Complex surgery and perioperative systemic therapy for genitourinary cancer of the retroperitoneum.

Objective: The purpose of the present guideline is to recommend surgical or systemic treatment for metastatic testicular cancer; T3b or T4, or node-positive, and metastatic renal cell cancer (rcc); and T3, T4, or node-positive upper tract urothelial (utuc) cancer. Methods: Draft recommendations were formulated based on evidence obtained through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, comparative retrospective studies, and guideline endorsement. The draft recommendations underwent an internal review by clinical and methodology experts, and an external review by clinical practitioners. Results: The primary literature search yielded eight guidelines, five systematic reviews, and twenty-seven primary studies that met the eligibility criteria. Conclusions: Cytoreductive nephrectomy should no longer be considered the standard of care in patients with T3b or T4, or node-positive, and metastatic rcc. Eligible patients should be treated with systemic therapy and have their primary tumour removed only after review at a multidisciplinary case conference (mcc). Adjuvant sunitinib after surgery is not recommended. Patients with venous tumour thrombus should be considered for surgical intervention. Patients with T3, T4, or node-positive utuc should have their tumour removed without delay. Decisions concerning lymph node dissection should be done at a mcc and be based on stage, expertise, and imaging. Adjuvant systemic treatment is recommended for resected high-risk utuc. Patients with metastasis-positive testicular cancer with residual tumour after systemic treatment should be treated at specialized centres. For all complex retroperitoneal surgeries, the evidence shows that higher-volume centres are associated with lower rates of procedure-related mortality, and patients should be referred to higher-volume centres for surgical resection.

Systemic therapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: a clinical practice guideline.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this guideline is to recommend systemic therapy options for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer, including fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancers. METHODS: This document updates the recommendations published in the 2011 Optimal Chemotherapy for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer guideline from Cancer Care Ontario. Draft recommendations were formulated based on evidence obtained through a systematic review of phase ii and iii randomized controlled trials (rcts). The draft recommendations underwent internal review by clinical and methodology experts, and external review by clinical practitioners through a survey assessing the clinical relevance and overall quality of the guideline. Feedback from the internal and external reviews was integrated into the clinical practice guideline. RESULTS: The primary literature search yielded thirty-six primary research papers representing thirty rcts that met the eligibility criteria. The guideline provides recommendations for patients with serous tumour histologies and with recurrent, platinum-resistant, and platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence from trials that included olaparib and bevacizumab consistently shows a benefit in progression-free survival (pfs) without a corresponding benefit in overall survival (os). The Working Group for this guideline designated pfs, which is associated with symptom control, as a critical outcome. A finding of net benefit can therefore be concluded based on significant differences in pfs. However, that benefit is not without identified harms. Given the identified harms, patient involvement in the decision-making process must take into consideration the side effect profiles of olaparib and bevacizumab within the context of improved pfs but minimal change in os.

Use of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and icotinib in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review addresses the use of epidermal growth factor receptor (egfr) inhibitors in three populations of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) patients-unselected, selected, and molecularly selected-in three treatment settings: first line, second line, and maintenance. METHODS: Ninety-six randomized controlled trials found using the medline and embase databases form the basis of this review. RESULTS: In the first-line setting, data about the efficacy of egfr tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy are inconsistent. Results from studies that selected patients based on clinical characteristics are also mixed. There is high-quality evidence that an egfrtki is preferred over a platinum doublet as initial therapy for patients with an activating mutation of the EGFR gene. The egfrtkis are associated with a higher likelihood of response, longer progression-free survival, and improved quality of life. Multiple trials of second-line therapy have compared an egfrtki with chemotherapy. Meta-analysis of those data demonstrates similar progression-free and overall survival. There is consequently no preferred sequence for second-line egfrtki or second-line chemotherapy. The egfrtkis have also been evaluated as switch-maintenance therapy. No molecular marker could identify patients in whom a survival benefit was not observed; however, the magnitude of the benefit was modest. CONCLUSIONS: Determination of EGFR mutation status is essential to making appropriate treatment decisions in patients with nsclc. Patients who are EGFR mutation-positive should be treated with an egfrtki as first-line therapy. An egfrtki is still appropriate therapy in patients who are EGFR wild-type, but the selected agent should be administered as second- or third-line therapy.

Safe handling of cytotoxics: guideline recommendations.

BACKGROUND: This evidence-based practice guideline was developed to update and address new issues in the handling of cytotoxics, including the use of oral cytotoxics; the selection and use of personal protective equipment; and treatment in diverse settings, including the home setting. METHODS: The guideline was developed primarily from an adaptation and endorsement of an existing guideline and from three systematic reviews. Before publication, the guideline underwent a series of peer and external reviews to gather feedback. All comments were addressed, and the guideline was amended when required. The guideline applies to health care workers who could come into contact with cytotoxic drugs at any point in the medication circuit. The intended users are hospital administrators, educators, and managers; occupational health and safety services; and pharmacy and health care workers. RESULTS: The recommendations represent a reasonable and practical set of procedures that the intended users of this guideline should implement to minimize opportunities for accidental exposure. They are not limited to just the point of care; they cover the entire chain of cytotoxics handling from the time such agents enter the institution until they leave in the patient or as waste. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing the likelihood of accidental exposure to cytotoxic agents within the medication circuit is the main objective of this evidenced-based guideline. The recommendations differ slightly from earlier guidelines because of the availability of new evidence.

