Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 32
Filter
1.
Arch Pathol Lab Med ; 142(11): 1364-1382, 2018 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29846104

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE.­: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline. METHODS.­: Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS.­: Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in >10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not "must") be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended workup for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 ( HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio ≥2.0; average HER2 copy number <4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio <2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio <2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥4.0 and <6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor , Breast Neoplasms , Medical Oncology , Receptor, ErbB-2 , Female , Humans , Biomarkers, Tumor/analysis , Immunohistochemistry/methods , Immunohistochemistry/standards , In Situ Hybridization/methods , In Situ Hybridization/standards , Medical Oncology/methods , Medical Oncology/standards , Receptor, ErbB-2/analysis , United States , Systematic Reviews as Topic
2.
J Clin Oncol ; 36(20): 2105-2122, 2018 07 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29846122

ABSTRACT

Purpose To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline. Methods Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations. Recommendations Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in > 10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not "must") be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended work-up for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 ( HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio ≥ 2.0; average HER2 copy number < 4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio < 2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥ 6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio < 2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥ 4.0 and < 6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results. Find additional information at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Receptor, ErbB-2 , Humans , Biopsy , Breast Neoplasms/enzymology , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Immunohistochemistry/methods , Immunohistochemistry/standards , Receptor, ErbB-2/analysis , Systematic Reviews as Topic
3.
J Clin Oncol ; 35(20): 2324-2328, 2017 Jul 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28398845

ABSTRACT

Purpose To update the Potentially Curable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline published on May 31, 2016. The October 2016 update focuses solely on new evidence that pertains to clinical question 4 of the guideline: What is the appropriate adjuvant regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer who have undergone an R0 or R1 resection of their primary tumor? Methods The recently published results of a randomized phase III study prompted an update of this guideline. The high quality of the reported evidence and the potential for its clinical impact prompted the Expert Panel to revise one of the guideline recommendations. Results The ESPAC-4 study, a multicenter, international, open-label randomized controlled phase III trial of adjuvant combination chemotherapy compared gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in 730 evaluable patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Median overall survival was improved in the doublet arm to 28.0 months (95% CI, 23.5 to 31.5 months) versus 25.5 months (95% CI, 22.7 to 27.9 months) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98; P = .032). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were similar in both arms, although higher rates of hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea occurred in patients randomly assigned to the doublet arm. Recommendations All patients with resected pancreatic cancer who did not receive preoperative therapy should be offered 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the absence of medical or surgical contraindications. The doublet regimen of gemcitabine and capecitabine is preferred in the absence of concerns for toxicity or tolerance; alternatively, monotherapy with gemcitabine or fluorouracil plus folinic acid can be offered. Adjuvant treatment should be initiated within 8 weeks of surgical resection, assuming complete recovery. The remaining recommendations from the original 2016 ASCO guideline are unchanged.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/therapy , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Pancreatic Neoplasms/therapy , Capecitabine/administration & dosage , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Deoxycytidine/administration & dosage , Deoxycytidine/analogs & derivatives , Humans , Pancreatectomy , Gemcitabine
4.
J Clin Oncol ; 34(2): 179-85, 2016 Jan 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26438111

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: An American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction after publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO update addresses the utility of extended RAS gene mutation testing in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to detect resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (MoAb) therapy. CLINICAL CONTEXT: Recent results from phase II and III clinical trials in mCRC demonstrate that patients whose tumors harbor RAS mutations in exons 2 (codons 12 and 13), 3 (codons 59 and 61), and 4 (codons 117 and 146) are unlikely to benefit from therapy with MoAbs directed against EGFR, when used as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy. RECENT DATA: In addition to the evidence reviewed in the original PCO, 11 systematic reviews with meta-analyses, two retrospective analyses, and two health technology assessments based on a systematic review were obtained. These evaluated the outcomes for patients with mCRC with no mutation detected or presence of mutation in additional exons in KRAS and NRAS. PCO: All patients with mCRC who are candidates for anti-EGFR antibody therapy should have their tumor tested in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratory for mutations in both KRAS and NRAS exons 2 (codons 12 and 13), 3 (codons 59 and 61), and 4 (codons 117 and 146). The weight of current evidence indicates that anti-EGFR MoAb therapy should only be considered for treatment of patients whose tumor is determined to not have mutations detected after such extended RAS testing.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Colorectal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Colorectal Neoplasms/genetics , ErbB Receptors/antagonists & inhibitors , Genes, ras/genetics , Genetic Testing , Molecular Targeted Therapy , Mutation , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Agents/pharmacology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Exons , GTP Phosphohydrolases/genetics , Humans , Membrane Proteins/genetics , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Molecular Targeted Therapy/methods , Predictive Value of Tests , Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)/genetics , Retrospective Studies
5.
J Clin Oncol ; 34(21): 2541-56, 2016 07 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27247221

