Engaging cancer patients in clinical practice guideline development: a pilot study.

Background: Patient engagement is a key quality component of cancer guideline development; however, the optimal strategy for engaging patients in guideline development remains unclear. The feasibility and efficacy of two patient engagement models was tested by Cancer Care Ontario's cancer guideline development program, the Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc). Methods: In model 1, patients participated in the guideline development process as active members of a working group. In model 2, patients formed a separate consultation group to review project plans and recommendations generated by multiple working groups. Training included online resources (model 1) and an in-person orientation (model 2). The pebc's standard patient engagement process acted as a control. The study was conducted for 1 year. Surveys measured the satisfaction of patients and members of the guideline working groups with the process and the outcome of each model. Results: Three guideline projects used model 1 to engage patients, six projects used model 2 to receive feedback, and one project was used as a control group (14 patients total). Most participants, whatever the model, reported satisfaction with their experience. Key challenges to implementation included patient recruitment and long wait times between meetings (model 1), and difficulty focusing on the discussion topic and poor meeting attendance on the part of patients (model 2). Conclusions: The pilot study demonstrated that, although both models are feasible and effective for the engagement of patients in cancer guideline development, modifications are required to optimize their continued interest. The pebc will use the study results to inform the implementation of a patient engagement strategy for its program.

Chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell cancer of the anal canal: a systematic review.

Squamous cell cancer of the anal canal is a rare tumour for which there remains uncertainty regarding optimal therapy. A systematic review was conducted to summarise the evidence examining concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy or different chemotherapy regimens in combination with radiotherapy. MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference proceedings were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials. Outcomes of interest were colostomy rate, local failure, overall survival, disease-free survival, adverse effects and quality of life. Six randomised controlled trials were identified. Two trials reported lower colostomy and local failure rates for concurrent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus mitomycin C (MMC) and radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone. The omission of MMC from this regimen resulted in higher colostomy and local failure rates and lower disease-free survival. Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent 5-FU plus cisplatin and radiotherapy resulted in a higher colostomy rate than concurrent 5-FU plus MMC and radiotherapy. Haematological toxicity rates were lower in patients who received radiotherapy with 5-FU alone or 5-FU plus cisplatin compared with 5-FU plus MMC. No benefit was seen for the addition of induction or maintenance chemotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy. The available evidence continues to support the use of radiotherapy with concurrent 5-FU and MMC as standard treatment for cancer of the anal canal to decrease colostomy and local failure rates.

Adjuvant interferon therapy for patients at high risk for recurrent melanoma: an updated systematic review and practice guideline.

After complete resection of melanoma, some patients remain at high risk for recurrence. The efficacy of adjuvant systemic therapy has been inconsistent in randomised trials and remains controversial. An updated systematic review was conducted to identify new evidence on the role of adjuvant interferon therapy in patients with high-risk resected primary melanoma. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, disease-free survival (DFS), adverse effects and quality of life. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched to identify new randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews or meta-analyses. An updated meta-analysis of trials comparing high-dose interferon alpha with observation alone was conducted. The new data are presented in this review. Seven randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: six trials of interferon alone and two trials of interferon plus chemotherapy. Two meta-analyses of adjuvant interferon alpha were also identified. Overall survival was not significantly different between adjuvant high-dose interferon and observation alone (hazard ratio 0.93; 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.12; P = 0.45). A meta-analysis of DFS showed a significant benefit for high-dose interferon over control (hazard ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.92; P = 0.004). One trial reported a significant DFS benefit for pegylated interferon over observation alone. Our updated literature review indicates that adjuvant interferon therapy does not confer a significant long-term overall survival benefit in patients with high-risk resected primary melanoma; however, a significant DFS benefit for high-dose interferon or pegylated interferon treatment has been shown. An revised practice guideline was developed based on the systematic review.

