Approach to fever assessment in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: This guideline was prepared by the Fever Assessment Guideline Development Group, a group organized by the Program in Evidence-Based Care at the request of the Cancer Care Ontario Systemic Treatment Program. The mandate was to develop a standardized approach (in terms of definitions, information, and education) for the assessment of fever in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: The guideline development methods included a search for existing guidelines, literature searches in medline and embase for systematic reviews and primary studies, internal review by content and methodology experts, and external review by targeted experts and intended users. RESULTS: The search identified eight guidelines that had partial relevance to the topic of the present guideline and thirty-eight primary studies. The studies were mostly noncomparative prospective or retrospective studies. Few studies directly addressed the topic of fever except as one among many symptoms or adverse effects associated with chemotherapy. The recommendations concerning fever definition are supported mainly by other existing guidelines. No evidence was found that directly pertained to the assessment of fever before a diagnosis of febrile neutropenia was made. However, some studies evaluated approaches to symptom management that included fever among the symptoms. Few studies directly addressed information needs and resources for managing fever in cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Fever in patients with cancer who are receiving systemic therapy is a common and potentially serious symptom that requires prompt assessment, but currently, evidence to inform best practices concerning when, where, and by whom that assessment is done is very limited.

Bortezomib in multiple myeloma: systematic review and clinical considerations.

We conducted a systematic review to determine the appropriate use of bortezomib alone or in combination with other agents in patients with multiple myeloma (mm). We searched medline, embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of included studies. We analyzed randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews if they involved adult mm patients treated with bortezomib and if they reported on survival, disease control, response, quality of life, or adverse effects. Twenty-six unique studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients with previously untreated mm and for candidates for transplantation, we found a statistically significant benefit in time to progression [hazard ratio (hr): 0.48, p < 0.001; and hr: 0.63, p = 0.006, respectively] and a better response with a bortezomib than with a non-bortezomib regimen (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer with bortezomib and thalidomide than with thalidomide alone (p = 0.01). In non-candidates for transplantation, a significant benefit in overall survival was observed with a bortezomib regimen (hr compared with a non-bortezomib regimen: 0.61; p = 0.008), and in transplantation candidates receiving bortezomib, the response rate was improved after induction (p = 0.004) and after a first transplant (p = 0.016). In relapsed or refractory mm, overall survival (p = 0.03), time to progression (hr: 1.82; p = 0.000004), and progression-free survival (hr: 1.69; p = 0.000026) were significantly improved with bortezomib and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (compared with bortezomib alone), and bortezomib monotherapy was better than dexamethasone alone (hr: 0.77; p = 0.027). Bortezomib combined with thalidomide and dexamethasone was better than either bortezomib monotherapy or thalidomide with dexamethasone (p < 0.001). In previously untreated or in relapsed or refractory mm patients, bortezomib-based therapy has improved disease control and, in some patients, overall survival.

First-line therapy, autologous stem-cell transplantation, and post-transplantation maintenance in the management of newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma.

Background: In Ontario, no clearly defined standard of care for the management of mantle cell lymphoma (mcl) has been developed, and substantial variability from centre to centre is evident. This guidance document was prompted by the need to harmonize practice in Ontario with respect to first-line, conditioning, and post-transplantation maintenance therapy for patients newly diagnosed with transplantation-eligible mcl. Methods: The medline and embase databases were systematically searched from January 2013 to January 2020 for evidence, and the best available evidence was used to draft recommendations relevant to first-line therapy, autologous stem-cell transplantation, and post-transplantation maintenance in the management of transplantation-eligible newly diagnosed mcl. Final approval of this guidance document was obtained from the Stem Cell Transplant Advisory Committee. Recommendations: These recommendations apply to all cases of transplantation-eligible newly diagnosed mcl:■ Alternating cycles of r-chop (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-vincristine-prednisolone) and r-dhap [rituximab plus dexamethasone-high-dose cytarabine-cisplatin] is the recommended first-line treatment for symptomatic patients newly diagnosed with mcl before autologous stem-cell transplantation (asct).■ Rituximab plus hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (r-hypercvad), alternating with methotrexate and cytarabine, is not recommended for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed mcl.■ beam (carmustine-etoposide-cytarabine-melphalan), beac (carmustine-etoposide-cytarabine-cyclophosphamide), and total-body irradiation-based regimens are reasonable conditioning options for patients with mcl who have responded to first-line therapy and who are undergoing asct.■ Maintenance therapy with rituximab is recommended for patients with newly diagnosed mcl who have undergone asct.

Rituximab in Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: A Practice Guideline.

Rituximab is the first monoclonal antibody to be approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration in cancer. Its role in the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), has evolved significantly. We aimed to systematically review and update the literature on rituximab in lymphoma and CLL, and provide evidence-based consensus guidelines for its rational use. Validated methodology from the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-based Care was used. A comprehensive literature search was completed by a methodologist from the Hematology Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario. Data were extracted from randomised controlled trials of rituximab-containing chemotherapy regimens for patients with lymphoma or CLL. Fifty-six primary randomised controlled trials were retrievable and met all inclusion criteria. Clinically important benefits in progression-free survival or overall survival were seen in the following settings: (i) addition of rituximab to combination chemotherapy for initial treatment of aggressive B-cell lymphomas, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma and HIV-related lymphoma with CD4 count ≥50/mm3; (ii) addition of rituximab to combination chemotherapy for initial and subsequent treatment of follicular lymphoma and other indolent B-cell lymphomas; (iii) use of rituximab maintenance in patients with indolent B-cell lymphomas who have responded to chemoimmunotherapy; (iv) addition of rituximab to fludarabine-based chemotherapy or chlorambucil for initial treatment of CLL. The consensus opinion of the Hematology Disease Site Group is that rituximab is recommended for these indications.