Drug Shortages in Oncology: ASCO Clinical Guidance for Alternative Treatments.

PURPOSE: To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer clinical guidance on navigating the complexities of treatment planning amid antineoplastic drug shortages. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of oncologists, ethicists, and patient advocates was assembled to provide rapid clinical guidance to help providers navigate appropriate patient care in cases where rationing or alternative therapies must be considered. The groups of content experts developed general principles for resource allocation during shortages and clinical guidance on alternative therapies for specific disease sites. The recommendations are supported by evidence when available. RESULTS: A total of 44 volunteers with content expertise formed the Advisory Group that developed general guidance on the prioritization of antineoplastic agents in limited supply. Disease site-specific clinical guidance was then produced by subgroups on the basis of members' specialties and expertise. The majority of alternative treatment options were developed in consideration of cisplatin and carboplatin shortages. All guidance is posted on ASCO's website. RECOMMENDATIONS: The prioritization of antineoplastic agents in limited supply should be based on specific goals of the therapy where evidence-based medicine has shown survival outcome and life-extending benefit in both early and advanced stages. Recommendations for specific disease sites are presented. While management options vary according to the disease site, alternatives are presented. For settings in which there are no alternatives with comparable efficacy and safety, it is recommended that patients are referred to an area where the necessary drug is available or can be obtained.Additional information is available at asco.org/drug-shortages.

Bridging the Gap Among Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pain Management in Cancer and Sickle Cell Disease.

Opioids are a critical component of pain relief strategies for the management of patients with cancer and sickle cell disease. The escalation of opioid addiction and overdose in the United States has led to increased scrutiny of opioid prescribing practices. Multiple reports have revealed that regulatory and coverage policies, intended to curb inappropriate opioid use, have created significant barriers for many patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Society of Clinical Oncology each publish clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic pain. A recent JAMA Oncology article highlighted perceived variability in recommendations among these guidelines. In response, leadership from guideline organizations, government representatives, and authors of the original article met to discuss challenges and solutions. The meeting featured remarks by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, presentations on each clinical practice guideline, an overview of the pain management needs of patients with sickle cell disease, an overview of perceived differences among guidelines, and a discussion of differences and commonalities among the guidelines. The meeting revealed that although each guideline varies in the intended patient population, target audience, and methodology, there is no disagreement among recommendations when applied to the appropriate patient and clinical situation. It was determined that clarification and education are needed regarding the intent, patient population, and scope of each clinical practice guideline, rather than harmonization of guideline recommendations. Clinical practice guidelines can serve as a resource for policymakers and payers to inform policy and coverage determinations.

Bridging the Gap Among Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pain Management in Cancer and Sickle Cell Disease.

Opioids are a critical component of pain relief strategies for the management of patients with cancer and sickle cell disease. The escalation of opioid addiction and overdose in the United States has led to increased scrutiny of opioid prescribing practices. Multiple reports have revealed that regulatory and coverage policies, intended to curb inappropriate opioid use, have created significant barriers for many patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and ASCO each publish clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic pain. A recent JAMA Oncology article highlighted perceived variability in recommendations among these guidelines. In response, leadership from guideline organizations, government representatives, and authors of the original article met to discuss challenges and solutions. The meeting featured remarks by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, presentations on each clinical practice guideline, an overview of the pain management needs of patients with sickle cell disease, an overview of perceived differences among guidelines, and a discussion of differences and commonalities among the guidelines. The meeting revealed that although each guideline varies in the intended patient population, target audience, and methodology, there is no disagreement among recommendations when applied to the appropriate patient and clinical situation. It was determined that clarification and education are needed regarding the intent, patient population, and scope of each clinical practice guideline, rather than harmonization of guideline recommendations. Clinical practice guidelines can serve as a resource for policymakers and payers to inform policy and coverage determinations.

ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsements and Adaptations.

