Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology Research Articles

Role of Bone-Modifying Agents in Multiple Myeloma: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To update guideline recommendations on the role of bone-modifying agents in multiple myeloma. Methods An update panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review by searching PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and observational studies. Results Thirty-five relevant studies were identified, and updated evidence supports the current recommendations. Recommendations For patients with active symptomatic multiple myeloma that requires systemic therapy with or without evidence of lytic destruction of bone or compression fracture of the spine from osteopenia on plain radiograph(s) or other imaging studies, intravenous administration of pamidronate 90 mg over at least 2 hours or zoledronic acid 4 mg over at least 15 minutes every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended. Denosumab has shown to be noninferior to zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events and provides an alternative. Fewer adverse events related to renal toxicity have been noted with denosumab compared with zoledronic acid and may be preferred in this setting. The update panel recommends that clinicians consider reducing the initial pamidronate dose in patients with preexisting renal impairment. Zoledronic acid has not been studied in patients with severe renal impairment and is not recommended in this setting. The update panel suggests that bone-modifying treatment continue for up to 2 years. Less frequent dosing has been evaluated and should be considered in patients with responsive or stable disease. Continuous use is at the discretion of the treating physician and the risk of ongoing skeletal morbidity. Retreatment should be initiated at the time of disease relapse. The update panel discusses measures regarding osteonecrosis of the jaw. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk classification in predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study in Chinese prostate cancer patients.

This study aimed to assess the role of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk classification in predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in Chinese prostate cancer patients. We included a consecutive cohort of 385 patients with prostate cancer who underwent RP at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (Shanghai, China) from March 2011 to December 2014. Gleason grade groups were applied at analysis according to the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus. Risk groups were stratified according to the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer version 1, 2017. All 385 patients were divided into BCR and non-BCR groups. The clinicopathological characteristics were compared using an independent sample t-test, Chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test. BCR-free survival was compared using the log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis. During median follow-up of 48 months (range: 1–78 months), 31 (8.05%) patients experienced BCR. The BCR group had higher prostate-specific antigen level at diagnosis (46.54 ± 39.58 ng ml-1 vs 21.02 ± 21.06 ng ml−1, P = 0.001), more advanced pT stage (P = 0.002), and higher pN1 rate (P < 0.001). NCCN risk classification was a significant predictor of BCR (P = 0.0006) and BCR-free survival (P = 0.003) after RP. As NCCN risk level increased, there was a significant decreasing trend in BCR-free survival rate (Ptrend = 0.0002). This study confirmed and validated that NCCN risk classification was a significant predictor of BCR and BCR-free survival after RP.

Baseline risk of recurrence in stage I-II endometrial carcinoma.

ObjectiveThough there are no evidences that postoperative therapy improves overall survival (OS) in stage I–II endometrial carcinoma, many women receive postoperative radiation or chemotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the baseline risk of recurrence after complete resection without any adjuvant therapies and to suppose the validity of postoperative therapy for stage I–II endometrial carcinoma.MethodsCharts for patients with stage I–II endometrial carcinoma who underwent operation without postoperative therapy between January 2005 and December 2011 were retrospectively reviewed and the baseline risk of recurrence and prognosis were assessed. Risk classifications were performed according to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) clinical practice guidelines and Japanese guideline written by Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology Group.ResultsAmong 374 patients who underwent complete resection, 311 were evaluable. Five-year recurrence rates by ESMO and Japanese were 2.6% and 3.1% in low-risk, 9.2% and 6.6% in intermediate-risk and 13.5% and 13.8% in high-risk group (p=0.003 and 0.015, respectively). High-risk group had worse OS compared with low- and intermediate-risk groups (5-year OS, low: 97.9% and 97.6%, intermediate: 97.9% and 98.8%, and high: 89.5% and 87.5%; p=0.003 and 0.008, respectively). Independent predictive factors of recurrence were age over 60 years, type 2 (estrogen-independent) and peritoneal cytology.ConclusionESMO and Japanese risk classification similarly stratify the baseline risk of recurrence. Patients with stage I–II endometrial carcinoma, especially low- and intermediate-risk diseases, have low recurrence rate and favorable OS, and the benefit of postoperative therapy might be small.