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others on potentially curative therapy for patients with localized pancreatic cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened a panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative care, and advocacy experts and conducted a systematic review of literature from January 2002 to June 2015. Outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: A multiphase computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis or magnetic resonance imaging should be performed for all patients to assess the anatomic relationships of the primary tumor and for the presence of intra-abdominal metastases. Baseline performance status, comorbidity profile, and goals of care should be evaluated and established. Primary surgical resection is recommended for all patients who have no metastases, appropriate performance and comorbidity profiles, and no radiographic interface between primary tumor and mesenteric vasculature. Preoperative therapy is recommended for patients who meet specific characteristics. All patients with resected pancreatic cancer who did not receive preoperative therapy should be offered 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the absence of contraindications. Adjuvant chemoradiation may be offered to patients who did not receive preoperative therapy with microscopically positive margins (R1) after resection and/or who had node-positive disease after completion of 4 to 6 months of systemic adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients should have a full assessment of symptoms, psychological status, and social supports and should receive palliative care early. Patients who have completed treatment and have no evidence of disease should be monitored. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/PCPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.


Subject(s)
Pancreatic Neoplasms/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Combined Modality Therapy , Humans , Medical Oncology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Societies, Medical
6.
J Oncol Pract ; 12(12): 1262-1271, 2016 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27868581

ABSTRACT

Purpose To update the ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards and to highlight standards for pediatric oncology. Methods The ASCO/ONS Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards were first published in 2009 and updated in 2011 to include inpatient settings. A subsequent 2013 revision expanded the standards to include the safe administration and management of oral chemotherapy. A joint ASCO/ONS workshop with stakeholder participation, including that of the Association of Pediatric Hematology Oncology Nurses and American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, was held on May 12, 2015, to review the 2013 standards. An extensive literature search was subsequently conducted, and public comments on the revised draft standards were solicited. Results The updated 2016 standards presented here include clarification and expansion of existing standards to include pediatric oncology and to introduce new standards: most notably, two-person verification of chemotherapy preparation processes, administration of vinca alkaloids via minibags in facilities in which intrathecal medications are administered, and labeling of medications dispensed from the health care setting to be taken by the patient at home. The standards were reordered and renumbered to align with the sequential processes of chemotherapy prescription, preparation, and administration. Several standards were separated into their respective components for clarity and to facilitate measurement of adherence to a standard. Conclusion As oncology practice has changed, so have chemotherapy administration safety standards. Advances in technology, cancer treatment, and education and training have prompted the need for periodic review and revision of the standards. Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/chemo-standards .


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Medical Oncology/standards , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Oncology Nursing/standards , Patient Safety/standards , Societies, Medical/standards , Societies, Nursing/standards , Humans , Pediatrics/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , United States
7.
J Clin Oncol ; 34(22): 2654-68, 2016 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27247216

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts and conducted a systematic review of the literature from January 2002 to June 2015. Outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. The goals of care, patient preferences, psychological status, support systems, and symptoms should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. Initial systemic chemotherapy (6 months) with a combination regimen is recommended for most patients (for some patients radiation therapy may be offered up front) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a favorable comorbidity profile. There is no clear evidence to support one regimen over another. The gemcitabine-based combinations and treatments recommended in the metastatic setting (eg, fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel) have not been evaluated in randomized controlled trials involving locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer. If there is local disease progression after induction chemotherapy, without metastasis, then radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiotherapy may be offered also with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and an adequate comorbidity profile. If there is stable disease after 6 months of induction chemotherapy but unacceptable toxicities, radiation therapy may be offered as an alternative. Patients with disease progression should be offered treatment per the ASCO Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Guideline. Follow-up visits every 3 to 4 months are recommended. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/LAPC and www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.


