Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer. METHODS: An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing. RESULTS: Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update Q and A.

This Q&A answers questions regarding ASCO's recent Systemic Therapy for Melanoma guideline.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials. UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Systemic therapy for melanoma: ASCO guideline update

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma. American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature. The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials. Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti­PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies. This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines

Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: ASCO Endorsement of College of American Pathologists Guideline.

PURPOSE: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has developed a guideline on testing for mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) for patients considered for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The CAP guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS: The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the CAP guideline, published on August 3, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists in Collaboration With the Association for Molecular Pathology and Fight Colorectal Cancer. RECOMMENDATIONS: Within the guideline, MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), MSI polymerase chain reaction, and MSI next-generation sequencing are all recommended testing options for colorectal cancer, MMR-IHC and MSI-polymerase chain reaction for gastroesophageal and small bowel cancer, and only MMR-IHC for endometrial cancer. No recommendation in favor of any testing method over another could be made for any other cancer. Tumor mutational burden was not recommended as a surrogate for DNA MMR deficiency. If MMR deficiency consistent with Lynch syndrome is detected, it should be communicated to the treating physician.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update.

ASCO Rapid Recommendations Updates highlight revisions to select ASCO guideline recommendations as a response to the emergence of new and practice-changing data. The rapid updates are supported by an evidence review and follow the guideline development processes outlined in the ASCO Guideline Methodology Manual. The goal of these articles is to disseminate updated recommendations, in a timely manner, to better inform health practitioners and the public on the best available cancer care options.

Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: ASCO Guideline Endorsement of ASTRO Guideline.

PURPOSE: American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has developed a guideline on appropriate radiation therapy for brain metastases. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: "Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline"2 was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS: The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the ASTRO guideline, published May 6, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses "Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline."2. RECOMMENDATIONS: Within the guideline, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is recommended for patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and up to four intact brain metastases, and conditionally recommended for patients with up to 10 intact brain metastases. The guideline provides detailed dosing and fractionation recommendations on the basis of the size of the metastases. For patients with resected brain metastases, radiation therapy (SRS or whole-brain radiation therapy [WBRT]) is recommended to improve intracranial disease control; if there are limited additional brain metastases, SRS is recommended over WBRT. For patients with favorable prognosis and brain metastases ineligible for surgery and/or SRS, WBRT is recommended with hippocampal avoidance where possible and the addition of memantine is recommended. For patients with brain metastases, limiting the single-fraction V12Gy to brain tissue to ≤ 10 cm3 is conditionally recommended.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

Somatic Genomic Testing in Patients With Metastatic or Advanced Cancer: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion.

PURPOSE: An ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional clinical opinion addresses the appropriate use of tumor genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors. CLINICAL CONTEXT: An increasing number of therapies are approved to treat cancers harboring specific genomic biomarkers. However, there is a lack of clarity as to when tumor genomic sequencing should be ordered, what type of assays should be performed, and how to interpret the results for treatment selection. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer should undergo genomic sequencing in a certified laboratory if the presence of one or more specific genomic alterations has regulatory approval as biomarkers to guide the use of or exclusion from certain treatments for their disease. Multigene panel-based assays should be used if more than one biomarker-linked therapy is approved for the patient's disease. Site-agnostic approvals for any cancer with a high tumor mutation burden, mismatch repair deficiency, or neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) fusions provide a rationale for genomic testing for all solid tumors. Multigene testing may also assist in treatment selection by identifying additional targets when there are few or no genotype-based therapy approvals for the patient's disease. For treatment planning, the clinician should consider the functional impact of the targeted alteration and expected efficacy of genomic biomarker-linked options relative to other approved or investigational treatments.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/assays-and-predictive-markers-guidelines.

