To provide guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis for adult neutropenic oncology outpatients and on selection and treatment as outpatients of those with fever and neutropenia.
A literature search ...identified relevant studies published in English. Primary outcomes included: development of fever and/or infections in afebrile neutropenic outpatients and recovery without complications and overall mortality in febrile neutropenic outpatients. Secondary outcomes included: in afebrile neutropenic outpatients, infection-related mortality; in outpatients with fever and neutropenia, defervescence without regimen change, time to defervescence, infectious complications, and recurrent fever; and in both groups, hospital admissions, duration, and adverse effects of antimicrobials. An Expert Panel developed guidelines based on extracted data and informal consensus.
Forty-seven articles from 43 studies met selection criteria.
Antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis are only recommended for patients expected to have < 100 neutrophils/μL for > 7 days, unless other factors increase risks for complications or mortality to similar levels. Inpatient treatment is standard to manage febrile neutropenic episodes, although carefully selected patients may be managed as outpatients after systematic assessment beginning with a validated risk index (eg, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer MASCC score or Talcott's rules). Patients with MASCC scores ≥ 21 or in Talcott group 4, and without other risk factors, can be managed safely as outpatients. Febrile neutropenic patients should receive initial doses of empirical antibacterial therapy within an hour of triage and should either be monitored for at least 4 hours to determine suitability for outpatient management or be admitted to the hospital. An oral fluoroquinolone plus amoxicillin/clavulanate (or plus clindamycin if penicillin allergic) is recommended as empiric therapy, unless fluoroquinolone prophylaxis was used before fever developed.
To develop evidence-based guidelines, based on a systematic review, for endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
A literature search identified ...relevant randomized trials. Databases searched included MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and those for the Annual Meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS). The primary outcomes of interest were disease-free survival, overall survival, and time to contralateral breast cancer. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and quality of life. An expert panel reviewed the literature, especially 12 major trials, and developed updated recommendations.
An adjuvant treatment strategy incorporating an aromatase inhibitor (AI) as primary (initial endocrine therapy), sequential (using both tamoxifen and an AI in either order), or extended (AI after 5 years of tamoxifen) therapy reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence compared with 5 years of tamoxifen alone. Data suggest that including an AI as primary monotherapy or as sequential treatment after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen yields similar outcomes. Tamoxifen and AIs differ in their adverse effect profiles, and these differences may inform treatment preferences.
The Update Committee recommends that postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer consider incorporating AI therapy at some point during adjuvant treatment, either as up-front therapy or as sequential treatment after tamoxifen. The optimal timing and duration of endocrine treatment remain unresolved. The Update Committee supports careful consideration of adverse effect profiles and patient preferences in deciding whether and when to incorporate AI therapy.
Summary Background Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a ...meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer. Methods Data for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups. Findings Data from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio cHR 1·17, 95% CI 1·06–1·30) and worsened overall survival (1·06, 1·00–1·12), with little heterogeneity between trials ( I2 0%, p=0·87 for mortality during the active study period, and I2 7·1%, p=0·33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1·10 (0·98–1·24), and 1·04 (0·97–1·11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0·42). Interpretation Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits. Funding German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland).
To provide recommendations on appropriate uses for serum markers of germ cell tumors (GCTs).
Searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified relevant studies published in English. Primary outcomes included ...marker accuracy to predict the impact of decisions on outcomes. Secondary outcomes included proportions of patients with elevated markers and statistical tests of elevations as prognostic factors. An expert panel developed consensus guidelines based on data from 82 reports.
No studies directly compared outcomes of decisions with versus without marker assays. The search identified few prospective studies and no randomized controlled trials; most were retrospective series. Lacking data on primary outcomes, most Panel recommendations are based on secondary outcomes (relapse rates and time to relapse).
The Panel recommended against using markers to screen for GCTs, to decide whether orchiectomy is indicated, or to select treatment for patients with cancer of unknown primary. To stage patients with testicular nonseminomas, the Panel recommended measuring three markers (alpha-fetoprotein AFP, human chorionic gonadotropin hCG, and lactate dehydrogenase LDH) before and after orchiectomy and before chemotherapy for those with extragonadal nonseminomas. They also recommended measuring AFP and hCG shortly before retroperitoneal lymph node dissection and at the start of each chemotherapy cycle for nonseminoma, and periodically to monitor for relapse. The Panel recommended measuring postorchiectomy hCG and LDH for patients with seminoma and preorchiectomy elevations. They recommended against using markers to guide or monitor treatment for seminoma or to detect relapse in those treated for stage I. However, they recommended measuring hCG and AFP to monitor for relapse in patients treated for advanced seminoma.