Subject(s)
Pancreatic Neoplasms/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Medical Oncology , Societies, Medical , United States
8.
J Clin Oncol ; 34(23): 2784-96, 2016 08 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27247222

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts to conduct a systematic review of the literature from April 2004 to June 2015. Outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological status, support systems, and symptom burden should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; favorable comorbidity profile) or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB) -paclitaxel (adequate comorbidity profile) should be offered to patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available. Gemcitabine alone is recommended for patients with ECOG PS 2 or with a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens; the addition of capecitabine or erlotinib may be offered. Patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 3 and poorly controlled comorbid conditions should be offered cancer-directed therapy only on a case-by-case basis; supportive care should be emphasized. For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX, an ECOG PS 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or nanoliposomal irinotecan should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, ECOG PS 0 to 1, and favorable comorbidity profile, and gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/secondary , Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/therapy , Pancreatic Neoplasms/pathology , Pancreatic Neoplasms/therapy , Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/diagnostic imaging , Communication , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Pain Management , Palliative Care , Pancreatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Patient Care Planning , Patient Care Team , Symptom Assessment
9.
J Clin Oncol ; 33(2): 209-17, 2015 Jan 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25452455

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on prevention, screening, genetics, treatment, and management for people at risk for hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndromes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The Familial Risk-Colorectal Cancer: European Society for Medical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline published in 2013 on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Guidelines Working Group in Annals of Oncology was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists, with content and recommendations reviewed by an ASCO endorsement panel. RESULTS: The ASCO endorsement panel determined that the recommendations of the ESMO guidelines are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. The ASCO panel endorsed the ESMO guidelines and added a few qualifying statements. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approximately 5% to 6% of patient cases of CRC are associated with germline mutations that confer an inherited predisposition for cancer. The possibility of a hereditary cancer syndrome should be assessed for every patient at the time of CRC diagnosis. A diagnosis of Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, or another genetic syndrome can influence clinical management for patients with CRC and their family members. Screening for hereditary cancer syndromes in patients with CRC should include review of personal and family histories and testing of tumors for DNA mismatch repair deficiency and/or microsatellite instability. Formal genetic evaluation is recommended for individuals who meet defined criteria.


Subject(s)
Adenomatous Polyposis Coli/diagnosis , Adenomatous Polyposis Coli/therapy , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/therapy , Genetic Testing , Heterozygote , Population Surveillance , Adenomatous Polyposis Coli/genetics , Adenomatous Polyposis Coli/prevention & control , Adenomatous Polyposis Coli Protein/genetics , Anticarcinogenic Agents/administration & dosage , Chemoprevention/methods , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/genetics , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/prevention & control , DNA Glycosylases/genetics , DNA Mismatch Repair , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Genetic Counseling , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Germ-Line Mutation , Humans , Medical History Taking , Microsatellite Instability , Population Surveillance/methods , Sigmoidoscopy
10.
Arch Pathol Lab Med ; 138(2): 241-56, 2014 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24099077

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. METHODS: ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing. RESULTS: The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to >10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor , Breast Neoplasms , Mammary Glands, Human , Neoplasm Proteins , Receptor, ErbB-2 , Female , Humans , Biomarkers, Tumor/metabolism , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/metabolism , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Immunohistochemistry , In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence , Mammary Glands, Human/metabolism , Mammary Glands, Human/pathology , Neoplasm Invasiveness , Neoplasm Proteins/metabolism , Predictive Value of Tests , Receptor, ErbB-2/metabolism , Societies, Medical , United States , Systematic Reviews as Topic
11.
J Clin Oncol ; 31(35): 4465-70, 2013 Dec 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24220554