Optimizing anticancer therapy in metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline

Optimizing anticancer therapy in metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline

Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement Summary

Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement Summary

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Management of Regional Lymph Nodes in Melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) guideline for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in melanoma. An ASCO-SSO panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted regarding SLN biopsy and completion lymph node dissection (CLND) after a positive sentinel node in patients with melanoma. Nine new observational studies, two systematic reviews and an updated randomized controlled trial (RCT) of SLN biopsy, as well as two randomized controlled trials of CLND after positive SLN biopsy, were included. Routine SLN biopsy is not recommended for patients with thin melanomas that are T1a (non-ulcerated lesions < 0.8 mm in Breslow thickness). SLN biopsy may be considered for thin melanomas that are T1b (0.8 to 1.0 mm Breslow thickness or <0.8 mm Breslow thickness with ulceration) after a thorough discussion with the patient of the potential benefits and risk of harms associated with the procedure. SLN biopsy is recommended for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (T2 or T3; Breslow thickness of >1.0 to 4.0 mm). SLN biopsy may be recommended for patients with thick melanomas (T4; > 4.0 mm in Breslow thickness), after a discussion of the potential benefits and risks of harm. In the case of a positive SLN biopsy, CLND or careful observation are options for patients with low-risk micrometastatic disease, with due consideration of clinicopathological factors. For higher risk patients, careful observation may be considered only after a thorough discussion with patients about the potential risks and benefits of foregoing CLND. Important qualifying statements outlining relevant clinicopathological factors, and details of the reference patient populations are included within the guideline.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Management of Regional Lymph Nodes in Melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update Summary

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Management of Regional Lymph Nodes in Melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update Summary

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Management of Regional Lymph Nodes in Melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) guideline for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in melanoma. Methods An ASCO-SSO panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted regarding SLN biopsy and completion lymph node dissection (CLND) after a positive sentinel node in patients with melanoma. Results Nine new observational studies, two systematic reviews, and an updated randomized controlled trial of SLN biopsy, as well as two randomized controlled trials of CLND after positive SLN biopsy, were included. Recommendations Routine SLN biopsy is not recommended for patients with thin melanomas that are T1a (nonulcerated lesions < 0.8 mm in Breslow thickness). SLN biopsy may be considered for thin melanomas that are T1b (0.8 to 1.0 mm Breslow thickness or < 0.8 mm Breslow thickness with ulceration) after a thorough discussion with the patient of the potential benefits and risk of harms associated with the procedure. SLN biopsy is recommended for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (T2 or T3; Breslow thickness of > 1.0 to 4.0 mm). SLN biopsy may be recommended for patients with thick melanomas (T4; > 4.0 mm in Breslow thickness), after a discussion of the potential benefits and risks of harm. In the case of a positive SLN biopsy, CLND or careful observation are options for patients with low-risk micrometastatic disease, with due consideration of clinicopathological factors. For higher-risk patients, careful observation may be considered only after a thorough discussion with patients about the potential risks and benefits of foregoing CLND. Important qualifying statements outlining relevant clinicopathological factors and details of the reference patient populations are included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation of Cancer Care Ontario Guideline.

Purpose The adaptation of the Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) guideline Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People With Cancer provides recommendations to manage sexual function adverse effects that occur as a result of cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. Methods ASCO staff reviewed the guideline for developmental rigor and updated the literature search. An ASCO Expert Panel ( Table A1 ) was assembled to review the guideline content and recommendations. Results The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the 2016 CCO guideline are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO statements and modifications were added to adapt the CCO guideline for a broader audience. Recommendations It is recommended that there be a discussion with the patient, initiated by a member of the health care team, regarding sexual health and dysfunction resulting from cancer or its treatment. Psychosocial and/or psychosexual counseling should be offered to all patients with cancer, aiming to improve sexual response, body image, intimacy and relationship issues, and overall sexual functioning and satisfaction. Medical and treatable contributing factors should be identified and addressed first. In women with symptoms of vaginal and/or vulvar atrophy, lubricants in addition to vaginal moisturizers may be tried as a first option. Low-dose vaginal estrogen, lidocaine, and dehydroepiandrosterone may also be considered in some cases. In men, medication such as phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors may be beneficial, and surgery remains an option for those with symptoms or treatment complications refractory to medical management. Both women and men experiencing vasomotor symptoms should be offered interventions for symptomatic improvement, including behavioral options such as cognitive behavioral therapy, slow breathing and hypnosis, and medications such as venlafaxine and gabapentin.Additional information is available at: www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation Summary.

Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation Summary.

AHNS Series: Do you know your guidelines? Evidence-based management of oral cavity cancers.

Oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) is the most common nonmelanoma head and neck cancer in the world, with an estimated 405000 new cases expected each year. Subsites of the oral cavity include the alveolar ridge, buccal mucosa, anterior tongue, tonsillar pillar, retromolar trigone, hard palate, gingiva, and floor of the mouth. In this issue of the AHNS "Do you know your guidelines?" series, we review the evidence-based approach to the management of oral cavity carcinomas based on the framework provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Controversies Regarding Use of Myeloid Growth Factors in Leukemia.

This review focuses on the data supporting the use of myeloid growth factors (MGFs) in patients being treated for acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, and hairy cell leukemia, for which neutropenia is a common complication of treatment. However, due to the lack of randomized trial data or conflicting results of clinical studies, comprehensive guidelines have been difficult to formulate. Moreover, to date, these diagnoses have not been addressed in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for MGFs. However, in most cases, the general principles have been included in the applicable NCCN Guidelines for each individual cancer site.

Systemic Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update Summary.

Purpose To provide evidence-based recommendations to update the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on systemic therapy for stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods An Update Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology NSCLC Expert Panel based recommendations on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from January 2007 to February 2014. Results This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline. Recommendations There is no cure for patients with stage IV NSCLC. For patients with performance status (PS) 0 to 1 (and appropriate patient cases with PS 2) and without an EGFR-sensitizing mutation or ALK gene rearrangement, combination cytotoxic chemotherapy is recommended, guided by histology, with early concurrent palliative care. Recommendations for patients in the first-line setting include platinum-doublet therapy for those with PS 0 to 1 (bevacizumab may be added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel if no contraindications); combination or single-agent chemotherapy or palliative care alone for those with PS 2; afatinib, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with sensitizing EGFR mutations; crizotinib for those with ALK or ROS1 gene rearrangement; and following first-line recommendations or using platinum plus etoposide for those with large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Maintenance therapy includes pemetrexed continuation for patients with stable disease or response to first-line pemetrexed-containing regimens, alternative chemotherapy, or a chemotherapy break. In the second-line setting, recommendations include docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous cell carcinoma; docetaxel, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with squamous cell carcinoma; and chemotherapy or ceritinib for those with ALK rearrangement who experience progression after crizotinib. In the third-line setting, for patients who have not received erlotinib or gefitinib, treatment with erlotinib is recommended. There are insufficient data to recommend routine third-line cytotoxic therapy. Decisions regarding systemic therapy should not be made based on age alone. Additional information can be found at http://www.asco.org/guidelines/nsclc and http://www.asco.org/guidelineswiki. J Clin Oncol 33:3488-3515. © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Platelet Transfusion for Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update Summary.

Platelet Transfusion for Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update Summary.

Platelet Transfusion for Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To provide evidence-based guidance on the use of platelet transfusion in people with cancer. This guideline updates and replaces the previous ASCO platelet transfusion guideline published initially in 2001. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature published from September 1, 2014, through October 26, 2016. This review builds on two 2015 systematic reviews that were conducted by the AABB and the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines. For clinical questions that were not addressed by the AABB and the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines (the use of leukoreduction and platelet transfusion in solid tumors or chronic, stable severe thrombocytopenia) or that were addressed partially (invasive procedures), the ASCO search extended back to January 2000. Results The updated ASCO review included 24 more recent publications: three clinical practice guidelines, eight systematic reviews, and 13 observational studies. Recommendations The most substantial change to a previous recommendation involved platelet transfusion in the setting of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Based on data from randomized controlled trials, adult patients who undergo autologous stem-cell transplantation at experienced centers may receive a platelet transfusion at the first sign of bleeding, rather than prophylactically. Prophylactic platelet transfusion at defined platelet count thresholds is still recommended for pediatric patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation and for adult and pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. Other recommendations address platelet transfusion in patients with hematologic malignancies or solid tumors or in those who undergo invasive procedures. Guidance is also provided regarding the production of platelet products, prevention of Rh alloimmunization, and management of refractoriness to platelet transfusion ( www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki ).

