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     

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.     

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.     

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     

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.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology 1998 update of recommended breast cancer surveillance guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To determine an effective, evidence-based, postoperative surveillance strategy for the detection and treatment of recurrent breast cancer. Tests are recommended only if they have an impact on the outcomes specified by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) for clinical practice guidelines. POTENTIAL INTERVENTION: All tests described in the literature for postoperative monitoring were considered. In addition, the data were critically evaluated to determine the optimal frequency of monitoring. OUTCOME: Outcomes of interest include overall and disease-free survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction, and secondarily cost-effectiveness. EVIDENCE: A search was performed to determine all relevant articles published over the past 20 years on the efficacy of surveillance testing for breast cancer recurrence. These publications comprised both retrospective and prospective studies. VALUES: Levels of evidence and guideline grades were rated by a standard process. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The possible consequences of false-positive and -negative tests were considered in evaluating a preference for one of two tests providing similar information. Cost alone was not a determining factor. RECOMMENDATIONS: The attached guidelines and text summarize the updated recommendations of the ASCO breast cancer expert panel. Data are sufficient to recommend monthly breast self-examination, annual mammography of the preserved and contralateral breast, and a careful history and physical examination every 3 to 6 months for 3 years, then every 6 to 12 months for 2 years, then annually. Data are not sufficient to recommend routine bone scans, chest radiographs, hematologic blood counts, tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen [CA] 15-5, and CA 27.29), liver ultrasonograms, or computed tomography scans. VALIDATION: The recommendations of the breast cancer expert panel were evaluated and supported by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee reviewers and the ASCO Board of Directors.     

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.     

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.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2002

Brain tumor surgery is one of the key factors in prolonging survival in patients with low- and high-grade gliomas. However, resections of these infiltrative lesions have historically been limited by the inability to accurately detect tumor margins. New methods in microscopy and dye injection have enabled more complete resections, but continue to lack biochemical specificity or high-resolution image acquisition. Stimulated Raman scattering microscopy represents an improvement over past techniques in the ability to differentiate intraparenchymal tissues on the basis of biochemical attributes, and is available for use in real-time, a feature that facilitates its translation to the surgical setting.     

Spanish Society of Medical Oncology consensus for the use of haematopoietic colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients

Neutropenia is a common complication of cancer chemotherapy. Colony-stimulating factors (CSF) may be used to avoid neutropenia-associated complications. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) recently constituted a working group to review the main issues concerning the use of CSF and carried out a consensus process about the use of CSF in cancer patients, held in Madrid on 26 May 2006. The group concluded the following recommendations: prophylactic use of CSF is recommended when a rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) higher than 20% is expected without the use of CSF or when additional risk factors for neutropenia exist; therapeutic use of CSF is recommended in order to treat FN episodes but not to treat afebrile neutropenic episodes. In addition, the use of CSF is considered effective when used to mobilise stem cells before high-dose chemotherapy and when used for chemotherapy schedule optimisation in dose-dense and in dose-intense regimens. Supported by an unrestricted educational grant from MSD Oncology     

Perspectives on the value of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines as reported by oncologists and health maintenance organizations.

PURPOSE: Although the American Society of Clinical Onoclogy's (ASCO) Health Services Research (HSR) committee activities have primarily focused on clinical guideline development, little is known about the value placed on these guidelines by the desired end users. ASCO members and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) were surveyed on the value and implementation of ASCO guidelines. In this article, we summarize our findings. METHODS: ASCO members (n = 1500) were queried about whether they had read ASCO's first four clinical guidelines and technology assessment; whether they agreed with the recommendations; whether they used guidelines in clinical practice; and how guidelines had affected reimbursement. HMOs (n = 131) were queried on how they identify, implement, and value the first four ASCO clinical guidelines. RESULTS: The membership survey indicated that ASCO guidelines were read more often by physicians in private healthcare settings compared with physicians in academic practices (P <.02). Disagreement rates were low for all guidelines (range, 1% to 7%). One quarter of respondents reported that the guidelines were difficult to find and difficult to apply to the practice setting, and approximately one tenth of respondents indicated that the guidelines were difficult to evaluate, interpret, or read. The HMO survey indicated that one third of HMOs reported use of ASCO guidelines, with higher rates of usage by larger HMOs and by those with higher National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) ratings. Respondent HMOs valued guidelines for various purposes and used multiple methods of guideline identification and implementation. CONCLUSION: ASCO guidelines are generally highly supported by physicians and HMOs. Additional studies are needed to identify implementation barriers and to see whether guidelines have resulted in improvements in healthcare.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology Bisphosphonates Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical practice guidelines for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone metastases in breast cancer and their role relative to other therapies for this condition. METHODS: An expert multidisciplinary panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature and meeting abstracts through May 1999. Additional data collected as part of randomized trials and submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration were also reviewed, and investigators were contacted for more recent information. 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 in their course of disease, specific drug delivery issues, duration of therapy, management of bony metastases with other therapies, and the public policy implications. The guideline underwent external review by selected physicians, members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors. RESULTS: Bisphosphonates have not had an impact on the most reliable cancer end point: overall survival. The benefits have been reductions in skeletal complications, ie, pathologic fractures, surgery for fracture or impending fracture, radiation, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia. Intravenous (IV) pamidronate 90 mg delivered over 1 to 2 hours every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have imaging evidence of lytic destruction of bone and who are concurrently receiving systemic therapy with hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. For women with only an abnormal bone scan but without bony destruction by imaging studies or localized pain, there is insufficient evidence to suggest starting bisphosphonates. Starting bisphosphonates in patients without evidence of bony metastasis, even in the presence of other extraskeletal metastases, is not recommended. Studies of bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting have yielded inconsistent results. Starting bisphosphonates in patients at any stage of their nonosseous disease, outside of clinical trials, despite a high risk for future bone metastasis, is currently not recommended. Oral bisphosphonates are one of several options which can be used for preservation of bone density in premenopausal patients with treatment-induced menopause. The panel suggests that, once initiated, IV bisphosphonates be continued until evidence of substantial decline in a patient's general performance status. The panel stresses that clinical judgment must guide what is a substantial decline. There is no evidence addressing the consequences of stopping bisphosphonates after one or more adverse skeletal events. Symptoms in the spine, pelvis, or femur require careful evaluation for spinal cord compression and pathologic fracture before bisphosphonate use and if symptoms recur, persist, or worsen during therapy. The panel recommends that current standards of care for cancer pain, analgesics and local radiation therapy, not be displaced by bisphosphonates. IV pamidronate is recommended in women with pain caused by osteolytic metastasis to relieve pain when used concurrently with systemic chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy, since it was associated with a modest pain control benefit in controlled trials. CONCLUSION: Bisphosphonates provide a meaningful supportive but not life-prolonging benefit to many patients with bone metastases from cancer. Further research is warranted to identify clinical predictors of when to start and stop therapy, to integrate their use with other treatments for bone metastases, to identify their role in the adjuvant setting in preventing bone metastases, and to better determine their cost-benefit consequences.     

43. Jahrestagung der American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007

Ohne Zusammenfassung