ASCO engages in the endorsement and adaptation of clinical practice guidelines to recognize the high-quality work of other guideline-developing organizations, to avoid duplication of effort, and to offer harmonized recommendations across guideline development groups. ASCO develops guidelines in accordance with the principles of the National Academy of Medicine and Council of Medical Specialty Societies. Guidelines developed in a similar manner by other organizations make endorsement by ASCO more likely. If allowed by the partnering organization, ASCO may consider an adaptation of a guideline, building on the original guideline with further inquiry or modifications. Organizations seeking ASCO endorsement consideration are provided with ASCO's endorsement and adaptation procedures at the time of endorsement submission They can request either Endorsement or Endorsement or Adaptation. ASCO endorsement entails a formal review by an independent ASCO Expert Panel, and, if modifications to the recommendations are made, depending upon the original endorsement request, guidelines will be adapted or discontinued, rather than endorsed. The process begins with approval from ASCO's Clinical Practice Guideline Committee (CPGC) leadership to proceed with endorsement development. An ASCO Expert Panel of approximately 10 multidisciplinary content experts, patient representatives, community oncologists, and relevant health providers is formed to develop an ASCO endorsement. ASCO's Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines and procedures apply to all ASCO expert panels. The CPGC reviews and approves all ASCO guideline products on behalf of ASCO. The endorsement process described in this report is designed to preserve a high-quality and resource-efficient approach for potential ASCO endorsement or adaptation of guidelines developed by other health professional organizations, while maintaining the objectivity, quality, and high standards reflective of ASCO's guiding principles.

Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs: ASCO Standards.

PURPOSE: To provide 2019 ASCO standards on the safe handling of hazardous drugs. METHODS: An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on closed system transfer devices was performed to May 2017 using PubMed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar were used to search for studies of medical surveillance and external ventilation/health effects of exposure to vapors to November 2017. Available standards were considered for endorsement. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The search for primary research found no studies that addressed health outcomes as they relate to the identified interventions of interest. The ASCO Expert Panel endorses the best practices for safe handling of hazardous drugs as issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Pharmacopeia Chapter 800, and Oncology Nursing Society with clarifications in four key areas: medical surveillance, closed system transfer devices, external ventilation of containment secondary engineering controls or containment segregated compounding areas, and alternative duties. CONCLUSION: The ASCO standards address the need for clear standards concerning safe handling of hazardous oncology drugs. More research is needed in several key areas to quantify the level of risk associated with handling hazardous drugs in current workplace settings where the hierarchy of controls is consistently applied. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/safe-handling-standards .

ASCO Resource-Stratified Guidelines: Methods and Opportunities.

The objectives of this article are to describe the ASCO Resource-Stratified Guidelines and to provide background within the context of ASCO Guidelines and efforts to address the global cancer burden.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists Joint Review.

PURPOSE.­: Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research. METHODS.­: An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including preanalytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility. RESULTS.­: The literature search identified 1338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion. CONCLUSIONS.­: The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens, and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity or clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, reevaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists Joint Review.

Purpose Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from ASCO and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research. Methods An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including pre-analytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility. Results The literature search identified 1,338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion. Conclusion The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity and clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, re-evaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.

Second-Line Hormonal Therapy for Men With Chemotherapy-Naïve, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion.

Purpose ASCO provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) offer direction to the ASCO membership after publication or presentation of potential practice-changing data. This PCO addresses second-line hormonal therapy for chemotherapy-naïve men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who range from being asymptomatic with only biochemical evidence of CRPC to having documented metastases but minimal symptoms. Clinical Context The treatment goal for CRPC is palliation. Despite resistance to initial androgen deprivation therapy, most men respond to second-line hormonal therapies. However, guidelines have neither addressed second-line hormonal therapy for nonmetastatic CRPC nor provided specific guidance with regard to the chemotherapy-naïve population. Recent Data Six phase III randomized controlled trials and expert consensus opinion inform this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion For men with CRPC, a castrate state should be maintained indefinitely. Second-line hormonal therapy (eg, antiandrogens, CYP17 inhibitors) may be considered in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC at high risk for metastatic disease (rapid prostate-specific antigen doubling time or velocity) but otherwise is not suggested. In patients with radiographic evidence of metastases and minimal symptoms, enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone should be offered after discussion with patients about potential harms, benefits, costs, and patient preferences. Radium-223 and sipuleucel-T also are options. No evidence provides guidance about the optimal order of hormonal therapies for CRPC beyond second-line treatment. Prostate-specific antigen testing every 4 to 6 months is reasonable for men without metastases. Routine radiographic restaging generally is not suggested but can be considered for patients at risk for metastases or who exhibit symptoms or other evidence of progression. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Innovations in American Society of Clinical Oncology Practice Guideline Development.

