: |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MinOS protocol | Other | At Day 1, Cycle 1 and 2 of the patient's oral therapy :
During this multidisciplinary consultation, will be reviewed :
At day 8 and 15, cycle 1 and 2 : Phone call from the nurse care coordinator during which will be reported the adverse effects and adherence issues. If needed, the nurse care coordinator can provide complementary information about the treatment. The MINOS protocol follow up will end with a consultation with the patient's oncologist/hematologist, at day 1 cycle 3. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Number of patients that followed the entirety of MinOS follow-up. | - 91% of included patients must have followed the entirety of MinOS follow up. A patient has followed the entirety of MinOS follow up only if he has attended to each and every one of their 8 scheduled follow up (4 phone calls + 4 consultations) | At the eighth follow-up, which is 8 weeks from baseline, except for Sutent treatment (12 weeks from baseline) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Toxicity evaluation of targeted oral therapies | - toxicity nature and grade according to CTCAE classification. | Day 8 and 15 of 1st treatment cycle ; Day 1, 8 and 15 of 2nd treatment cycle ; Day 1 of 3rd treatment cycle. One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Evaluation of observance |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groupe Hospitalier Mutualiste de Grenoble | Grenoble | 38028 | France |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8996131 | Background | Liu G, Franssen E, Fitch MI, Warner E. Patient preferences for oral versus intravenous palliative chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1997 Jan;15(1):110-5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.1.110. | |
| 19349618 | Background | Noens L, van Lierde MA, De Bock R, Verhoef G, Zachee P, Berneman Z, Martiat P, Mineur P, Van Eygen K, MacDonald K, De Geest S, Albrecht T, Abraham I. Prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of nonadherence to imatinib therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: the ADAGIO study. Blood. 2009 May 28;113(22):5401-11. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-12-196543. Epub 2009 Apr 6. |
| Label | URL |
|---|---|
| \[Cancer National Institut. Plan Cancer 2014-2019\] (French). Febr 2015. | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
- Observance score of Morisky |
| End of the 1st and 2nd treatment cycle. One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Number of unscheduled phone calls | At the end of the 2nd cycle. One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Number of unscheduled hospitalizations | At the end of the 2nd cycle. One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Number of private healthcare professionals visit | At the end of the 2nd cycle. One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Number of private healthcare professionals' phone call to the hospital | At the end of the 2nd cycle. One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Description of the exchange of information between the hospital and independent health professionals | - Evaluation of the utilization of "patients-files": Patients will be asked whether they make use of their "patient-files" and whether they share them with their healthcare professionals, if needed. (YES/NO) | Day 1 of the 1st and 2nd treatment cycles. One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Description of the patient's independence in regard of his treatment and pathology | - Number of patient's phone call to the hospital | At the end of the 2nd cycle. One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Evaluation of patient's satisfaction in regard of MinOS protocol | - Satisfaction survey answered by patients | At the end of the patient's therapy within MinOS framework (end of cycle 2). One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Evaluation of private healthcare professionals' satisfaction in regard of MinOS protocol | - Satisfaction survey answered by private healthcare professionals | At the end of the patient's therapy within MinOS framework (end of cycle 2). One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Evaluation of the quality of life for patients recruited in MinOS protocol | - Score of QLQ-C30 questionnaire | Day 1 of 1st, 2nd and 3rd cycle of treatment. One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment: 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| Number of concomitant drug prescription modification by the hospital pharmacist due to drug interactions with the cancer treatment | - A high number of prescription modification will mean an important part played by the hospital pharmacist, whereas a low number of modification will mean that adding a hospital pharmacist consultation to the standard care isn't relevant. | At the end of the 2nd cycle. One treatment cycle = 4 weeks, except for Sutent treatment : 1 cycle = 6 weeks |
| 21095002 | Background | Eliasson L, Clifford S, Barber N, Marin D. Exploring chronic myeloid leukemia patients' reasons for not adhering to the oral anticancer drug imatinib as prescribed. Leuk Res. 2011 May;35(5):626-30. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2010.10.017. Epub 2010 Nov 20. |
| 21349519 | Background | Compaci G, Ysebaert L, Oberic L, Derumeaux H, Laurent G. Effectiveness of telephone support during chemotherapy in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma: the Ambulatory Medical Assistance (AMA) experience. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011 Aug;48(8):926-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.008. Epub 2011 Feb 23. |
| 26498342 | Background | Compaci G, Rueter M, Lamy S, Oberic L, Recher C, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Laurent G, Despas F. Ambulatory Medical Assistance--After Cancer (AMA-AC): A model for an early trajectory survivorship survey of lymphoma patients treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2015 Oct 24;15:781. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1815-7. |
| \[Oncorif. White book : Organisation and care of patient undergoing oral targeted therapy in hematology\] (french). Nov 2016. | View source |
| \[Cancer National Institut. Hematology : adverse effects of anti-cancer oral therapies\] (french). Sept 2014. | View source |
| \[APM. Oral chemotherapies : nurses' part and role\] (french). July 2014. | View source |
| ATHOS team (french) | View source |
| \[Cancer National Institut. oral anti-cancer therapy patients medical course : referral\] (french). Nov 2016. | View source |
| \[Cancer National Institut. Cancer Plan from 2003 to 2007\] (french) | View source |
| \[Cancer National Institut. Cancer Plan from 2009 to 2013\] (french) | View source |
| \[Cancer National Institut. Cancer Plan from 2014 to 2019\] (french) | View source |