Postmastectomy radiotherapy: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To determine indications for the use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for patients with invasive breast cancer with involved axillary lymph nodes or locally advanced disease who receive systemic therapy. These guidelines are intended for use in the care of patients outside of clinical trials. POTENTIAL INTERVENTION: The benefits and risks of PMRT in such patients, as well as subgroups of these patients, were considered. The details of the PMRT technique were also evaluated. OUTCOMES: The outcomes considered included freedom from local-regional recurrence, survival (disease-free and overall), and long-term toxicity. EVIDENCE: An expert multidisciplinary panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature through July 2000; certain investigators were contacted for more recent and, in some cases, unpublished information. A computerized search was performed of MEDLINE data; directed searches based on the bibliographies of primary articles were also performed. VALUES: Levels of evidence and guideline grades were assigned by the Panel using standard criteria. A "recommendation" was made when level I or II evidence was available and there was consensus as to its meaning. A "suggestion" was made based on level III, IV, or V evidence and there was consensus as to its meaning. Areas of clinical importance were pointed out where guidelines could not be formulated due to insufficient evidence or lack of consensus. RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendations, suggestions, and expert opinions of the Panel are described in this article. VALIDATION: Seven outside reviewers, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee members, and the ASCO Board of Directors reviewed this document.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines for the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy protectants.

PURPOSE: Because toxicities associated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy can adversely affect short- and long-term patient quality of life, can limit the dose and duration of treatment, and may be life-threatening, specific agents designed to ameliorate or eliminate certain chemotherapy and radiotherapy toxicities have been developed. Variability in interpretation of the available data pertaining to the efficacy of the three United States Food and Drug Administration-approved agents that have potential chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-protectant activity-dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine-and questions about the role of these protectant agents in cancer care led to concern about the appropriate use of these agents. The American Society of Clinical Oncology sought to establish evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines for the use of dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine in patients who are not enrolled on clinical treatment trials. METHODS: A multidisciplinary Expert Panel reviewed the clinical data regarding the activity of dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine. A computerized literature search was performed using MEDLINE. In addition to reports collected by individual Panel members, all articles published in the English-speaking literature from June 1997 through December 1998 were collected for review by the Panel chairpersons, and appropriate articles were distributed to the entire Panel for review. Guidelines for use, levels of evidence, and grades of recommendation were reviewed and approved by the Panel. Outcomes considered in evaluating the benefit of a chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-protectant agent included amelioration of short- and long-term chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related toxicities, risk of tumor protection by the agent, toxicity of the protectant agent itself, quality of life, and economic impact. To the extent that these data were available, the Panel placed the greatest value on lesser toxicity that did not carry a concomitant risk of tumor protection. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Mesna: (1) Mesna, dosed as detailed in these guidelines, is recommended to decrease the incidence of standard-dose ifosfamide-associated urothelial toxicity. (2) There is insufficient evidence on which to base a guideline for the use of mesna to prevent urothelial toxicity with ifosfamide doses that exceed 2.5 g/m(2)/d. (3) Either mesna or forced saline diuresis is recommended to decrease the incidence of urothelial toxicity associated with high-dose cyclophosphamide use in the stem-cell transplantation setting. Dexrazoxane: (1) The use of dexrazoxane is not routinely recommended for patients with metastatic breast cancer who receive initial doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. (2) The use of dexrazoxane may be considered for patients with metastatic breast cancer who have received a cumulative dosage of 300 mg/m(2) or greater of doxorubicin in the metastatic setting and who may benefit from continued doxorubicin-containing therapy. (3) The use of dexrazoxane in the adjuvant setting is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. (4) The use of dexrazoxane can be considered in adult patients who have received more than 300 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin-based therapy for tumors other than breast cancer, although caution should be used in settings in which doxorubicin-based therapy has been shown to improve survival because of concerns of tumor protection by dexrazoxane. (5) There is insufficient evidence to make a guideline for the use of dexrazoxane in the treatment of pediatric malignancies, with epirubicin-based regimens, or with high-dose anthracycline-containing regimens. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence on which to base a guideline for the use of dexrazoxane in patients with cardiac risk factors or underlying cardiac disease. (6) Patients receiving dexrazoxane should continue to be monitored for cardiac toxicity. Amifostine: (1) Amifostine may be considered for the reduction of nephrotoxicity in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemoth     