Since the beginning of its guidelines program in 1993, ASCO has continually sought ways to produce a greater number of guidelines while maintaining its commitment to using the rigorous development methods that minimize the biases that threaten the validity of practice recommendations. ASCO is implementing a range of guideline development and implementation innovations. In this article, we describe innovations that are designed to (1) integrate consideration of multiple chronic conditions into practice guidelines; (2) keep more of its guidelines current by applying evolving signals or (more) rapid, for-cause updating approaches; (3) increase the number of high-quality guidelines available to its membership through endorsement and adaptation of other groups' products; (4) improve coverage of its members' guideline needs through a new topic nomination process; and (5) enhance dissemination and promote implementation of ASCO guidelines in the oncology practice community through a network of volunteer ambassadors. We close with a summary of ASCO's plans to facilitate the integration of data from its rapid learning system, CancerLinQ, into ASCO guidelines and to develop tactics through which guideline recommendations can be embedded in clinicians' workflow in digital form. We highlight the challenges inherent in reconciling the need to provide clinicians with more interactive, point-of-care guidance with ASCO's abiding commitment to methodologic rigor in guideline development.

Systemic therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer:American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide treatment recommendations for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario convened an expert panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: When added to androgen deprivation, therapies demonstrating improved survival, improved quality of life (QOL), and favorable benefit-harm balance include abiraterone acetate/prednisone, enzalutamide, and radium-223 ((223)Ra; for men with predominantly bone metastases). Improved survival and QOL with moderate toxicity risk are associated with docetaxel/prednisone. For asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic men, improved survival with unclear QOL impact and low toxicity are associated with sipuleucel-T. For men who previously received docetaxel, improved survival, unclear QOL impact, and moderate to high toxicity risk are associated with cabazitaxel/prednisone. Modest QOL benefit (without survival benefit) and high toxicity risk are associated with mitoxantrone/prednisone after docetaxel. No benefit and excess toxicity are observed with bevacizumab, estramustine, and sunitinib. RECOMMENDATIONS: Continue androgen deprivation (pharmaceutical or surgical) indefinitely. Abiraterone acetate/prednisone, enzalutamide, or (223)Ra should be offered; docetaxel/prednisone should also be offered, accompanied by discussion of toxicity risk. Sipuleucel-T may be offered to asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic men. For men who have experienced progression with docetaxel, cabazitaxel may be offered, accompanied by discussion of toxicity risk. Mitoxantrone may be offered, accompanied by discussion of limited clinical benefit and toxicity risk. Ketoconazole or antiandrogens (eg, bicalutamide, flutamide, nilutamide) may be offered, accompanied by discussion of limited known clinical benefit. Bevacizumab, estramustine, and sunitinib should not be offered. There is insufficient evidence to evaluate optimal sequences or combinations of therapies. Palliative care should be offered to all patients.