Surgical margins and handling of soft-tissue sarcoma in extremities: a clinical practice guideline.

QUESTIONS: In limb salvage surgery for extremity soft-tissue sarcoma (sts), what is an adequate surgical margin?What is the appropriate number of samples to take from the margins of a surgical resection specimen?What is the appropriate handling of surgical resection specimens? BACKGROUND: Surgery is the primary treatment for extremity sts. The combination of radiotherapy with surgery allows for limb salvage by using radiation to biologically "sterilize" microscopic extensions of tumour and to spare neurovascular and osseous structures. Adjuvant chemotherapy in sts-except for rhabdomyosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma-continues to be controversial. METHODS: The medline and embase databases (1975 to June 2011) and the Cochrane Library were searched for pertinent studies. The Web sites of the main guideline organizations and the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference proceedings (2007-2010) were also searched. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-three papers, including four guidelines, one protocol, and one abstract, were eligible for inclusion. The data suggest that patients with clear margins have a better prognosis, but no prospective studies have indicated how wide margins should be. In limb-salvage surgery for extremity sts, the procedure should be planned to achieve a clear margin. However, to preserve functionality, surgery may result in a very close (<1 cm) or even microscopically positive margin. In this circumstance, the use of preoperative or postoperative radiation should be considered. No studies described the optimal number of tissue sections required to assess adequacy of excision nor the appropriate handling of surgical resection specimens. The Sarcoma Disease Site Group made its recommendations based on expert opinion and consensus.

Sunitinib malate for gastrointestinal stromal tumour in imatinib mesylate-resistant patients: recommendations and evidence.

QUESTION: Is sunitinib malate-marketed as Sutent (Pfizer Canada, Kirkland, QC)-superior to placebo or other interventions for primary outcomes of interest in adult patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) who have developed resistance or who exhibit intolerance to imatinib mesylate (IM)? BACKGROUND: In patients with resectable disease, surgery is the mainstay of treatment for GIST; in patients with unresectable or metastatic disease, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor IM is the therapy of choice. However, some patients have primary resistance or intolerance to IM, or they progress after optimal exposure (including an escalated dose). Here, we review the evidence for treating IM-resistant GIST with sunitinib malate. METHODS: Studies of sunitinib malate were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library databases, and Web sites of guideline organizations. Outcomes of interest included time to progression, progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. RESULTS: One phase III randomized controlled trial, and one abstract and presentation describing that trial, served as the evidentiary base for this clinical practice guideline. Trial data confidently show that both time to progression and progression-free survival are highly statistically significant (p < 0.0001) in favour of sunitinib malate over placebo. Overall survival was improved with sunitinib malate (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 0.83; p = 0.007; absolute difference in weeks not reported). The most frequent of all adverse effects (experienced in greater proportion by patients on sunitinib malate) were grades 1 and 2 leucopenia (52% vs. 5% with placebo), neutropenia (43% vs. 4%), and thrombocytopenia (36% vs. 4%). Grade 3 hematologic adverse events were also reported more frequently in the sunitinib malate group, including leucopenia (4% vs. 0%), neutropenia (8% vs. 4%), lymphopenia (9% vs. 2%), and thrombocytopenia (4% vs. 0%). Toxicity comparisons did not include p values. The incidence of grades 1-3 fatigue was greater for the sunitinib malate group (34% vs. 22% with placebo). Other grade 3 nonhematologic treatment-related adverse events that occurred more frequently on sunitinib malate included hand-foot syndrome (4% vs. 0%), diarrhea (3% vs. 0%), and hypertension (3% vs. 0%). No grade 4 adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In the target population, sunitinib malate is the recommended option for second-line therapy of metastatic GIST.

A framework for the organization and delivery of systemic treatment.

BACKGROUND: Increasing systemic treatment and shortages of oncology professionals in Canada require innovative approaches to the safe and effective delivery of intravenous (IV) cancer treatment. We conducted a systematic review of the clinical and scientific literature, and an environmental scan of models in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. We then developed a framework for the organization and delivery of IV systemic treatment. METHODS: The systematic review covered the medline, embase, cinahl, and HealthStar databases. The environmental scan retrieved published and unpublished sources, coupled with a free key word search using the Google search engine. The Systemic Treatment Working Group reviewed the evidence and developed a draft framework using evidence-based analysis, existing recommendations from various jurisdictions, and expert opinion based on experience and consensus. The draft was assessed by Ontario stakeholders and reviewed and approved by Cancer Care Ontario. RESULTS: The poor quantity and quality of the evidence necessitated a consensus-derived model. That model comprises four levels of care determined by a regional systemic treatment program and three integrated structures (integrated cancer programs, affiliate institutions, and satellite institutions), each with a defined scope of practice and a specific organizational framework. INTERPRETATION: New models of care are urgently required beyond large centres, particularly in geographically remote or rural areas. Despite limited applicable evidence, the development and successful implementation of this framework is intended to create sustainable, accessible, quality care and to measurably improve patient outcomes.