Systemic therapy for advanced gastric cancer: a clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: What is the optimal chemotherapy regimen in advanced gastric cancer? PERSPECTIVES: Gastric cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Despite low incidence rates for gastric cancer in Ontario, the overall prognosis is bleak, with 5-year survival rates of approximately 23% in Canada. Even with the considerable body of research available on chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer, uncertainty remains. There is no recognized standard treatment, and there appears to be geographic variation in practice. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest were overall survival, objective response rate (complete plus partial responses), time to disease progression, adverse effects, and quality of life. METHODOLOGY: After a systematic review, a practice guideline containing clinical recommendations relevant to patients in Ontario was drafted. The practice guideline was reviewed and approved by the Gastrointestinal Disease Site Group (gi dsg) and the Report Approval Panel of the Program in Evidence-Based Care. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a survey, the results of which were incorporated into the practice guideline. PRACTICE GUIDELINE: The gi dsg makes the following recommendations: To improve survival, a platinum agent should be included in any combination chemotherapy regimen.Within a combination chemotherapy regimen, oral capecitabine is preferred over intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5fu)-that is, epirubicin-cisplatin-capecitabine is preferred over the prior standard regimen, epirubicin-cisplatin-5fu (ecf).Epirubicin-oxaliplatin-capecitabine (eox) is a reasonable alternative to ecf. The choice between ecf and eox should be based on patient preference.Trastuzumab in combination with cisplatin and a fluoropyrimidine (5fu or oral capecitabine) is recommended for advanced gastric cancer positive for the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (her2/neu).

Primary excision margins and sentinel lymph node biopsy in clinically node-negative melanoma of the trunk or extremities.

AIMS: For patients with early-stage melanoma, uncertainty exists regarding optimal surgical excision margins of the primary tumour and surgical management of the clinically node-negative lymph node basin. We describe the process of creating a provincial guideline for the treatment of node-negative melanoma of the trunk and extremities. The following research questions were addressed: What are the optimal excision margins for clinically node-negative cutaneous melanoma and should these patients undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes were local and regional recurrence, overall and disease-free survival, and morbidity. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, National Guideline Clearinghouse, CMA Infobase and websites of guideline development organisations were systematically searched. Using the AGREE instrument, relevant guidelines were assessed and an updated literature search completed. A systematic review and practice guideline was written, reviewed and approved by the Melanoma Site Group and the Program in Evidence-based Care Report Approval Panel. External review by three melanoma experts was completed, as was an online consultation with healthcare professionals who were intended users of the guideline. RESULTS: One guideline was selected for adoption: the Australian Cancer Network National Health and Medical Research Council and the New Zealand Guidelines group 2008 melanoma guideline. An updated literature search was undertaken to include relevant studies published since the adopted guideline was completed. CONCLUSIONS: Excision margins range from 5mm to 2cm depending on the melanoma depth. Patients with a melanoma greater than 1.0mm in thickness should be given the opportunity to discuss sentinel lymph node biopsy to provide staging and prognostic information.

Adjuvant systemic chemotherapy for Stage II and III colon cancer after complete resection: an updated practice guideline.

AIMS: The standard adjuvant therapy for resected stage III colon cancer has been intravenous 5-fluorouracil. However, newer chemotherapy agents, such as capecitabine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, have been investigated in clinical trials since the publication of the original guidelines. The Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group (DSG) conducted a systematic review of the evidence for the use of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy for patients with resected stage II and III colon cancer and developed an updated practice guideline based on that evidence and expert consensus. The following research questions were addressed: Should patients with stage II or III colon cancer receive adjuvant systemic chemotherapy? What are the preferred adjuvant systemic chemotherapy options for patients with completely resected stage II or III colon cancer? Outcomes of interest were disease-free survival, overall survival, adverse effects and quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of published studies was conducted for the time period following the publication of the original guidelines to identify relevant randomised trials and syntheses of evidence in the form of meta-analyses. Recommendations were based on that evidence, evidence contained in the original guidelines and consensus of the Gastrointestinal Cancer DSG. The systematic review and practice guideline were externally reviewed through a mailed survey of practitioners in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Recommendations were drafted based on the available evidence and expert consensus. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for all patients with stage II colon cancer is not recommended. However, a subset of patients with high-risk stage II disease should be considered for adjuvant therapy. Patients with completely resected stage III colon cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment should depend on factors such as patient suitability and preference, and patients and clinicians must work together to determine the optimal course of treatment.

Preoperative or postoperative therapy for resectable oesophageal cancer: an updated practice guideline.