A Pan-Canadian practice guideline: prevention, screening, assessment, and treatment of sleep disturbances in adults with cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aims to provide recommendations on the optimal strategies and interventions for the prevention, screening, assessment, and management of cancer-related sleep disturbance (insomnia and insomnia syndrome) in adult cancer populations. METHODS: A systematic search of the published health literature was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials, clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, and other guidance documents. The Sleep Disturbance Expert Panel [comprised of nurses, psychologists, primary care physicians, oncologists, physicians specialized in sleep disturbances, researchers, and guideline methodologists] reviewed, discussed, and approved the final version of the guideline. Health care professionals across Canada were asked to provide feedback through an external review process. RESULTS: Three clinical practice guidelines and 12 randomized controlled trials were identified as the evidence base. Overall, despite the paucity of evidence, the evidence and expert consensus suggest that it is important to screen and assess adult cancer patients for sleep disturbances using standardized screening tools on a routine basis. While prevention of sleep disturbance is the desired objective, cognitive behavioral therapies are effective in improving sleep outcomes. As part of the external review with 16 health care providers, 81 % indicated that they agreed with the recommendations as written. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep difficulty is a prevalent problem in cancer populations that needs greater recognition by health professionals. Prevention, screening, assessment, and treatment strategies supported by the best available evidence are critical. Recommendations and care path algorithms for practice are offered.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines: formal systematic review-based consensus methodology.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines program employs a systematic review-based methodology to produce evidence-based guidelines. This is consistent with the stance of the Institute of Medicine on guideline development, which is that high-quality evidence syntheses form the basis for recommendation development. In the absence of high-quality evidence, recommendation development becomes more complex. One option is to provide no recommendations or withdraw a guideline topic. However, it is often the areas of greatest uncertainty in which the evidentiary base is incomplete, and thus, guidelines are needed most. To provide recommendations in such circumstances, an explicit methodology is needed to ensure that a credible process is undertaken, and rigorous, reliable advice is provided. In 2010, the ASCO Board of Directors approved development of guideline recommendations using consensus methodology. A modified Delphi approach to recommendation development, based on the best available data identified in a systematic review, was piloted with an ASCO guideline. Consensus was achieved through the rating of a series of recommendations by a large group of clinicians, including academic and community-based content and methodology experts. A prespecified threshold of agreement was determined to indicate when consensus was achieved. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥ 75% of raters. The formal consensus methodology used by ASCO enabled development of guideline recommendations on a challenging clinical issue based on limited evidence using a rigorous, transparent, and explicit method. This methodology is proposed for development of future ASCO guidelines on topics for which limited evidence is available.

Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion.

PURPOSE: An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to the ASCO membership after publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the screening of men for prostate cancer. CLINICAL CONTEXT: Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States. The rationale for screening men for prostate cancer is the potential to reduce the risk of death through early detection. RECENT DATA: Evidence from a 2011 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality systematic review primarily informs this PCO on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening. An update search was conducted to March 16, 2012, for additional evidence related to the topic. RESULTS: In one randomized trial, PSA testing in men who would not otherwise have been screened resulted in reduced death rates from prostate cancer, but it is uncertain whether the size of the effect was worth the harms associated with screening and subsequent unnecessary treatment. Although there are limitations to the existing data, there is evidence to suggest that men with longer life expectancy may benefit from PSA testing. Adverse events associated with prostate biopsy are low for the majority of men; however, several population-based studies have shown increasing rates of infectious complications after prostate biopsy, which is a concern.

Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). A multisociety collaborative initiative (involving the American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was undertaken to create the foundation for development of an evidence-based clinical guideline. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), EMBASE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), and the Cochrane Library (April 2012). STUDY SELECTION: Of 591 citations identified and reviewed, 8 randomized trials and 13 cohort studies of LDCT screening met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included nodule detection, invasive procedures, follow-up tests, and smoking cessation. DATA EXTRACTION: Critical appraisal using predefined criteria was conducted on individual studies and the overall body of evidence. Differences in data extracted by reviewers were adjudicated by consensus. RESULTS: Three randomized studies provided evidence on the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality, of which the National Lung Screening Trial was the most informative, demonstrating that among 53,454 participants enrolled, screening resulted in significantly fewer lung cancer deaths (356 vs 443 deaths; lung cancer−specific mortality, 274 vs 309 events per 100,000 person-years for LDCT and control groups, respectively; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004). The other 2 smaller studies showed no such benefit. In terms of potential harms of LDCT screening, across all trials and cohorts, approximately 20% of individuals in each round of screening had positive results requiring some degree of follow-up, while approximately 1% had lung cancer. There was marked heterogeneity in this finding and in the frequency of follow-up investigations, biopsies, and percentage of surgical procedures performed in patients with benign lesions. Major complications in those with benign conditions were rare. CONCLUSION: Low-dose computed tomography screening may benefit individuals at an increased risk for lung cancer, but uncertainty exists about the potential harms of screening and the generalizability of results.