American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines: the role of bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical practice guidelines for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of lytic bone disease in multiple myeloma and to determine their respective role relative to other conventional therapies for this condition. METHODS: An expert multidisciplinary Panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature through January 2002. Values for levels of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned by expert reviewers and approved by the Panel. Expert consensus was used if there were insufficient published data. The Panel addressed which patients to treat and when to treat them in the course of their disease. Additionally, specific drug delivery issues, duration of therapy, initiation of treatment and management of treatment of lytic bone disease was reviewed and compared with other forms of therapy for lytic bone lesions. Finally, the Panel discussed patient and physician expectations associated with this therapy for bony metastases, as well as public policy implications related to the use of bisphosphonates. The guidelines underwent external review by selected physicians, by the Health Services Research Committee members, and by the ASCO Board of Directors. RESULTS: The available evidence involving randomized controlled trials is modest but supports that oral clodronate, intravenous pamidronate, and intravenous zoledronic acid are superior to placebo in reducing skeletal complications. A reduction in vertebral fractures has consistently been seen across all studies. No agent has shown a definitive survival benefit. Intravenous zoledronic acid has recently been shown to be as effective as intravenous pamidronate. Because there are no direct comparisons between clodronate and pamidronate or zoledronic acid, the superiority of one agent cannot be definitively established. However, the panel recommends only intravenous pamidronate or zoledronic acid in light of the use of the time to first skeletal event as the primary end point and more complete assessment of bony complications in studies evaluating it. Additionally, clodronate is not available in the United States. The choice between pamidronate and zoledronic acid will depend on choosing between the higher drug cost of zoledronic acid, with its shorter, more convenient infusion time (15 minutes), versus the less expensive drug, pamidronate, with its longer infusion time (2 hours). CONCLUSION: Bisphosphonates provide a meaningful supportive benefit to multiple myeloma patients with lytic bone disease. However, further research on bisphosphonates is warranted, including the following: (1) when to start and stop therapy, (2) how to integrate their use with other treatments for lytic bone disease, (3) how to evaluate their role in myeloma patients without lytic bone involvement, (4) how to distinguish between symptomatic and asymptomatic bony events, and (5) how to better determine their cost-benefit consequence.     

Platelet transfusion for patients with cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective, evidence-based approach to the use of platelet transfusions in patients with cancer. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest included prevention of morbidity and mortality from hemorrhage, effects on survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction, and cost-effectiveness. EVIDENCE: A complete MedLine search was performed of the past 20 years of the medical literature. Keywords included platelet transfusion, alloimmunization, hemorrhage, threshold and thrombocytopenia. The search was broadened by articles from the bibliographies of selected articles. VALUES: Levels of evidence and guideline grades were rated by a standard process. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly related to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design. BENEFITS/HARMS/COST: The possible consequences of different approaches to the use of platelet transfusion were considered in evaluating a preference for one or another technique producing similar outcomes. Cost alone was not a determining factor. RECOMMENDATIONS: Appendix A summarizes the recommendations concerning the choice of particular platelet preparations, the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions, indications for transfusion in selected clinical situations, and the diagnosis, prevention, and management of refractoriness to platelet transfusion. VALIDATION: Five outside reviewers, the ASCO Health Services Research Committee, and the ASCO Board reviewed this document. SPONSOR: American Society of Clinical Oncology     

Use of epoetin in patients with cancer: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology.

Anemia resulting from cancer, or its treatment, is an important clinical problem increasingly treated with the recombinant hematopoietic growth factor erythropoietin. To address uncertainties regarding indications and efficacy, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of epoetin in patients with cancer. The guideline panel found good evidence to recommend use of epoetin as a treatment option for patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia with a hemoglobin level less than 10 g/dL. Use of epoetin for patients with less severe anemia (hemoglobin < 12 g/dL but never below 10 g/dL) should be determined by clinical circumstances. Good evidence from clinical trials supports the use of subcutaneous epoetin thrice weekly (150 U/kg tiw) for a minimum of 4 weeks. Less strong evidence supports an alternative weekly (40,000 U/wk) dosing regimen, based on common clinical practice. With either administration schedule, dose escalation should be considered for those not responding to the initial dose. In the absence of response, continuing epoetin beyond 6 to 8 weeks does not appear to be beneficial. Epoetin should be titrated once the hemoglobin concentration reaches 12 g/dL. Evidence from one randomized controlled trial supports use of epoetin for patients with anemia associated with low-risk myelodysplasia not receiving chemotherapy; however, there are no published high-quality studies to support its use for anemia in other hematologic malignancies in the absence of chemotherapy. Therefore, for anemic patients with hematologic malignancies, it is recommended that physicians initiate conventional therapy and observe hematologic response before considering use of epoetin.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2011 essential data: the editorial board of the Bulletin du Cancer point of view

Many data are presented each year during the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, redrawing the state of knowledge in oncology and hematology. This article proposed by the editorial board of the Bulletin du Cancer proposes to discuss new information with a drop of a few months with the aim of trying to identify the results that can have an immediate or future impact on clinical practice.     