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing recent clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Guideline on Follow-up Care, Surveillance Protocol, and Secondary Prevention Measures for Survivors of Colorectal Cancer was reviewed by ASCO for methodologic rigor and considered for endorsement. RESULTS: The ASCO Panel concurred with the CCO recommendations and recommended endorsement, with the addition of several qualifying statements. CONCLUSION: Surveillance should be guided by presumed risk of recurrence and functional status of the patient (important within the first 2 to 4 years). Medical history, physical examination, and carcinoembryonic antigen testing should be performed every 3 to 6 months for 5 years. Patients at higher risk of recurrence should be considered for testing in the more frequent end of the range. A computed tomography scan (abdominal and chest) is recommended annually for 3 years, in most cases. Positron emission tomography scans should not be used for surveillance outside of a clinical trial. A surveillance colonoscopy should be performed 1 year after the initial surgery and then every 5 years, dictated by the findings of the previous one. If a colonoscopy was not preformed before diagnosis, it should be done after completion of adjuvant therapy (before 1 year). Secondary prevention (maintaining a healthy body weight and active lifestyle) is recommended. If a patient is not a candidate for surgery or systemic therapy because of severe comorbid conditions, surveillance tests should not be performed. A treatment plan from the specialist should have clear directions on appropriate follow-up by a nonspecialist.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Colorectal Neoplasms/therapy , Population Surveillance/methods , Secondary Prevention/methods , Survivors , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Medical Oncology/methods , Ontario , Societies, Medical , United States
12.
J Clin Oncol ; 31(19): 2500-10, 2013 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23715580

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To update guidance for health care providers about fertility preservation for adults and children with cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published from March 2006 through January 2013 was completed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Panel reviewed the evidence and updated the recommendation language. RESULTS: There were 222 new publications that met inclusion criteria. A majority were observational studies, cohort studies, and case series or reports, with few randomized clinical trials. After review of the new evidence, the Update Panel concluded that no major, substantive revisions to the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations were warranted, but clarifications were added. RECOMMENDATIONS: As part of education and informed consent before cancer therapy, health care providers (including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, gynecologic oncologists, urologists, hematologists, pediatric oncologists, and surgeons) should address the possibility of infertility with patients treated during their reproductive years (or with parents or guardians of children) and be prepared to discuss fertility preservation options and/or to refer all potential patients to appropriate reproductive specialists. Although patients may be focused initially on their cancer diagnosis, the Update Panel encourages providers to advise patients regarding potential threats to fertility as early as possible in the treatment process so as to allow for the widest array of options for fertility preservation. The discussion should be documented. Sperm and embryo cryopreservation as well as oocyte cryopreservation are considered standard practice and are widely available. Other fertility preservation methods should be considered investigational and should be performed by providers with the necessary expertise.


Subject(s)
Cryopreservation , Infertility/etiology , Infertility/prevention & control , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Education as Topic/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Communication , Decision Making , Embryo, Mammalian , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Fertility/drug effects , Fertility/radiation effects , Health Services Accessibility , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Infertility, Female/etiology , Infertility, Female/prevention & control , Infertility, Male/etiology , Infertility, Male/prevention & control , Interdisciplinary Communication , Male , Oocytes , Ovary/drug effects , Patient Care Team , Referral and Consultation , United States
13.
J Clin Oncol ; 31(10): 1357-70, 2013 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23460705

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based guideline on central venous catheter (CVC) care for patients with cancer that addresses catheter type, insertion site, and placement as well as prophylaxis and management of both catheter-related infection and thrombosis. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (1980 to July 2012) identified relevant articles published in English. RESULTS: The overall quality of the randomized controlled trial evidence was rated as good. There is consistency among meta-analyses and guidelines compiled by other groups as well. RECOMMENDATIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend one CVC type or insertion site; femoral catheterization should be avoided. CVC should be placed by well-trained providers, and the use of a CVC clinical care bundle is recommended. The use of antimicrobial/antiseptic-impregnated and/or heparin-impregnated CVCs is recommended to decrease the risk of catheter-related infections for short-term CVCs, particularly in high-risk groups; more research is needed. The prophylactic use of systemic antibiotics is not recommended before insertion. Data are not sufficient to recommend for or against routine use of antibiotic flush/lock therapy; more research is needed. Before starting antibiotic therapy, cultures should be obtained. Some life-threatening infections require immediate catheter removal, but most can be treated with antimicrobial therapy while the CVC remains in place. Routine flushing with saline is recommended. Prophylactic use of warfarin or low-molecular weight heparin is not recommended, although a tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) is recommended to restore patency to occluded catheters. CVC removal is recommended when the catheter is no longer needed or if there is a radiologically confirmed thrombosis that worsens despite anticoagulation therapy.


