Justification of more expensive antiemetic use with FOLFOX at an ambulatory cancer center.

27 Background: According to NCCN, ASCO, and Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) guidelines, palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone is the preferred 5-HT3 antagonist for use with moderately-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). NCCN gives all 5-HT3 antagonists a category one recommendation. Currently at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), ondansetron is the 5-HT3 antagonist of choice due to its significant cost advantage and flexibility in dosing. Palonosetron is currently restricted to use in the second-line setting at MGH based on limitations of the evidence currently available supporting its preferred use. The primary objective of this study is to assess antiemetic utilization in patients receiving FOLFOX +/- bevacizumab(B) in an outpatient infusion unit and measure palonosetron and NK-1 antagonist usage.A retrospective review was conducted of all outpatient chemotherapy orders for FOLFOX +/- B for a six month period from 11/13-4/14. Prophylactic antiemetic use was evaluated over that time period. Data was captured using electronic MARs, prescription records, and drug utilization reports.184 patients were identified; 858 FOLFOX +/- B treatments were administered during the study period. For emesis prophylaxis, 74.5% received the MGH standard ondansetron and dexamethasone, 10.3% received palonosetron, 9.8% received an NK-1 antagonist, and 5.4% received a combination of palonosetron plus NK-1 antagonist. Mean patient age was 60.8 years; 59.8% of patients were male; 63.6% had a diagnosis of colorectal cancer; 42.9% had metastatic disease.The majority of patients receiving FOLFOX +/- B were well managed on ondansetron and dexamethasone and did not require the use of more costly antiemetics. However 25.5% of patients required alternative/additional antiemetics, suggesting further investigation to determine which patients could benefit from these therapies up-front may be prudent. Study data support continued use of palonosetron as a second line therapy. Larger, pharmacoeconomic comparison studies are necessary to justify frontline use of palonsetron.