ASCO Education

Dr. Tarita Thomas is a radiation oncologist in Chicago, Illinois. She received her medical degree from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and has been in practice between 6-10 years. In this episode, Dr. Thomas discusses the role of adjuvant radiotherapy in nodal disease. The ASCO eLearning Weekly Podcast is an educational series focused on helping learners identify knowledge gaps and stay up-to-date with the latest in new drug developments, cancer treatments and patient care approaches. If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure to subscribe for more weekly education content from ASCO eLearning. Subscribe to the podcast through a mobile device by clicking the Apple Podcasts link (iOS devices) or the Google Play Music link (Android devices). We truly value your feedback and suggestions, so please take a minute to leave a review. If you are an oncology professional and interested in contributing to the ASCO eLearning Weekly Podcast, email elearning@asco.org for more information.

Dr. Daniel George is Professor of Medicine and Surgery, Director of GU Oncology for the Duke Cancer Institute, and Co-Chair of the DCI Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers. Dr George’s primary areas of interest are in drug development and optimizing care for patients with GU cancers, particularly prostate and kidney cancers. In this episode, Dr. George reviews disparities in prostate care. The ASCO eLearning Weekly Podcast is an educational series focused on helping learners identify knowledge gaps and stay up-to-date with the latest in new drug developments, cancer treatments and patient care approaches. If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure to subscribe for more weekly education content from ASCO eLearning. Subscribe to the podcast through a mobile device by clicking the Apple Podcasts link (iOS devices) or the Google Play Music link (Android devices). We truly value your feedback and suggestions, so please take a minute to leave a review. If you are an oncology professional and interested in contributing to the ASCO eLearning Weekly Podcast, email elearning@asco.org for more information.

Alexander Menzies, a Medical Oncologist and Associate Professor of Melanoma Medical Oncology at Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA), The University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals discusses appropriate biomarkers and treatments for Stage IV Melanoma.

Lora Black, RN, MPH, OCN, CCRP, Senior Director of Clinical Research at Sanford Health highlights two key points for building a sustainable oncology research program in an oncology-based setting.

Komal Jhaveri, MD, FACP, is a breast medical oncologist with dual appointments in the breast medicine and early drug development services at Memorial Sloan Kettering Center in New York. In this special Annual Meeting 2019 episode, Dr. Jhaveri discusses two patient cases that relate to adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. Click here to visit ASCO's Annual Meeting website to learn more about the education session. Come back after the meeting for more videos, links and information from relevant sessions.