Subject(s)
Catheterization, Central Venous/methods , Medical Oncology/methods , Neoplasms/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Catheter-Related Infections/microbiology , Catheter-Related Infections/prevention & control , Central Venous Catheters/microbiology , Humans , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Thrombosis/prevention & control , United States
14.
J Clin Oncol ; 31(31): 3997-4013, 2013 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24101045

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. METHODS: ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing. RESULTS: The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to > 10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing. This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both Journal of Clinical Oncology and the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor , Breast Neoplasms , Medical Oncology , Receptor, ErbB-2 , Female , Humans , Biomarkers, Tumor/analysis , Biomarkers, Tumor/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Medical Oncology/standards , Receptor, ErbB-2/genetics , United States , Systematic Reviews as Topic
19.
Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol ; 20(3): 214-63, 2012 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22505008

ABSTRACT

Assessment of hormone receptors (estrogen and progesterone) helps to direct therapy for women with breast cancer. Immunohistochemistry is most commonly used to assess hormone receptor status and it is essential that these tests are performed accurately and reliably within and across laboratories. The overall purpose of this guideline is to improve the quality and accuracy of hormone receptor testing and its utility as a prognostic and predictive marker for invasive and in situ breast cancer. Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and abstracts from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium were searched. An environmental scan of the internet and of international guideline developers and key organizations was performed. Preanalytic elements such as the collection, fixation, and storage of samples, and analytic elements such as selection of antibodies and scoring methods that seem to offer the best results for immunohistochemical assessment of hormone receptors are presented. Proficiency testing or quality assurance of immunohistochemistry is described.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Immunohistochemistry/methods , Receptors, Estrogen/genetics , Receptors, Progesterone/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Female , Gene Expression , Humans , Neoplasms, Hormone-Dependent/diagnosis , Neoplasms, Hormone-Dependent/genetics , Neoplasms, Hormone-Dependent/pathology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prognosis , Quality Control , Research Design , Specimen Handling , Tissue Fixation
20.
J Clin Oncol ; 30(13): 1553-61, 2012 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22473167

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations for appropriate cytotoxic chemotherapy dosing for obese adult patients with cancer. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a Panel of experts in medical and gynecologic oncology, clinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics, and biostatistics and a patient representative. MEDLINE searches identified studies published in English between 1996 and 2010, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. A majority of studies involved breast, ovarian, colon, and lung cancers. This guideline does not address dosing for novel targeted agents. RESULTS: Practice pattern studies demonstrate that up to 40% of obese patients receive limited chemotherapy doses that are not based on actual body weight. Concerns about toxicity or overdosing in obese patients with cancer, based on the use of actual body weight, are unfounded. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Panel recommends that full weight-based cytotoxic chemotherapy doses be used to treat obese patients with cancer, particularly when the goal of treatment is cure. There is no evidence that short- or long-term toxicity is increased among obese patients receiving full weight-based doses. Most data indicate that myelosuppression is the same or less pronounced among the obese than the non-obese who are administered full weight-based doses. Clinicians should respond to all treatment-related toxicities in obese patients in the same ways they do for non-obese patients. The use of fixed-dose chemotherapy is rarely justified, but the Panel does recommend fixed dosing for a few select agents. The Panel recommends further research into the role of pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics to guide appropriate dosing of obese patients with cancer.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Drug Dosage Calculations , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Obesity/complications , Adult , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Agents/pharmacokinetics , Body Surface Area , Body Weight , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Neoplasms/complications , Pharmacogenetics , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL