Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Chemotherapy drugs are often administered in combinations with predefined interdependent doses and cycle intervals. As yet, there is no global standardization system to describe these complex regimens in a universally comprehensive manner. The aim of this review is to identify which efforts for standardization have been undertaken and which recommendations for databases and nomenclature of chemotherapy regimens are available.
A literature review was performed to identify all peer‐reviewed full‐text articles about oncology therapy regimen codification. In addition, the results of this search were evaluated and consensus recommendations from a European expert panel were subsequently added.
This review gives an overview of attempts to standardize chemotherapy nomenclature described in the literature, as well as of previously published identified gaps in regimen codification. In addition, we summarized the suggestions for improvement of chemotherapy codification found in the available literature, combining them with the expertise from a European expert panel of oncology pharmacists.
We believe that one of the most important error‐prevention measures is standardization. However, there is a paucity of data how it may be achieved. Currently available data suggest that standardization has a positive impact on usability for data networks, prescription software, safety and the measurement of the quality of cancer care delivery. Standardization is also a strong pre‐requisite for all discussions including oncology pharmacists and oncologists when evaluating chemotherapy regimen in countries in Europe but also all over the world. The recommendations compiled in this review can help to support overdue standardization efforts in this important therapeutic area.
Keywords: chemotherapy regimen, classification, codification, standardImproving oncology therapy regimen codification: A concise review of the literature and suggestions from an expert panel yielding 21 opportunities for standardization.
The adoption of electronic tools is critical for improving healthcare safety in multiple ways. Their implementation in a national eHealth strategy is essential as it provides the foundation, justification and support for the quality and standardization needed to go forward in a coordinated way. It is also important to strengthen the quality of electronic systems to improve patient safety. This may involve the introduction of electronic health records to replace paper records, having integrated electronic systems that can support clinical decision making or making the tools easier for professionals and patients to use. 1
For therapy regimens in oncology, this approach has already proven to result in error reductions. 2 Oncology therapy regimens consist of one, or more likely multiple, medications (combination therapy and supportive therapy) with different degrees of complexity and dependencies. Creating a regimen is defining the drugs to be used, their dosage, the frequency and duration of treatments, among other considerations. Such regimens are often identified by acronyms (eg AC= Adriamycin and Cyclophosphamide or CHOP = (C)yclophosphamide, Adriamycin (H)ydroxydoxorubicin, Vincristine with the trade name Oncovin and Prednisolone). However, there is no widely accepted naming convention or authoritative comprehensive standard 3 to which each healthcare institute or each clinical software developer can cross reference their own regimens. 4 , 5 , 6 It takes time, effort and resources to implement electronic tools, and to use and maintain them also requires substantial capacity. It is therefore important to be strategic and to understand the foundations and design of systems in order to ensure the best return on investment and sustainability. 1
In this review, we present all published efforts in creating standardization of chemotherapy regimen nomenclature as well as electronic approaches in building and using datasets of regimens. In addition, we will summarize all the options for the standardization of nomenclature and codification of chemotherapy identified in the literature and in an expert workshop, as well as the proposed solutions.
Published reports were identified, and all abstracts were reviewed for eligibility. For the articles selected, full‐text publications were retrieved and reviewed for additional information. Bibliographies from selected key articles and relevant review articles were screened for additional sources.
To identify existing guidelines for oncology therapy regimen codification and published codification strategies, we searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE Scopus and Google Scholar for publications in English or German using the terms "database*”, “regimen*”, “standardi*”, “guideline*”, “cancer*”, “anticancer*”, “oncol*”, “chemo*”, “antineoplast*”, “cytotox*”, and “codif*”. References were excluded if they were therapeutic clinical trials (not “clinical” and “trial*”). Thereafter, we used hand searching in the bibliographies of selected articles to search for additional references. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the literature reflected by the wide variation of search terms that had to be used, the final inclusion of papers was performed based on the relevance for the scope of this article.
Material was discussed during a two days' workshop with five experts from the European Society of Oncology Pharmacy (ESOP) from five different countries (Austria, France, Lebanon, The Netherlands and Spain) in October 2019. During this workshop, a comprehensive evaluation of therapy protocols from various hospitals was also performed to study their degree of comparability and identify gaps in the nomenclature. All gaps identified by this expert panel were compared with those published in the articles from the literature search. During the workshop, the identified disparities were recorded and underwent a root cause analysis to establish the most suitable solutions.
In total, 13 scientific publications were identified in October 2020 that could be included in the analysis (Figure 1 ). Of these, four papers referred to one unique ontology system (HemOnc), with a fourth one also stemming from the same research institute. Below follows a description of the identified initiatives, the approaches for standardization in coding or description of regimens that could be extracted are combined in Table 1 .
Preferred reporting item for systematic reviews and meta‐analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram
Current options to improve standardizations in regimen codification and nomenclature for chemotherapy treatments in healthcare information systems and published guidelines.
Different names for modes of application (eg bolus versus iv injection—continuous infusion versus x‐hour infusion)
Regional variations or patient specifically adapted regimens
Add the characteristics from the study population to make comparisons with the properties of the individual patient who is intended to be treated with the protocol possible
Use standardized diagnosing codification like ICD
Abbreviations: ICD, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, by the World Health Organization; iv, intravenous; po, per oral.
The first initiative to perform standardization for the expression and nomenclature of cytotoxic regimens was a joint effort between the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). 7 These institutes issued a set of guidelines in 1998 which was published online later. 8 It was developed by a group of oncology and clinical pharmacists and submitted to a large panel of pharmacists for consultation and approval. It was not specifically intended for digital application. The guidelines are summarized together with the suggestions from the other scientific papers in Table 1 .
The second initiative in the US is the US oncology standardized regimen library. This library is incorporated in the iKnowMed software specifically to enable clinical practitioners to order chemotherapy for individual patients. This library was developed in a multiprofessional approach by oncologists, pharmacists and nurses and is used by 900 community‐based oncologists in 39 states across the US. 9 During an internal audit, it was found that 75% of regimens in the library required title changes to comply with standardization, 14% required cycle‐related changes and 13% required dosing updates. This led to additional standardization for entries into the library.
The third initiative is the HemOnc.org database. This is a non‐commercial online freely accessible database started in 2011 through a collaboration of oncologists from several (University) hospitals in the US. 10 As of January 2020, the database comprises >3,000 regimens. A data model, with bindings to multiple external vocabularies such as the National Cancer Institute Thesaurus, was derived from this website later on. 6 A separate publication from this group describes the ontology proposed for cytotoxic regimens, taking into account indication, drug names, schedule and duration. A hierarchic taxonomy was created by use of a specifically developed algorithm that parsed the existing data from the web‐based data library. 11 A standard vocabulary was also proposed by this group. A publication stemming from one of the collaborating University groups outlines the development of a machine learning algorithm that uses a data driven method for cancer treatment plan recognition. This application uses pharmacy chemotherapy dispensing orders followed by a sequential mapping method to produce the identified chemotherapy protocols and also includes the sequence of therapy lines. This machine learning approach was accurate in identifying the used regimens in 75% of cases in a sample of 110 patients, when compared to a manually annotated gold standard. 12 In 2020, the HemOnc group published a proposal for a standardized nomenclature for chemotherapy regimens that was also compared to the thesaurus of the US National Cancer Institute. 13
The fourth and last US initiative, that has been published, was launched in Colorado and consists of an electronic algorithm that can identify specific regimens from source data derived from electronic health records. It was developed specifically for the entities breast cancer, colorectal cancer and lung cancer. It had a sensitivity of 97%–100% for the recognition of first‐course systemic therapy with a false‐positive rate of 0%. 14
Overall, these US based initiatives, that are still being developed further, enable the gathering of big data that can potentially be used for real‐world safety and effectiveness studies, when they would be coupled with registries with outcome data.
In Europe, three national initiatives aiming to standardize or codify cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens were found during the literature study, one from the United Kingdom (UK), one from Germany and one from the Czech Republic. The Czech group developed a database in XML named DIOS starting in 2006. They used standardized expressions for the naming of regimens, as well as for the different items forming the core of the regimen (drug names, routes of administration, dosages and intervals). This library contained 260 distinct regimens at the time of publication in 2013. 15 The current status is available in both Czech and English on the Internet. 16
The German initiative is called Oncopti and consists of a relational database currently comprising over 1400 regimens. It is continuously updated. The data are stored in XML, like in the Czech library, and are available for members of the German Oncologic Society on the Internet. 17 This comprehensive initiative not only adds guidelines for recommended supportive treatment to the core oncology regimens, but also advices on the optimal order of administration of drugs and features the ability to export the library regimens to software systems for ordering and compounding chemotherapy that are widely used in Germany and Austria. 18
The UK initiative is called SACT and consists of a database containing both adult as well as paediatric oncology treatment regimens. The SACT data are routinely collected from all National Health Service (NHS) trusts in the UK and are part of the National Cancer Registration. The SACT stores data not only of the chemotherapy regimen, but also of the patients, diagnoses and outcomes. In addition, the data can be linked to several other datasets from the UK National Cancer Registration. 19
Clinical trial protocols specifically require a clear and consistent method for expressing chemotherapy dosage schedules and treatment regimens, to minimize undue risks to patients. Apart from the Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, the SPIRIT 2013 statement describes the standardized items required to be included in each clinical trial protocol. 20 However, neither GCP nor SPIRIT give exact guidelines on how to define the expression and nomenclature of cancer treatment regimens. For further optimization in the protocolling of clinical trials with oncology drugs, the UK National Cancer Research set up the Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service (CPAS) which built a standard template giving specific guidance on all drug‐related content in clinical trial protocols. This template aids investigators in providing unequivocal information on treatment regimens through use of a standardized format. In a publication outlining the work of CPAS, data from 176 clinical trial protocols that were reviewed were compiled resulting in a summary of options to leverage standardization concerning drug‐related content. 21
In a 2‐day workshop, held in collaboration with IQVIA as part of the now discontinued Oncology Data Network (ODN) project, gaps in the nomenclature of regimens derived from different hospitals in 5 different countries were identified and discussed. Examples include the following: (a) the classification of abbreviations (TAC referring in some hospitals to paclitaxel‐doxorubicin‐cyclophosphamide but in other hospitals to docetaxel‐doxorubicin‐cyclophosphamide because both brand names of the taxanes start with “T”), (b) the decision on classifying variations of a regimen as one or more distinct regimens (is azacitidine 7 days identical to azacitidine 5 + 2 days in which the weekend is skipped, is continuous radiation identical with radiation 5 days + 2 days break?), (c) if only generic names are used, how will the mapping of liposomal formulations be handled by software applications? and (d) the use of terms like accelerated, intensified and escalated is not clarified and although they are all referring to ways of increasing the dose density of a schedule, the resulting dosages and intervals may differ between protocols from different hospitals, countries or regions. The gaps and opportunities identified were combined with those already described in the literature, and suggestions for standardization were compared and merged with those from the literature (Table 1 ).
We identified twenty‐one opportunities for standardization in total that have been described in the literature or were identified by the expert panel with regard to uniform designation and description of regimens used in oncology. This means that as yet, standardization beyond regions or individual countries is still far from implemented. To overcome these issues, a collaborative effort of healthcare professionals as well as their professional bodies, governments and inspection authorities, appears to be warranted. If standardization could be achieved, the use of big data to compare treatments and their outcomes in cancer comes within our reach. The first attempt in this direction on a European level was the ODN project by IQVIA. 22 , 23 However, this project was halted in 2020. A novel opportunity could come from the European Health Data Space, a project set up by the European Commission, to be executed before 2025. 24
However, to fill the current gaps that we have detected in this review, several answers to specific issues must be formulated. For example, a directive is necessary to identify the minimum parameters required to describe a regimen, and strategies must be defined how to deal with variants. What is an acceptable variation? For example: can 3‐weekly taxane regimens be considered equivalent to low dose weekly administrations of the same cumulative dose? Another issue for future investigations would be to introduce so‐called “families of medicines” for therapeutically similar but not identical medicines. This is not required when generics are used as they are considered interchangeable. However, it would be helpful to define them and allowing the use of biosimilars and even clusters like taxanes, anthracyclins and anti EGFR medicines for outcome research. For this purpose, the pharmacological background has to be explored.
In summary, although the publications found by this comprehensive review provide good guidance, and demonstrate the feasibility of standardization on a small scale, there are still remaining issues that have to be solved, before big data sets usable to compare treatments and outcomes on a European or worldwide level can be build.
To our knowledge, this is the first worldwide approach for a gap analysis of therapy regimens intended to be used in oncology. We believe that one of the most important error‐prevention measures is standardization. However, for the description of complex drug regimens used in the treatment of patients with cancer, there is no gold standard yet to reach standardization across regions or countries. The recommendations compiled in this review can help to achieve standardization of oncology therapy regimens that qualifies them for an application to big data sets and automation efforts.
All authors state no conflict of interest.
We are grateful to J. Levy, R. Blakemore, A. Fry, D. Bloomfield and A. Woolmore of IQVIA, London, United Kingdom, for providing us with their perspective of improving regimen codification and standardization of nomenclature.
Funding information
The workshop of the ESOP experts was funded by IQVIA.