AIMS: Oesophageal cancer is an aggressive disease and the optimal therapy for patients with resectable tumours remains unclear. A systematic review and companion practice guideline were published in 2004; however, new evidence has become available since the publication of the original report. An update of the literature search and a revision of the recommendations were undertaken to incorporate the new data. The following research question was addressed: should patients with resectable oesophageal cancer receive preoperative or postoperative therapy together with surgery? The outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects and quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature search of the original systematic review was updated to April 2007. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for reports of randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing preoperative or postoperative therapy with surgery alone or other preoperative or postoperative therapy. After the completion of the draft systematic review and practice guideline, the report was distributed through a mailed survey to 133 health care providers in Ontario for review and feedback. RESULTS: The updated literature search yielded eight new randomised controlled trial reports and seven new meta-analysis reports for consideration, together with the evidence reviewed in the original review publication. Of the 31 practitioners who responded to the mailed survey, 80% agreed with the draft recommendations as stated, 83% agreed that the report should be approved as a practice guideline and 86% indicated that they would probably use the guideline in their own practice. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus radiotherapy is recommended as the preferred modality for the management of surgically resectable patients with oesophageal cancer. Preoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy alone is an alternative choice for the management of these patients.

Preoperative or postoperative therapy for stage II or III rectal cancer: an updated practice guideline.

AIMS: Uncertainty remains regarding the optimal therapy for patients with stage II or III rectal cancer. Systematic reviews and practice guidelines on preoperative and postoperative therapy for rectal cancer were published by the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group in 2003 and 2000, respectively. The systematic reviews were updated and revised and new recommendations for preoperative and postoperative therapy were developed based on the updated body of evidence. The following research questions were addressed: After appropriate preoperative staging tests, should patients with resectable clinical stage II or III rectal cancer be offered preoperative radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy)? What is the role of postoperative radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy for patients with resected stage II or III rectal cancer who have not received preoperative radiotherapy, in terms of improving survival and delaying local recurrence? MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, as well as meeting proceedings from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, were searched for reports of randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing preoperative or postoperative therapy with surgery alone or other preoperative or postoperative therapy for stage II or III rectal cancer. The draft practice guideline and systematic reviews were distributed through a mailed survey to 129 health care providers in Ontario for review. RESULTS: Systematic reviews on preoperative and postoperative therapy for rectal cancer were developed. On the basis of the evidence contained in these reviews, the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group drafted recommendations. Of the 33 practitioners who responded to the mailed survey, 97% agreed with the draft recommendations as stated, 88% agreed that the report should be approved as a practice guideline and 94% indicated that they were likely to use the guideline in their own practice. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is preferred, compared with standard fractionation preoperative radiotherapy alone, to decrease local recurrence. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is also preferred, compared with a postoperative approach, to decrease local recurrence and adverse effects. For patients with relative contraindications to chemotherapy in the preoperative period, an acceptable alternative is preoperative radiotherapy alone followed by surgery. Patients with resected stage II or III rectal cancer who have not received preoperative radiotherapy should be offered postoperative therapy with concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy.

Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy is considered standard treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Recent studies indicate benefit to the addition of bevacizumab, a recombinant monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and conference proceedings were searched to identify randomized trials in advanced colorectal cancer comparing chemotherapy plus bevacizumab with chemotherapy alone. A meta-analysis of published data was carried out. RESULTS: Five trials comparing chemotherapy plus bevacizumab with chemotherapy alone as first- or second-line treatment were identified. Our meta-analysis indicates an advantage in favor of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.90; P = 0.0005], progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.49-0.81, P = 0.0004), and response rate (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.06-2.10, P = 0.02). The most commonly observed adverse effects related to bevacizumab included hypertension, proteinuria, bleeding, and thrombosis. Gastrointestinal perforation and poor wound healing were also observed; however, their incidence was rare. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving first- or second-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, the addition of bevacizumab improves PFS and OS at the expense of increased incidence of toxicity. The magnitude of benefit may differ based on the chemotherapy regimen with which bevacizumab is partnered.

Gliadel wafers in the treatment of malignant glioma: a systematic review.

