Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 1

1082 - Prevalence and management of Potentially Inappropriate Medication use and Potential Omissions in Medication in older cancer patients - the PIM POM study


28 Sep 2019


Poster Display session 1


Supportive Care and Symptom Management

Tumour Site


Fianne van Loveren


Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v718-v746. 10.1093/annonc/mdz265


F.M.A.M. van Loveren1, I.R..F. van Berlo - van de Laar1, A.L.T. Imholz2, K. Taxis3, F.G..A. Jansman1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Clinical Pharmacy, Deventer Hospital, 7416 SE - Deventer/NL
  • 2 Internal Medicine, Deventer Hospital, 7416 SE - Deventer/NL
  • 3 Pharmacotherapy, -epidemiology And -economics, University of Groningen, 9713 AV - Groningen/NL


Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1082


Older cancer patients are a vulnerable group of medication users. Pharmacist-led medication reviews may optimize treatment and thereby reduce the risk of harmful effects from medication use. This study aims to determine the prevalence and management of Potentially Inappropriate Medication use (PIM’s) and Potential Omissions in Medication (POM’s) in older cancer patients.


In this prospective observational study (hospital) pharmacists conducted medication reviews with older cancer patients (aged ≥65 years) treated with parenteral chemo and/or immunotherapy to determine the prevalence of PIM’s and POM’s. PIM’s and POM’s were identified using the Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP), the screening Tool to Alert doctors to the Right Treatment (START) and pharmacists’ expert opinion. Recommendations regarding PIM’s and POM’s were made to the patient’s oncologist/haematologist and follow-up was measured. Associations between covariates and the prevalence of PIM’s and POM’s were statistically analysed.


117 (78%) of the 150 patients included (median age 72 years, 59% male, 68% solid tumours, mean number of medicines 11) had at least one PIM and/or PIM. In total 266 PIM’s and POM’s were identified, and these led to 195 (73%) follow-up actions (table). The number of medicines and Charlson Comorbidity Index score (as a measure of vulnerability) were both independently associated with having at least one PIM and/or POM (p = .031 and p = .002 respectively).Table:

1825P Identification and follow-up of PIM’s and POM’s

PIM’s and POM’s
n (%)
PIM’s, total Using STOPP180 89 (49)
Using expert opinion85 (47)
Using both6 (3)
POM’s, total Using START86 66 (77)
Using expert opinion20 (23)
Follow-up actions By oncologist/haematologist266 77 (29)
By general practitioner118 (44)
No follow-up action71 (27)


PIM’s and POM’s are highly prevalent among older cancer patients. A pharmacist-led medication review using STOPP/START criteria and pharmacists’ expert opinion is an excellent way to identify these PIM’s and POM’s and to optimize patients’ medication use. The majority of recommendations made regarding PIM’s and POM’s leads to a follow-up action.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Deventer Teaching Hospital.


Has not received any funding.


F.G.A. Jansman: Advisory / Consultancy, 2016: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, 2016: Servier. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.