Use of Larynx-Preservation Strategies in the Treatment of Laryngeal Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update Summary.

Use of Larynx-Preservation Strategies in the Treatment of Laryngeal Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update Summary.

Use of Larynx-Preservation Strategies in the Treatment of Laryngeal Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To update the guideline recommendations on the use of larynx-preservation strategies in the treatment of laryngeal cancer. Methods An Expert Panel updated the systematic review of the literature for the period from January 2005 to May 2017. Results The panel confirmed that the use of a larynx-preservation approach for appropriately selected patients does not compromise survival. No larynx-preservation approach offered a survival advantage compared with total laryngectomy and adjuvant therapy as indicated. Changes were supported for the use of endoscopic surgical resection in patients with limited disease (T1, T2) and for initial total laryngectomy in patients with T4a disease or with severe pretreatment laryngeal dysfunction. New recommendations for positron emission tomography imaging for the evaluation of regional nodes after treatment and best measures for evaluating voice and swallowing function were added. Recommendations Patients with T1, T2 laryngeal cancer should be treated initially with intent to preserve the larynx by using endoscopic resection or radiation therapy, with either leading to similar outcomes. For patients with locally advanced (T3, T4) disease, organ-preservation surgery, combined chemotherapy and radiation, or radiation alone offer the potential for larynx preservation without compromising overall survival. For selected patients with extensive T3 or large T4a lesions and/or poor pretreatment laryngeal function, better survival rates and quality of life may be achieved with total laryngectomy. Patients with clinically involved regional cervical nodes (N+) who have a complete clinical and radiologic imaging response after chemoradiation do not require elective neck dissection. All patients should undergo a pretreatment baseline assessment of voice and swallowing function and receive counseling with regard to the potential impact of treatment options on voice, swallowing, and quality of life. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Editorial Commentary

No AccessUrology PracticeBusiness of Urology1 Jan 2018Editorial Commentary Bruce L. Dalkin Bruce L. DalkinBruce L. Dalkin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2017.02.014AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Editorial Commentary." Urology Practice, 5(1), p. 13 References 1 : NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Bladder Cancer, Version 1. 2017. Fort Washington, Pennsylvania: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc.2017. Google Scholar © 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 5Issue 1January 2018Page: 13 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Bruce L. Dalkin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

MTE 02.02 Appropriate and Optimized Handling of Biopsy or Cytology Specimens

MTE 02.02 Appropriate and Optimized Handling of Biopsy or Cytology Specimens

Systemic Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose Provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2015 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods The ASCO NSCLC Expert Panel made recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from February 2014 to December 2016 plus the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care's update of a previous ASCO search. Results This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Fourteen randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base; earlier phase trials also informed recommendation development. Recommendations New or revised recommendations include the following. Regarding first-line treatment for patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (without positive markers, eg, EGFR/ALK /ROS1), if the patient has high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, pembrolizumab should be used alone; if the patient has low PD-L1 expression, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. All other clinical scenarios follow 2015 recommendations. Regarding second-line treatment in patients who received first-line chemotherapy, without prior immune checkpoint therapy, if NSCLC tumor is positive for PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab; if tumor has negative or unknown PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use nivolumab or atezolizumab. All immune checkpoint therapy is recommended alone plus in the absence of contraindications. For patients who received a prior first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. For patients who cannot receive immune checkpoint inhibitor after chemotherapy, docetaxel is recommended; in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, pemetrexed is recommended. In patients with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, disease progression after first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, and T790M mutation, osimertinib is recommended; if NSCLC lacks the T790M mutation, then chemotherapy is recommended. Patients with ROS1 gene rearrangement without prior crizotinib may be offered crizotinib, or if they previously received crizotinib, they may be offered chemotherapy.