QUESTION: What is the safety and efficacy of interstitial chemotherapy with carmustine-loaded polymers (Gliadel wafers: MGI Pharma, Bloomington, MN, U.S.A.) in the treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent malignant glioma (that is, glioblastoma multiforme, anaplastic astrocytoma, anaplastic oligoastrocytoma, and anaplastic oligodendroglioma)? PERSPECTIVES: Malignant glioma is the most common type of primary brain tumour in adults. In general, efficacy of systemic therapy in this patient population has been disappointing, and novel treatment approaches are needed. Because several randomized controlled trials (RCTS) investigating the safety and efficacy of Gliadel are available, the Neuro-oncology Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care decided that a systematic review of the evidence was necessary. OUTCOMES: The outcomes of interest for this review were overall survival, adverse events, and quality of life. METHODOLOGY: Systematic searches of the medline, embase, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted for relevant evidence. Fully-published reports of RCTS comparing treatment with Gliadel wafers to placebo or alternative treatment were selected for inclusion. Prospective cohort studies were also included. RESULTS: Two RCTS that compared Gliadel to placebo in patients with newly diagnosed malignant glioma were obtained. Both RCTS reported a significant survival benefit for patients who received Gliadel as compared with patients in the control group. One RCT and one prospective cohort study were obtained that examined the role of Gliadel in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. The rct demonstrated a significant survival benefit for Gliadel only after adjustment for prognostic factors, and the prospective cohort study reported no survival benefit for Gliadel as compared with a historical control group. All three RCTS reported similar rates of adverse events in the treatment and control groups. The most frequently reported adverse events were convulsions, confusion, brain edema, infection, hemiparesis, aphasia, and visual field defects. CONCLUSIONS: Gliadel is an option for selected patients with newly diagnosed malignant glioma where a near gross total resection is possible. No evidence is available comparing Gliadel with systemic therapy, and a decision to combine Gliadel with systemic therapy should be made for patients individually. The patient population that would benefit from Gliadel (age, histology, and performance status) is unclear; further investigation is needed. Gliadel is also an option for patients with surgically resectable recurrent malignant glioma.

Management of single brain metastasis: a practice guideline.

QUESTIONS: Should patients with confirmed single brain metastasis undergo surgical resection? Should patients with single brain metastasis undergoing surgical resection receive adjuvant whole-brain radiation therapy (wbrt)? What is the role of stereotactic radiosurgery (srs) in the management of patients with single brain metastasis? PERSPECTIVES: Approximately 15%-30% of patients with cancer will develop cerebral metastases over the course of their disease. Patients identified as having single brain metastasis generally undergo more aggressive treatment than do those with multiple metastases; however, in the province of Ontario, management of patients with single brain metastasis varies. Given that conflicting evidence has been reported, the Neuro-oncology Disease Site Group (dsg) of the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-based Care felt that a systematic review of the evidence and a practice guideline were warranted. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest were survival, local control of disease, quality of life, and adverse effects. METHODOLOGY: The medline, cancerlit, embase, and Cochrane Library databases and abstracts published in the proceedings of the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (1997-2005) and American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (1998-2004) were systematically searched for relevant evidence. The review included fully published reports or abstracts of randomized controlled trials (rcts), nonrandomized prospective studies, and retrospective studies. The present systematic review and practice guideline has been reviewed and approved by the Neuro-oncology dsg, which comprises medical and radiation oncologists, surgeons, neurologists, a nurse, and a patient representative. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through an electronic survey. Final approval of the guideline report was obtained from the Report Approval Panel and the Neuro-oncology dsg. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: The literature search found three rcts that compared surgical resection plus wbrt with wbrt alone. In addition, a Cochrane review, including a meta-analysis of published data from those three rcts, was obtained. One rct compared surgical resection plus wbrt with surgical resection alone. One rct compared wbrt plus srs with wbrt alone. Evidence comparing srs with surgical resection or examining srs with or without wbrt was limited to prospective case series and retrospective studies. BENEFITS: Two of three rcts reported a significant survival benefit for patients who underwent surgical resection as compared with those who received wbrt alone. Pooled results of the three rcts indicated no significant difference in survival or likelihood of dying from neurologic causes; however, significant heterogeneity was detected between the trials. The rct that compared surgical resection plus wbrt with surgical resection alone reported no significant difference in overall survival or length of functional independence; however, tumour recurrence at the site of the metastasis and anywhere in the brain was less frequent in patients who received wbrt as compared with patients in the observation group. In addition, patients who received wbrt were less likely to die from neurologic causes. Results of the rct that compared wbrt plus srs with wbrt alone indicated a significant improvement in median survival in patients who received srs. No quality evidence compares the efficacy of srs with surgical resection or examines the question of whether patients who receive srs should also receive wbrt. HARMS: Pooled results of the three rcts that examined surgical resection indicated no significant difference in adverse effects between groups. Postoperative complications included respiratory problems, intracerebral hemorrhage, and infection. One rct reported no significant difference in adverse effects between patients who received wbrt plus srs and those who received wbrt alone. TARGET POPULATION: The recommendations that follow apply to adults with confirmed cancer and a single brain metastasis. This practice guideline does not apply to patients with metastatic lymphoma, small-cell lung cancer, germ-cell tumour, leukemia, or sarcoma. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surgical excision should be considered for patients with good performance status, minimal or no evidence of extracranial disease, and a surgically accessible single brain metastasis amenable to complete excision. Because treatment in cases of single brain metastasis is considered palliative, invasive local treatments must be individualized. Patients with lesions requiring emergency decompression because of intracranial hypertension were excluded from the rcts, but should be considered candidates for surgery. To reduce the risk of tumour recurrence for patients who have undergone resection of a single brain metastasis, postoperative wbrt should be considered. The optimal dose and fractionation schedule for wbrt is 3000 cGy in 10 fractions or 2000 cGy in 5 fractions. As an alternative to surgical resection, wbrt followed by srs boost should be considered for patients with single brain metastasis. The evidence is insufficient to recommend srs alone as a single-modality therapy. QUALIFYING STATEMENTS: No high-quality data are available regarding the choice of surgery versus radiosurgery for single brain metastasis. In general, the size and location of the metastasis determine the optimal approach. The standard wbrt regimen for management of patients with single brain metastasis in the United States is 3000 cGy in 10 fractions, and this treatment is usually the standard arm in randomized studies of radiation in patients with brain metastases. Based solely on evidence, the understanding that no reason exists to choose 3000 cGy in 10 fractions over 2000 cGy in 5 fractions is correct; however, fraction size is believed to be important, and therefore 300 cGy daily (3000/10) is believed to be associated with fewer long-term neurocognitive effects than 400 cGy daily (2000/5) in the occasional long-term survivor. For that reason, many radiation oncologists in Ontario prefer 3000 cGy in 10 fractions. No data exist to either support or refute that preference; therefore, finding a resolution to this issue is not currently possible. The Neuro-oncology dsg will update the recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