To update American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology recommendations for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer.
An Update Committee ...reviewed data published between January 2007 and January 2010. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched.
The literature search yielded one new individual patient data analysis and four literature-based meta-analyses, two systematic reviews, and 13 publications reporting new results from randomized controlled trials not included in prior or new reviews.
For patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy who have a hemoglobin (Hb) level less than 10 g/dL, the Update Committee recommends that clinicians discuss potential harms (eg, thromboembolism, shorter survival) and benefits (eg, decreased transfusions) of ESAs and compare these with potential harms (eg, serious infections, immune-mediated adverse reactions) and benefits (eg, rapid Hb improvement) of RBC transfusions. Individual preferences for assumed risk should contribute to shared decisions on managing chemotherapy-induced anemia. The Committee cautions against ESA use under other circumstances. If used, ESAs should be administered at the lowest dose possible and should increase Hb to the lowest concentration possible to avoid transfusions. Available evidence does not identify Hb levels ≥ 10 g/dL either as thresholds for initiating treatment or as targets for ESA therapy. Starting doses and dose modifications after response or nonresponse should follow US Food and Drug Administration-approved labeling. ESAs should be discontinued after 6 to 8 weeks in nonresponders. ESAs should be avoided in patients with cancer not receiving concurrent chemotherapy, except for those with lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Caution should be exercised when using ESAs with chemotherapeutic agents in diseases associated with increased risk of thromboembolic complications. Table 1 lists detailed recommendations.
To review the evidence about the efficacy and utility of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer (CRHM).
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened ...a panel to conduct and analyze a comprehensive systematic review of the RFA literature from Medline and the Cochrane Collaboration Library.
Because data were considered insufficient to form the basis of a practice guideline, ASCO has instead published a clinical evidence review. The evidence is from single-arm, retrospective, and prospective trials. No randomized controlled trials have been included. The following three clinical issues were considered by the panel: the efficacy of surgical hepatic resection versus RFA for resectable tumors; the utility of RFA for unresectable tumors; and RFA approaches (open, laparoscopic, or percutaneous). Evidence suggests that hepatic resection improves overall survival (OS), particularly for patients with resectable tumors without extrahepatic disease. Careful patient and tumor selection is discussed at length in the literature. RFA investigators report a wide variability in the 5-year survival rate (14% to 55%) and local tumor recurrence rate (3.6% to 60%). The reported mortality rate was low (0% to 2%), and the major complications rate was commonly reported to be between 6% and 9%. RFA is currently performed with all three approaches.
There is a compelling need for more research to determine the efficacy and utility of RFA to increase local recurrence-free, progression-free, and disease-free survival as well as OS for patients with CRHM. Clinical trials have established that hepatic resection can improve OS for patients with resectable CRHM.
To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology (ASCO/ASH) recommendations for the use of epoetin. The guideline was expanded to address use of darbepoetin and ...thromboembolic risk associated with these agents.
An Update Committee ("Committee") reviewed and analyzed data published since 2002 through July 2007. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library databases were searched.
For patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia, the Committee continues to recommend initiating an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) as hemoglobin (Hb) approaches, or falls below, 10 g/dL, to increase Hb and decrease transfusions. ESA treatment continues to be recommended for patients with low-risk myelodysplasia for similar reasons. There is no evidence showing increased survival as a result of ESA treatment. Conclusive evidence is lacking that, absent clinical circumstances necessitating earlier treatment, initiating ESAs at Hb levels greater than 10 g/dL either spares more patients from transfusion or substantially improves their quality of life. Starting doses and dose modifications based on response or lack thereof should follow the package insert. Continuing ESAs beyond 6 to 8 weeks in the absence of response, assuming appropriate dose increase has been attempted in nonresponders as per US Food and Drug Administration-approved labeling, does not seem to be beneficial, and ESA therapy should be discontinued. The Committee recommends monitoring iron stores and supplementing iron intake for ESA-treated patients. ESAs should be used cautiously with chemotherapy, or in clinical states, associated with elevated risk for thromboembolic complications. The Committee also cautions against ESA use for patients with cancer who are not receiving chemotherapy, since recent trials report increased thromboembolic risks and decreased survival under these circumstances.
