Platelet Transfusion for Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To provide evidence-based guidance on the use of platelet transfusion in people with cancer. This guideline updates and replaces the previous ASCO platelet transfusion guideline published initially in 2001. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature published from September 1, 2014, through October 26, 2016. This review builds on two 2015 systematic reviews that were conducted by the AABB and the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines. For clinical questions that were not addressed by the AABB and the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines (the use of leukoreduction and platelet transfusion in solid tumors or chronic, stable severe thrombocytopenia) or that were addressed partially (invasive procedures), the ASCO search extended back to January 2000. Results The updated ASCO review included 24 more recent publications: three clinical practice guidelines, eight systematic reviews, and 13 observational studies. Recommendations The most substantial change to a previous recommendation involved platelet transfusion in the setting of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Based on data from randomized controlled trials, adult patients who undergo autologous stem-cell transplantation at experienced centers may receive a platelet transfusion at the first sign of bleeding, rather than prophylactically. Prophylactic platelet transfusion at defined platelet count thresholds is still recommended for pediatric patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation and for adult and pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. Other recommendations address platelet transfusion in patients with hematologic malignancies or solid tumors or in those who undergo invasive procedures. Guidance is also provided regarding the production of platelet products, prevention of Rh alloimmunization, and management of refractoriness to platelet transfusion ( www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki ).

A process for measuring the quality of cancer care: the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) is a practice-based system of quality self-assessment sponsored by the participants and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The process of quality evaluation, development of the pilot questionnaire, and preliminary results are reported. METHODS: Physicians from seven oncology groups developed medical record abstraction measures based on practice guidelines and consensus-supported indicators of quality care. Each practice completed two rounds of records review and received practice and aggregate results. Mean frequencies of responses for each indicator were compared among practices. RESULTS: Participants universally, if informally, find QOPI helpful, and results show statistically significant variation among practices for several indicators, including assessing pain in patients close to death, documentation of informed consent for chemotherapy, and concordance with granulocytic and erythroid growth factor administration guidelines. Measures with universally high concordance include the use of serotonin antagonist antiemetics according to the ASCO guideline; the presence of a pathology report in the record; the use of chemotherapy flow sheets; and adherence to standard chemotherapy recommendations for patients with certain stages of breast, colon, and rectal cancer. Concordance with quality indicators significantly changed between survey rounds for several measures. CONCLUSION: Pilot results indicate that the QOPI process provides a rapid and objective measurement of practice quality that allows comparisons among practices and over time. It also provides a mechanism for measuring concordance with published guidelines. Most importantly, it provides a tool for practice self-examination that can promote excellence in cancer care.

KRAS testing and first-line treatment among patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer using population data from ten National Program of Cancer Registries in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommended KRAS testing for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Our study assessed KRAS testing prevalence and its association with socio-demographic and clinical factors and examined first-line treatment. METHODS: Ten state population-based registries supported by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) collected detailed cancer information on mCRC cases diagnosed in 2011, including KRAS biomarker testing and first-line treatment from ten central cancer registries. Data were analyzed with Chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 3,608 mCRC cases, 27% (n = 992) had a documented KRAS test. Increased age at diagnosis (p < 0.0001), racial/ethnic minorities (p = 0.0155), public insurance (p = 0.0018), and lower census tract education (p = 0.0023) were associated with less KRAS testing. Significant geographic variation in KRAS testing (p < 0.0001) ranged from 46% in New Hampshire to 18% in California. After adjusting for all covariates, age and residence at diagnosis (both p < 0.0001) remained predictors of KRAS testing. Non-Hispanic Blacks had less KRAS testing than non-Hispanic Whites (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.61-0.97). Among those tested and found to have normal (wild-type) KRAS, 7% received anti-EGFR treatment; none received such treatment among those with KRAS mutated gene. CONCLUSIONS: Despite NCCN guideline recommendations, 73% of mCRC cases diagnosed in 2011 had no documented KRAS test. Disparities in KRAS testing existed based on age, race, and residence at diagnosis. IMPACT: These findings show the capacity of monitoring KRAS testing in the US using cancer registry data and suggest the need to understand the low uptake of KRAS testing, and associated treatment choices during the first year since diagnosis.

Phase I trial of gemcitabine, administered as a standard and constant dose-rate infusion, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors (LOA-2).

The major purposes of this study were to determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), toxicity profile, and antitumor activity of gemcitabine and paclitaxel combination therapy when administered to patients with advanced solid tumors, using two infusion schedules of each agent. Paclitaxel was administered on day 1, followed by gemcitabine, and gemcitabine alone was administered on day 8, of each 21-day treatment course. In the initial phase of the trial, paclitaxel was administered during 3 hours and gemcitabine during 30 minutes (schedule A). After the MTD was determined on this schedule, patients were then treated with paclitaxel during 1 hour and gemcitabine at a fixed dose-rate of 10 mg/m(2)/min (schedule B). Forty-six patients were treated with 176 courses at 7 dose levels. The MTD for schedule A was 1,300 mg/m(2) and 200 mg/m(2) and for schedule B was 1,000 mg/m(2) and 200 mg/m(2) for gemcitabine and paclitaxel, respectively. The DLT for schedule A was neutropenia and for schedule B was neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Nonhematologic toxicity was relatively mild. Gemcitabine and paclitaxel, using both schedules of administration in the current trial, is a promising chemotherapeutic regimen.

A Phase II trial of topotecan and gemcitabine in patients with previously treated, advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple trials have been performed to evaluate second-line clinical chemotherapy in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). However, no single agent or combination has demonstrated superior activity. METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC who had already received one chemotherapeutic regimen were treated with topotecan (0.75 mg/m(2) over 30 minutes, Days 1-5) and gemcitabine (400 mg/m(2) over 30 minutes, Days 1 and 5) every 21 days. RESULTS: Of 35 patients who were treated, 4 (11%) achieved a partial responses and 8 (23%) hadstable disease for at least four courses of treatment. The response rate for patients with refractory disease (progressing during frontline chemotherapy) was 18% (3 of 17) with 18% having stable disease for at least four courses of treatment. The median survival of the entire group was 7 months (range, 1.5-44 months) and 20% (7 of 35) of patients were alive 1 year from the initiation of topotecan and gemcitabine treatment. Patients with refractory disease had a median survival of 4(1/2) months, with 6-month and 1-year survival rates of 47% and 18%, respectively. During Course 1, five patients (14%) developed Grade IV neutropenia and three patients (9%) developed Grade IV thrombocytopenia. Nonhematologic toxicity was relatively mild, with one patient developing Grade III side effects (fatigue) and eight patients (23%) developing Grade II nonhematologic side effects. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of topotecan and gemcitabine demonstrated antitumor activity with a modest side effect profile in patients with advanced, previously treated NSCLC.