An interview with Dr. Paul Celano from the greater Baltimore Medical Center, lead author on "Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs: ASCO Standards." TRANSCRIPT The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today I'm interviewing Dr. Paul Celano from the greater Baltimore Medical Center, lead author on "Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs: ASCO Standards." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Celano. Thank you for having me. I'm certainly glad to talk about these standards. They're very important to our employees and our patients. So first I want to make the distinction that this publication is not a guideline like we usually cover on this podcast. So can you tell us what standards are and how they differ from guidelines? Well, guidelines really are intended to guide practitioners around recommended care options. They give obviously a lot of latitude to clinical judgment and circumstances. Standards, on the other hand, are really meant primarily for the organization of care and are intended to have a higher level of obligation to help drive either practice or policy or even legislative efforts. So that's really the distinction. And what are the standard statements that are made by ASCO in this publication? The publication really is about safe handling of hazardous drugs. This all came about is because recently there have been a number of national guidelines or standards that have been offered by other organizations, but not specifically oncology or certainly ASCO or the ASCO organization. We felt a need to address the standards that have been put out on the basis of the evidence, so that best practices can be offered. Initially, we did collaborate with other societies, such as the Oncology Nursing Society and the Hematology Oncology Pharmacy Association. That was really the impetus behind making sure that we are, in a sense, congruent with standards that are already being published and discussed, but also to also place in our interpretation of these standards so that they're based on the best evidence that's available. And what qualifying statements are there to note about these standards? Well, I think the best way to look at these standards is there has been recently published or offered what's been called the UST 800 standards, which really incorporate other previous standards by the Pharmacy Association as well as OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Association, as well as NIOSH, the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Oncology Nursing, etc. So there's a lot of standards that have been offered. And in fact, the ASCO review of this really in a sense agrees with many of the standards that have already been published and offered-- types of exposures, the responsibilities of personnel handling the drugs, the personal protective equipment, how we communicate the hazardous drugs, the training of compounding personnel, how the drugs are dispensed and even transported. So there's lots of things that we really do agree with. I think it's also important to understand that the objectives of this is really to protect personnel and the environment to make sure the standards apply to all personnel who compound hazardous drugs and preparations, all places where hazardous drugs are prepared and stored, transported and administered. So that's really a key part of this. These are a comprehensive program really to prevent worker environmental exposure and to provide the most practical safety environment for all involved. So finally, why are these standards so important? And how will they affect practice? Well, they effect practice in many ways. I mean, the key thing is making sure that our employees, meaning the nurses, pharmacy, the technicians, really everyone involved that they're not unduly exposed to these hazardous drugs. And so that's really the key thing that we're all trying to achieve by this. Now, what really makes the sort of ASCO standards somewhat different or the things that we came into a contention with has to do with the differences that ASCO has come up with in contrast to some of the other standards. And these have to do with really four main areas within these standards. They have to do with medical surveillance, external ventilation, closed system transfer devices, and also proper assignment of our personnel while they may have either trying to conceive or pregnant or nursing. So those areas that in our review, the ASCO review, have come under some question. As an example, medical surveillance, there in some of the standards offered-- not ASCO's-- that there's a number of medical surveillance procedures that have been elucidated, that really we find, number one, have really not any proven value for our employees and generate a lot of confusion in terms of how this process is supposed to be done. Obviously, if one of our employees has some undue exposure, such as a spill of chemotherapy or even just have flat out a concern, then obviously those things will be clearly investigated. But to have general medical surveillance of all employees, really we did not feel was of great value. But also further, we really feel that this is an area where more research needs to be done to better elucidate really what should this process look like and what value are we providing to our employees. Another aspect of this is the use of what are called closed system transfer devices. Currently, there are a number of these devices available that there is interestingly no standard way that these devices have been evaluated. And so it's hard to recommend one device over another, because there is no standards for which they're really being compared. And there certainly have been no studies looking at really any form of health outcome that really help us to direct this to how best to use these devices. And so really, a lot of these objections are more around let's do things in an evidence-based way so we can better know how to best direct our practices. Another area of concern in terms of ASCO standards have been the implementation of external ventilation in either containment secondary engineering controls or other situations. And the challenges is that HEPA filters are probably appropriate for collecting solid or aerosolized particles, but don't capture vaporized drugs. But there's little data available on the ability of hazardous drugs to vaporize within the workplace environment and what those hazards really are. And so again, it's is a call for more research to have an optimal environment for preparing these drugs and without having to place undue burdens in terms of external ventilation. Another area is options for alternative duties for workers who are actively trying to conceive or are pregnant or breastfeeding. And these we recognize can be special burdens to small practices looking to implement alternative duty programs. There is a lot of controversy regarding the potential level of risk that really these workers really have. And basically our stance has been that we should have a policy that identifies alternative work options for workers who are trying to conceive, are pregnant or are breastfeeding, and that this information needs to be conveyed to these employees at the time of their hire so they understand what their risks are and what their options are within the workplace. Again, trying to make sure everyone is well informed and aware of what the work environment they're in and as their life circumstances change what they can do to change with this. I think the key is that we all feel that this is an area that we should have continued research on. And our standard, certainly ASCO's standards will continue to evolve as more and more research and evidence becomes available. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain these standards to us today, Dr. Celano. You're welcome. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague