Safe Handling of Oral Chemotherapeutic Agents in Clinical Practice: Recommendations From an International Pharmacy Panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there has been a significant increase in the availability and use of oral chemotherapeutic agents, the guidelines around their safe handling are still evolving. Although oral chemotherapy is associated with ease of administration, it has the same exposure risks to health care practitioners, patients, and their caregivers as intravenous formulations, and because it is administered in the home, to the families of patients. However, the general misconception appears to be that exposure risk is low and therefore oral chemotherapeutic agents present little risk and are safer to handle. In a series of three roundtable meetings, a team of international pharmacists from North America and Europe reviewed existing guidelines and identified gaps in recommendations that we believe are important for safe handling. The present article is a compilation of these gaps, especially applicable to manufacturers and distributors, storage and handling, and patient education regarding safe handling. These recommendations, on the basis of our experience and of best practices, provide an international perspective and can be adapted by institutions and practices for development of standardized procedures specific to their needs for the safe handling of oral chemotherapeutic agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.091 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".