Optimal reconstructive strategies in the setting of post-mastectomy radiotherapy - A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BackgroundA third of breast cancer patients require mastectomy. In some high-risk cases postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is indicated, threatening reconstructive complications. Several PMRT and reconstruction combinations are used. Autologous flap (AF) reconstruction may be immediate (AF→PMRT), delayed-immediate with tissue expander (TE [TE→PMRT→AF]) or delayed (PMRT→AF). Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) includes immediate TE followed by PMRT and conversion to permanent implant (PI [TE→PMRT→PI]), delayed TE insertion (PMRT→TE→PI), and prosthetic implant conversion prior to PMRT (TE→PI→PMRT).AimPerform a network metanalysis (NMA) assessing optimal sequencing of PMRT and reconstructive type.MethodsA systematic review and NMA was performed according to PRISMA-NMA guidelines. NMA was conducted using R packages netmeta and Shiny.Results16 studies from 4182 identified, involving 2322 reconstructions over three decades, met predefined inclusion criteria. Studies demonstrated moderate heterogeneity. Multiple comparisons combining direct and indirect evidence established AF-PMRT as the optimal approach to avoid reconstructive failure, compared with IBBR strategies (versus PMRT→TE→PI; OR [odds ratio] 0.10, CrI [95% credible interval] 0.02 to 0.55; versus TE→PMRT→PI; OR 0.13, CrI 0.02 to 0.75; versus TE→PI→PMRT OR 0.24, CrI 0.05 to 1.05). PMRT→AF best avoided infection, demonstrating significant improvement versus PMRT→TE→PI alone (OR 0.12, CrI 0.02 to 0.88). Subgroup analysis of IBBR found TE→PI→PMRT reduced failure rates (OR 0.35, CrI 0.15–0.81) compared to other IBBR strategies but increased capsular contracture.ConclusionImmediate AF reconstruction is associated with reduced failure in the setting of PMRT. However, optimal reconstructive strategy depends on patient, surgeon and institutional factors. If IBBR is chosen, complication rates decrease if performed prior to PMRT.Prospero registrationCRD 42020157077.     

Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines 2010 for antiemesis in oncology: executive summary

The purpose of this article is to disseminate the standard of antiemetic therapy for Japanese clinical oncologists. On the basis of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument, which reflects evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, a working group of the Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) reviewed clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis and performed a systematic review of evidence-based domestic practice guidelines for antiemetic therapy in Japan. In addition, because health-insurance systems in Japan are different from those in other countries, a consensus was reached regarding standard treatments for chemotherapy that induce nausea and vomiting. Current evidence was collected by use of MEDLINE, from materials from meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and from European Society of Medical Oncology/Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer guidelines for antiemesis. Initially, 21 clinical questions (CQ) were selected on the basis of CQs from other guidelines. Patients treated with highly emetic agents should receive a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5HT₃) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist. For patients with moderate emetic risk, 5HT₃ receptor antagonists and dexamethasone were recommended, whereas for those receiving chemotherapy with low emetic risk dexamethasone only is recommended. Patients receiving high-emetic-risk radiation therapy should also receive a 5HT₃ receptor antagonist. In this paper the 2010 JSCO clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis are presented in English; they reveal high concordance of Japanese medical circumstances with other antiemetic guidelines that are similarly based on evidence.     

Use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: comparison of the 1994 and 1997 American Society of Clinical Oncology surveys regarding ASCO clinical practice guidelines. Health Services Research Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee sought to assess whether more appropriate patterns of colony-stimulating factor (CSF) use occurred after the publication of ASCO evidence-based practice guidelines in 1994 and 1996 for patients with solid tumors or lymphoma. METHODS: In 1994 and 1997, questionnaires describing clinical scenarios were mailed to ASCO members who practiced medical oncology. Physicians were asked the extent to which they preferred to use a CSF for primary prophylaxis, secondary prophylaxis, or treatment of neutropenic complications. Multiple regression analyses were used to determine predictors of overall propensity to use CSFs and, when using a CSF, propensity to support longer schedules of CSF use. RESULTS: Decreased use of CSFs was shown in the following situations: (1) treatment for febrile neutropenia without localizing signs (39% in 1994 v 29% in 1997) or with a right lower lobe infiltrate (54% v 46%); (2) primary prophylaxis with paclitaxel for ovarian cancer (20% v 11%) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine chemotherapy for small-cell lung cancer (8.4% v 4.6%); and (3) secondary prophylaxis after afebrile neutropenia following chemotherapy for germ cell tumors (44.5% v 36.0%). One third fewer physicians supported the extended use of CSFs until an absolute neutrophil count >/= 10,000/mm(3) or a WBC count >/= 10,000/mm(3) was reached, both counts serving as criteria for stopping CSF therapy. However, we observed high rates of CSF use despite ASCO guideline recommendations against use in the following clinical situations: (1) primary prophylaxis in patients at low risk of febrile neutropenia (6% v 16%); (2) secondary prophylaxis late in the course of curative and palliative therapy (80% v 53%); and (3) treatment of afebrile and uncomplicated febrile neutropenia (30% v 60%). In 1994 and 1997, fee-for-service physicians were more likely than other physicians to prefer use of CSF support while maintaining treatment dose and schedule instead of using dose-reduction strategies, and, when using a CSF, they were more likely to support longer CSF treatment schedules (P <.05 for both scenarios). CONCLUSION: Decreased use and more appropriate use of CSFs in accordance with ASCO guideline recommendations occurred from 1994 to 1997, but there remain many opportunities to reduce CSF use with no clinical harm. Many oncologists continue to support the use of CSFs in scenarios and with scheduling criteria that the guidelines and evidence do not support. ASCO's evidence-based guidelines should be linked with formal continuous quality improvement initiatives to substantially improve the quality of supportive oncology care.     