Therapy for Diffuse Astrocytic and Oligodendroglial Tumors in Adults: ASCO-SNO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for diffuse astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors in adults. METHODS: ASCO and the Society for Neuro-Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: Fifty-nine randomized trials focusing on therapeutic management were identified. RECOMMENDATIONS: Adults with newly diagnosed oligodendroglioma, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant, 1p19q codeleted CNS WHO grade 2 and 3 should be offered radiation therapy (RT) and procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV). Temozolomide (TMZ) is a reasonable alternative for patients who may not tolerate PCV, but no high-level evidence supports upfront TMZ in this setting. People with newly diagnosed astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, 1p19q non-codeleted CNS WHO grade 2 should be offered RT with adjuvant chemotherapy (TMZ or PCV). People with astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, 1p19q non-codeleted CNS WHO grade 3 should be offered RT and adjuvant TMZ. People with astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, CNS WHO grade 4 may follow recommendations for either astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, 1p19q non-codeleted CNS WHO grade 3 or glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype, CNS WHO grade 4. Concurrent TMZ and RT should be offered to patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype, CNS WHO grade 4 followed by 6 months of adjuvant TMZ. Alternating electric field therapy, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, should be considered for these patients. Bevacizumab is not recommended. In situations in which the benefits of 6-week RT plus TMZ may not outweigh the harms, hypofractionated RT plus TMZ is reasonable. In patients age ≥ 60 to ≥ 70 years, with poor performance status or for whom toxicity or prognosis are concerns, best supportive care alone, RT alone (for MGMT promoter unmethylated tumors), or TMZ alone (for MGMT promoter methylated tumors) are reasonable treatment options. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

Treatment for Brain Metastases: ASCO-SNO-ASTRO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: A systematic review, one meta-analysis, and 34 additional randomized trials were identified. The published studies included a wide range of systemic therapies in cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma. RECOMMENDATIONS: In the adjuvant setting, nivolumab or pembrolizumab should be offered to patients with resected stage IIIA/B/C/D BRAF wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while either of those two agents or the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib should be offered in BRAF-mutant disease. No recommendation could be made for or against the use of neoadjuvant therapy in cutaneous melanoma. In the unresectable/metastatic setting, ipilimumab plus nivolumab, nivolumab alone, or pembrolizumab alone should be offered to patients with BRAF wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while those three regimens or combination BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy with dabrafenib/trametinib, encorafenib/binimetinib, or vemurafenib/cobimetinib should be offered in BRAF-mutant disease. Patients with mucosal melanoma may be offered the same therapies recommended for cutaneous melanoma. No recommendation could be made for or against specific therapy for uveal melanoma. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Anticonvulsant prophylaxis and steroid use in adults with metastatic brain tumors: summary of SNO and ASCO endorsement of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) has developed a series of guidelines on the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors, including systemic therapy and supportive care topics. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: Two CNS Guidelines were reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists and an independent multi-disciplinary Expert Panel was formed to review the content and assess agreement with the recommendations. The expert panel voted to endorse the two guidelines and ASCO and SNO independently reviewed and approved the ASCO/SNO guideline endorsement. RESULTS: The ASCO/SNO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CNS anticonvulsants and steroids guidelines, published January 9, 2019, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO/SNO endorsed these two CNS guidelines, with minor alterations. CONCLUSIONS: Key recommendations include: prophylactic anti-epileptic drugs were not recommended for routine use; corticosteroids (specifically dexamethasone) were recommended for temporary symptomatic relief in patients with neurologic symptoms and signs related to mass effect from brain metastases.

Anticonvulsant Prophylaxis and Steroid Use in Adults With Metastatic Brain Tumors: ASCO and SNO Endorsement of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons Guidelines.

PURPOSE: The Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) has developed a series of guidelines for the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors, including systemic therapy and supportive care topics. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: Two CNS guidelines were reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists, and an independent multidisciplinary Expert Panel was formed to review the content and assess agreement with the recommendations. The Expert Panel voted to endorse the two guidelines, and ASCO and Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) independently reviewed and approved the ASCO/SNO guideline endorsement. RESULTS: The ASCO/SNO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CNS anticonvulsants and steroids guidelines, published January 9, 2019, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO/SNO endorsed these two CNS guidelines with minor alterations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Key recommendations include the following: prophylactic antiepileptic drugs were not recommended for routine use; and corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone, were recommended for temporary symptomatic relief in patients with neurologic symptoms and signs related to mass effect from brain metastases. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

Priority-based initiative for updating existing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: the results of two iterations.