Anemia resulting from cancer, or its treatment, is an important clinical problem increasingly treated with the recombinant hematopoietic growth factor erythropoietin. To address uncertainties ...regarding indications and efficacy, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of epoetin in patients with cancer. The guideline panel found good evidence to recommend use of epoetin as a treatment option for patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia with a hemoglobin level less than 10 g/dL. Use of epoetin for patients with less severe anemia (hemoglobin < 12 g/dL but never below 10 g/dL) should be determined by clinical circumstances. Good evidence from clinical trials supports the use of subcutaneous epoetin thrice weekly (150 U/kg tiw) for a minimum of 4 weeks. Less strong evidence supports an alternative weekly (40,000 U/wk) dosing regimen, based on common clinical practice. With either administration schedule, dose escalation should be considered for those not responding to the initial dose. In the absence of response, continuing epoetin beyond 6 to 8 weeks does not appear to be beneficial. Epoetin should be titrated once the hemoglobin concentration reaches 12 g/dL. Evidence from one randomized controlled trial supports use of epoetin for patients with anemia associated with low-risk myelodysplasia not receiving chemotherapy; however, there are no published high-quality studies to support its use for anemia in other hematologic malignancies in the absence of chemotherapy. Therefore, for anemic patients with hematologic malignancies, it is recommended that physicians initiate conventional therapy and observe hematologic response before considering use of epoetin.
This systematic review evaluates evidence comparing therapy guided by chemotherapy sensitivity and resistance assays with empiric chemotherapy, emphasizing survival outcomes.
Prospective studies were ...sought comparing patients treated contemporaneously by assay-guided chemotherapy and empiric therapy. An initial MEDLINE search and a search performed by a Working Group of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were reviewed with attention to prespecified study selection criteria.
This review identified 10 studies meeting selection criteria, plus one retrospective study, using seven different assays. Only two studies randomly assigned patients to assay-guided treatment or empiric treatment. Five of nine nonrandomized studies found significantly higher response rates for patients who received assay-guided therapy compared with those treated empirically. One of the two randomized trials found a significantly higher response rate in the assay-guided group. Four additional studies found response rates favoring assay-guided therapy, but comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. Two nonrandomized studies found overall survival to be significantly improved with assay-guided therapy. One randomized study used a cross-over design that made it difficult to determine whether survival differed between groups, while the other randomized trial found no difference in survival. Six studies provided no comparison of groups on baseline patient characteristics. Only one study reported adverse events data.
While higher response rates for assay-guided therapy have been observed, differences may be attributable to bias or confounding. Little evidence on survival is available. These results do not establish the relative effectiveness of assay-guided treatment and empiric treatment. Randomized trials are needed.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published its first clinical practice guideline, which focused on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors, in 1994. Since then, ASCO has ...published 24 additional guidelines or technology assessments on a range of topics and is developing 11 additional guidelines. Guidelines are among ASCO's most valued products, according to membership surveys and data from the JCO.org Web site. However, the same data from ASCO members have highlighted a number of limitations to the guideline program. These relate to the timelines of guideline updates, difficulties locating guidelines and related products, and challenges to implementing ASCO guidelines in everyday clinical practice. This article outlines the concrete steps that the ASCO Health Services Committee (HSC) is taking to address these limitations, including the institution of a more aggressive guideline updating schedule, a transition from narrative to systematic literature reviews to support the practice recommendations, a new Board of Directors-approved policy to permit endorsement of other groups' guidelines, and a robust Clinical Tools and Resources program that offers a range of guideline dissemination and implementation aids. Additional work is underway to establish stronger and deeper collaborations with practicing oncologists to expand their role in the review, field testing, and implementation of guideline clinical tools and resources. Finally, the HSC is discussing evaluation of the guidelines program to maximize the impact of ASCO clinical practice guidelines on clinical decision making and, ultimately, the quality of cancer care.
PDF