2. Reinhardt H, Otte P, Eggleton AG, et al. Avoiding chemotherapy prescribing errors: analysis and innovative strategies . Cancer . 2019; 125 ( 9 ):1547‐1557. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Wikipedia contributors . Chemotherapy regimen . Saint Petersburg: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia; 2008. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemotherapy_regimen&oldid=930436588. Accessed December 2nd, 2020
4. Shulman LN, Miller RS, Ambinder EP, Yu PP, Cox JV. Principles of safe practice using an oncology ehr system for chemotherapy ordering, preparation, and administration, part 1 of 2 . J Oncol Pract . 2008; 4 ( 4 ):203‐206. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Shulman LN, Miller RS, Ambinder EP, Yu PP, Cox JV. Principles of safe practice using an oncology EHR system for chemotherapy ordering, preparation, and administration, part 2 of 2 . J Oncol Pract . 2008; 4 ( 5 ):254‐257. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Warner JL, Dymshyts D, Reich CG, et al. HemOnc: a new standard vocabulary for chemotherapy regimen representation in the OMOP common data model . J Biomed Inform . 2019; 96 :103239. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Kohler DR, Montello MJ, Green L, et al. Standardizing the expression and nomenclature of cancer treatment regimens. American Society of Health‐System Pharmacist (ASHP), American Medical Association (AMA), American Nurses Association (ANA) . Am J Health Syst Pharm . 1998; 55 ( 2 ):137‐144. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. National Institutes of Health (NIH) . Guidelines for Treatment Regimen Expression and Nomenclature . Bethesda, Maryland: 2008. Available from: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/policies_nomenclature.htm Accessed November 25th, 2020. [Google Scholar]
9. Busby LT, Sheth S, Garey J, et al. Creating a process to standardize regimen order sets within an electronic health record . J Oncol Pract . 2011; 7 ( 4 ):e8‐e14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Warner JL, Coiwan AJ, Hall AC, Yang PC. HemOnc.org: a collaborative onlin knowledge platform for oncology professionals . J Onc Pharm Pract . 2015; 11 :336‐350. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Malty AM, Jain SK, Yang PC, Harvey K, Warner JL. Computerized approach to creating a systematic ontology of hematology/oncology regimens . JCO Clin Cancer Inform . 2018; 2 :1‐11. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Bhatia H, Levy M. Automated plan‐recognition of chemotherapy protocols . AMIA Annu Symp Proc . 2011; 2011 :108‐114. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Rubinstein SM, Yang PC, Cowan AJ, Warner JL. Standardizing chemotherapy regimen nomenclature: a proposal and evaluation of the HemOnc and National Cancer Institute Thesaurus Regimen Content . JCO Clin Cancer Inform . 2020; 4 :60‐70. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Carroll NM, Burniece KM, Holzman J, McQuillan DB, Plata A, Ritzwoller DP. Algorithm to identify systemic cancer therapy treatment using structured electronic data . JCO Clin Cancer Inform . 2017; 1 :1‐9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Klimes D, Smid R, Kubasek M, Vyzula R, Dusek L. DIOS–database of formalized chemotherapeutic regimens . Stud Health Technol Inform . 2013; 186 :165‐169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. DIOS registry . http://dios.registry.cz/?sec=software%lang=en. Accessed November 25th, 2020.17. Oncopti database , Kaiserslautern, Germany. Available at: Onkopti® ‐ Onkologische Therapieprotokolle im Internet: Beispiele (iese.de). Accessed15th, December 2020.
18. Link H, Wickenkamp A, Dresel A, van Lengen RH. Digitalisierung von Therapieprotocollen . Forum . 2020; 35 :129‐136. [Google Scholar]
19. Bright CJ, Lawton S, Benson S, et al. Data resource profile: the systemic anti‐cancer therapy (SACT) dataset . Int J Epidemiol . 2019; 49 ( 1 ):15‐15l. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Chan A‐W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials . Ann Intern Med . 2013; 158 ( 3 ):200‐207. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Debruyne PR, Johnson PJ, Pottel L, et al. Optimisation of pharmacy content in clinical cancer research protocols: experience of the United Kingdom chemotherapy and pharmacy advisory service . Clin Trials . 2015; 12 ( 3 ):257‐264. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Kerr D, Arnold D, Blay JY, et al. The oncology data network (ODN): a collaborative European data‐sharing platform to inform cancer care . Oncologist . 2019; 25 ( 1 ):e1‐e4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Woolmore A, Arnold D, Blay JY, et.al. “The Oncology Data Network (ODN): methodology, challenges, and achievements” . Oncologist , 2020. 25 ( 10 ):e1428‐e1432. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