OBJECTIVES: New evidence continues to emerge and requires attention after the release of a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The objective of this article is to describe the Document Assessment and Review (DAR) strategy designed to ensue that the CPGs remain current and their quality maintained and to present the results of two iteration of its implementation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The DAR process involves an annual assessment of our CPGs and a review of documents that require an update search. Two questionnaires are used to conduct the annual assessment and the review. The review involves evidence search, evidence review, and review approval. RESULTS: In 2011, 109 documents were assessed; 22 (20%) were archived, 1 (1%) was deferred for assessment in 2012, 24 (22%) were considered special cases and 62 (57%) needed a new systematic review of the evidence. Of those 62, 19 (31%) were categorized as urgent, 16 (26%) as high, and others as medium or low priority. In 2012, 88 total documents were assessed; 15 (17%) were archived, 32 (36%) deferred, 3 (3%) were considered special cases, and 38 (43%) were prioritized for review. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment and prioritization of existing CPGs are effective ways of ensuring that resources are directed toward the upkeep of those that are relevant and of highest priority.

Fecal immunochemical tests compared with guaiac fecal occult blood tests for population-based colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in Canadian men and women - accounting for almost 12% of all cancer deaths. In Ontario, it is estimated that 8100 persons were diagnosed with CRC in 2011, and 3250 died from the disease. CRC incidence and mortality rates in Ontario are among the highest in the world. Screening offers the best opportunity to reduce this burden of disease. The present report describes the findings and recommendations of Cancer Care Ontario's Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) Guidelines Expert Panel, which was convened in September 2010 by the Program in Evidence-Based Care. The purpose of the present guideline is to evaluate the existing evidence concerning FIT to inform the decision on how to replace the current guaiac fecal occult blood test with FIT in the Ontario ColonCancerCheck Program. Eleven articles were included in the present guideline, comprising two systematic reviews, five articles reporting on three randomized controlled trials, and reports of four other studies. Additionally, one laboratory study was obtained that reported on several parameters of FIT tests that helped to inform the present recommendation. The performance of FIT is superior to the standard guaiac fecal occult blood test in terms of screening participation rates and the detection of CRC and advanced adenoma. Given greater specimen instability with the use of FIT, a pilot study should be undertaken to determine how to implement the FIT in Ontario.

Adjuvant/neoadjuvant trastuzumab therapy in women with HER-2/neu-overexpressing breast cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the evidence for the use of trastuzumab as (neo)adjuvant therapy for women with HER-2/neu-positive breast cancer and to develop and support recommendations pertaining to its use across five domains: as a single-agent therapy, in combination with chemotherapy, methods to identify women who will benefit from it, adverse events associated with it, and optimal dose, schedule, and duration. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposia proceedings, and the Cochrane Library were searched through May 2007 for reports of randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Eight randomized trials, described across 23 citations, were identified. All six trials of adjuvant trastuzumab reported significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) while 4 of 6 adjuvant trials showed significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for patients treated with trastuzumab over those that were not. Two trials of trastuzumab in the neoadjuvant setting reported significantly better pathological complete response (pCR) in patients treated with trastuzumab although both studies were limited by small sample size, and longer follow-up is needed. CONCLUSION: Although the optimal duration, schedule, and timing of adjuvant trastuzumab remains undefined, the bulk of the available evidence supports that adjuvant trastuzumab be offered for 1 year to all patients with HER-2-positive and node-positive or high-risk node-negative (tumour >or= 1cm in size) primary breast cancer who are receiving or have received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy.

Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A sensitive and acceptable screening regimen for women at high risk for breast cancer is essential. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is highly sensitive for diagnosis of breast cancer but has variable specificity. PURPOSE: To summarize the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and posttest probability associated with adding MRI to annual mammography screening of women at very high risk for breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: English-language literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from January 1995 to September 2007, supplemented by hand searches of pertinent articles. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies published after 1994 in which MRI and mammography (with or without additional tests) were used to screen women at very high risk for breast cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: Methods and potential biases of studies were assessed by 2 reviewers, and data were extracted and entered into 2 x 2 tables that compared American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scores of MRI plus mammography, mammography alone, or MRI alone with results of breast tissue biopsies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven relevant, prospective, nonrandomized studies that ranged from small single-center studies with only 1 round of patient screening to large multicenter studies with repeated rounds of annual screening were identified. Characteristics of women that varied across study samples included age range, history of breast cancer, and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation status. Studies used dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with axial or coronal plane images (European studies) or sagittal images (North American studies) that were usually interpreted without knowledge of mammography results. The summary negative likelihood ratio and the probability of a BI-RADS-suspicious lesion (given negative test findings and assuming a 2% pretest probability of disease) were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82) and 1.4% (CI, 1.2% to 1.6%) for mammography alone and 0.14 (CI, 0.05 to 0.42) and 0.3% (CI, 0.1% to 0.8%) for the combination of MRI plus mammography, using a BI-RADS score of 4 or higher as the definition of positive. LIMITATIONS: Differences in patient population, center experience, and criteria for positive screening results led to between-study heterogeneity. Data on patients with nonfamilial high risk were limited, and no data were available on recurrence or survival. CONCLUSION: Screening with both MRI and mammography might rule out cancerous lesions better than mammography alone in women who are known or likely to have an inherited predisposition to breast cancer.

HER-2 and topoisomerase II as predictors of response to chemotherapy.

HER2 overexpression or amplification has been shown to be associated with a poor prognostic effect in women with breast cancer. At least eight analyses based on randomized trials have examined the relationship between HER2 and the differential effect of anthracycline compared with non-anthracycline-containing regimens. Only three of these studies were sufficiently powered to show a significant interaction between HER2 and anthracycline- versus non-anthracycline-containing treatments, but because all of the study results tended to be in the same direction, it is not surprising that three recent meta-analyses of published data have suggested that anthracycline-containing regimens provide more benefit than non-anthracycline-containing regimens in women whose tumors are overexpressed or amplified (positive) for HER2. Since topoisomerase II is a known target of the anthracyclines, it has been postulated that this relationship is actually based on the proximity of HER2 to the topoisomerase II alpha gene (TOP2A) in the 17q chromosome. At least four recent studies have suggested that deletion and amplification of the TOP2A gene are associated with poor prognosis and are predictive of greater response to anthracycline-containing than to non-anthracycline-containing regimens. However, in at least one of those studies, HER2 positivity was as or more predictive. Although it has been suggested that HER2 positivity is predictive of better response to higher-dose anthracycline-containing regimens compared with standard anthracycline-containing regimens and to taxane- compared with non-taxane-containing regimens, these relationships have not been robust or consistent. Additional studies will be required to clarify these relationships.

Aromatase inhibitors in adjuvant therapy for hormone receptor positive breast cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review was undertaken to review the evidence for the use of third-generation aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole, letrozole and exemestane) as adjuvant therapy for post-menopausal women with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and to develop and support recommendations for their use, with regard to three areas: aromatase inhibitors compared to tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors in sequence with tamoxifen for a total of five years, and aromatase inhibitors given after five years of tamoxifen therapy. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, American Society of Clinical Oncology and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium proceedings, and the Cochrane Library were searched to May 2007 for reports of randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials and one meta-analysis of three of these trials were identified that reported efficacy data. Eight of these trials reported significantly improved disease-free survival in the arms that involved aromatase inhibitors. The meta-analysis reported significantly improved overall survival among all patients, as did one individual trial. One trial of five years letrozole or placebo after five years tamoxifen found improved overall survival among node-positive patients. CONCLUSIONS: Aromatase inhibitors provide an alternative to tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for post-menopausal, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer patients. The options include anastrozole and letrozole for five years, as well as anastrozole and exemestane following two to three years of tamoxifen, for a total five years of hormonal therapy. Five years of letrozole should be considered following five years of tamoxifen. Patients receiving aromatase inhibitors should be monitored for changes in bone mineral density and for cardiovascular disease risk factors and outcomes.