The use of prophylactic anticonvulsants in patients with brain tumours-a systematic review.

QUESTIONS: Should patients with newly diagnosed brain tumours receive prophylactic anticonvulsants to reduce seizure risk? What is the best practice for patients with brain tumours who are taking anticonvulsant medications but who have never had a seizure? PERSPECTIVES: Patients with primary or metastatic brain tumours who have never had a seizure still have a 20% risk of experiencing a seizure over the course of their disease. Because considerable practice variation exists in regard to the management of patients with brain tumours who have never had a seizure, and because conflicting evidence has been reported, the Neuro-oncology Disease Site Group (dsg) of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-based Care felt that a systematic review of the evidence was warranted. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest were incidence of seizures and adverse effects of prophylactic anticonvulsant therapy. METHODOLOGY: The medline and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for relevant evidence. The review included fully published reports or abstracts of randomized controlled trials (rcts), systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and practice guidelines. The present systematic review was reviewed and approved by the Neuro-oncology dsg, which comprises medical and radiation oncologists, surgeons, neurologists, a nurse, and a patient representative. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: The literature search located one evidence-based practice guideline, one systematic review, and five rcts that addressed prophylactic anticonvulsants for patients with brain tumours. Evidence for the best management of seizure-naïve patients who are already taking anticonvulsants was limited to one retrospective study and exploratory analyses within several rcts. BENEFITS AND HARMS: Pooled results of the five rcts suggest that the incidence of seizures in patients who receive prophylactic anticonvulsants is not significantly different from that in patients who do not receive anticonvulsants (relative risk: 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 1.54; p = 0.84). This analysis accords with results from a published meta-analysis. Evidence is insufficient to determine whether patients who are currently taking anticonvulsants but who have never had a seizure should taper the anticonvulsants. Patients who received anticonvulsants reported adverse effects, including rash, nausea, and hypotension, but whether these effects are a result of the anticonvulsants or of other treatments could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, the routine use of postoperative anticonvulsants is not recommended in seizure-naïve patients with newly diagnosed primary or secondary brain tumours, especially in light of a significant risk of serious adverse effects and problematic drug interactions. Because data are insufficient to recommend whether anticonvulsants should be tapered in patients who are already taking anticonvulsants but who have never had a seizure, treatment must be individualized.