Updated clinical guideline for human papillomavirus vaccine: the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines

Since the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine guidelines were developed by the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) in 2011, 2016, and 2019, several recent studies on the efficacy and safety of HPV vaccines in middle-aged women and men have been reported. Furthermore, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of the HPV vaccine in women with prior HPV infection or who have undergone conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We searched and reviewed studies on the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine in middle-aged women and men and the efficacy of the HPV vaccine in patients infected with HPV and those who underwent conization for CIN. The KSGO updated their guidelines based on the results of the studies included in this review.     

2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 1997 clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of breast and colorectal cancers. These guidelines are intended for use in the care of patients outside of clinical trials. OPTIONS: Six tumor markers for colorectal cancer and eight for breast cancer were considered. They could be recommended or not for routine use or for special circumstances. In addition to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CA 15-3, CA 27.29 was also considered among the serum tumor markers for breast cancer. OUTCOMES: In general, the significant health outcomes identified for use in making clinical practice guidelines (overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, lesser toxicity, and cost-effectiveness) were used. EVIDENCE: A computerized literature search from 1994 to March 1999 was performed. VALUES: The same values for use, utility, and levels of evidence were used by the committee. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The same benefit, harms, and costs were used. RECOMMENDATION: Changes were recommended (see Appendix). VALIDATION: The updated recommendations were validated by external review by the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) Health Services Research Committee and by ASCO's Board of Directors. SPONSOR: American Society of Clinical Oncology.     

Chemical sensitizers for hypoxic cells: a decade of experience in clinical radiotherapy

The clinical work with chemical agents to restore the radiosensitivity of hypoxic cells began in 1973 with metronidazole, misonidazole was first given in 1974. The results so far recorded of the clinical trials with misonidazole have been generally disappointing. Only in 5 of 32 studies analyzed have significant benefits been shown to suggest real advantage with the use of misonidazole. Hypoxic cells must exist in all human tumours presenting for treatment and it is, however, probable that the oxygen effect is an important one at all dose fractionation regimes employed in radiotherapy but, after conventional fractionated radiotherapy, hypoxia may be a reason for failure in only a proportion of cases. The most important factor underlying the failure of misonidazole to achieve useful advantage is undoubtedly the low radiosensitizing concentrations achievable with the permitted dose of this neurotoxic drug. New drugs are under development and some have different dose-limiting toxicity. Those showing promise at this time are the Stanford compound, SR-2508, which is being extensively studied in the United States and the Roche compound, Ro 03-8799, which is being studied in the United Kingdom. It is possible that the greatest sensitization with the greatest tolerance will be achieved by a combination of drugs.     

Adherence to and uptake of clinical practice guidelines: lessons learned from a clinical practice guideline on chemotherapy concomitant with radiotherapy in head-and-neck cancer

Background

Clinical practice guidelines (cpgs) are systematically developed statements designed to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate heath care interventions. Clinical practice guidelines are expensive and time-consuming to create. A cpg on concurrent chemotherapy with radiation therapy (ccrt) was developed in Ontario at a time when treatment approaches for head-and-neck cancer were changing significantly.

Methods

An assessment of treatments and outcomes based on electronic and chart data obtained from a population-based study of 571 patients with oropharynx cancer treated in Ontario (2003–2004) was combined with a review of relevant knowledge transfer (publications and presentations at major meetings) to understand variation in adherence to a cpg.

Results

In 9 Ontario cancer treatment centres, ccrt was used for 55% of all patients with oropharyngeal cancer; however, at the centres individually, that proportion ranged from 82% to 39%. Furthermore, there was no agreement on the chemotherapy regimen: 2–4 years later (a period during which newer regimens were emerging), only 4 of 9 centres were following the guideline for most patients. When outcomes of treated patients were compared for centres with “higher” and “lower” use of ccrt, no difference in survival was observed (p = 0.64).

Conclusions

At a time of treatment evolution, the new guideline was controversial, and there are many reasons for the mixed adherence. An estimation of adherence should be included during both development and review of guidelines.