Search

PURPOSE To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. METHODS PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed. RESULTS The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE. RECOMMENDATIONS Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

PURPOSE The purpose of this guideline update is to incorporate recently reported practice-changing evidence into ASCO’s recommendations on potentially curable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to evaluate data from PRODIGE 24/CCTG PA.6, a phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of postoperative leucovorin calcium, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) versus gemcitabine alone, presented at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting. In addition, PubMed was searched for additional papers that may influence the existing recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS The Expert Panel only updated Recommendation 4.1 as a result of the practice-changing data. Recommendation 4.1 states that all patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma who did not receive preoperative therapy should be offered 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the absence of medical or surgical contraindications. The modified combination regimen of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (mFOLFIRINOX; oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 D1, and 5-fluorouracil 2.4 g/m2 over 46 hours every 14 days for 12 cycles) is now preferred in the absence of concerns for toxicity or tolerance; alternatively, doublet therapy with gemcitabine and capecitabine or monotherapy with gemcitabine alone or fluorouracil plus folinic acid alone can be offered. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Purpose An ASCO provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO’s membership and other health care providers. This PCO addresses identification and management of patients and family members with possible predisposition to pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature published from January 1998 to June 2018. Results of the databases searched were supplemented with hand searching of the bibliographies of systematic reviews and selected seminal articles and contributions from Expert Panel members’ curated files. Provisional Clinical Opinion All patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma should undergo assessment of risk for hereditary syndromes known to be associated with an increased risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Assessment of risk should include a comprehensive review of family history of cancer. Individuals with a family history of pancreatic cancer affecting two first-degree relatives meet criteria for familial pancreatic cancer (FPC). Individuals (cancer affected or unaffected) with a family history of pancreatic cancer meeting criteria for FPC, those with three or more diagnoses of pancreatic cancer in same side of the family, and individuals meeting criteria for other genetic syndromes associated with increased risk for pancreatic cancer have an increased risk for pancreatic cancer and are candidates for genetic testing. Germline genetic testing for cancer susceptibility may be discussed with individuals diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, even if family history is unremarkable. Benefits and limitations of pancreatic cancer screening should be discussed with individuals whose family history meets criteria for FPC and/or genetic susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Purpose To update the Potentially Curable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline published on May 31, 2016. The October 2016 update focuses solely on new evidence that pertains to clinical question 4 of the guideline: What is the appropriate adjuvant regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer who have undergone an R0 or R1 resection of their primary tumor? Methods The recently published results of a randomized phase III study prompted an update of this guideline. The high quality of the reported evidence and the potential for its clinical impact prompted the Expert Panel to revise one of the guideline recommendations. Results The ESPAC-4 study, a multicenter, international, open-label randomized controlled phase III trial of adjuvant combination chemotherapy compared gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in 730 evaluable patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Median overall survival was improved in the doublet arm to 28.0 months (95% CI, 23.5 to 31.5 months) versus 25.5 months (95% CI, 22.7 to 27.9 months) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98; P = .032). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were similar in both arms, although higher rates of hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea occurred in patients randomly assigned to the doublet arm. Recommendations All patients with resected pancreatic cancer who did not receive preoperative therapy should be offered 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the absence of medical or surgical contraindications. The doublet regimen of gemcitabine and capecitabine is preferred in the absence of concerns for toxicity or tolerance; alternatively, monotherapy with gemcitabine or fluorouracil plus folinic acid can be offered. Adjuvant treatment should be initiated within 8 weeks of surgical resection, assuming complete recovery. The remaining recommendations from the original 2016 ASCO guideline are unchanged.

ASCO is committed to addressing the needs of sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations as a diverse group at risk for receiving disparate care and having suboptimal experiences, including discrimination, throughout the cancer care continuum. This position statement outlines five areas of recommendations to address the needs of both SGM populations affected by cancer and members of the oncology workforce who identify as SGM: (1) patient education and support; (2) workforce development and diversity; (3) quality improvement strategies; (4) policy solutions; and (5) research strategies. In making these recommendations, the Society calls for increased outreach and educational support for SGM patients; increased SGM cultural competency training for providers; improvement of quality-of-care metrics that include sexual orientation and gender information variables; and increased data collection to inform future work addressing the needs of SGM communities.

Purpose Hospitalized patients with cancer are considered to be at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite strong recommendations in numerous clinical practice guidelines, retrospective studies have shown that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is underutilized in hospitalized patients with cancer. Patients and Methods We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study of hospitalized patients with cancer at five academic hospitals to determine prescription rates of thromboprophylaxis and factors influencing its use during hospitalization. Results A total of 775 patients with cancer were enrolled across five academic medical centers. Two hundred forty-seven patients (31.9%) had relative contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis. Accounting for contraindications to anticoagulation, the overall rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was 74.2% (95% CI, 70.4% to 78.0%; 392 of 528 patients). Among the patients with cancer without contraindications for anticoagulation, individuals hospitalized with nonhematologic malignancies were significantly more likely to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis than those with hematologic malignancies (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% CI, 1.43 to 3.82; P = .007). Patients with cancer admitted for cancer therapy were significantly less likely to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis than those admitted for other reasons (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.61; P < .001). Sixty-three percent of patients with cancer classified as low risk, as determined by the Padua Scoring System, received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. Among the 136 patients who did not receive anticoagulation, 58.8% were considered to be high risk by the Padua Scoring System. Conclusion We conclude that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is frequently administered to hospitalized patients with cancer but that nearly one third of patients are considered to have relative contraindications for prophylactic anticoagulation. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer is commonly prescribed without regard to the presence or absence of concomitant risk factors for VTE.

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.3617 The use of humanities curricula, specifically narrative-based instruction, is increasingly common in medical education. The overarching goal for introducing humanities into medical training is to allow physicians to empathize with the patient’s perspective, and thus to train physicians to adopt patient-centered approaches in the delivery of medical care. As physician and writer Verghese points out, “To hear the voice of the patient preserves our capacity to imagine the suffering of the patient.” Furthermore, using humanities in medical education allows for self-reflection and introspection and can lead to alliance building with colleagues. A conceptual framework for the use of illness narratives in medical education has recently been proposed. In this framework, illness narratives and patient encounters lead to an understanding of chronic illness that is personal and immediate, rather than abstract or statistical, and this fosters identification with patients. Humanities-based education can be a transformative experience. Oncology is a stressful occupation, and oncologists commonly deal with burnout and grief. In one survey, 56% of oncologists reported being burned out. Oncology trainees may be particularly susceptible to these feelings. In a recent French survey of oncology residents, 44% of trainees experienced burnout, and 18% had abnormally elevated levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. In this study, burnout was significantly associated with the desire to either leave health care altogether or to change specialties. It is also notable that medical training has been shown to be associated with a progressive decline in empathy that can be measured using a quantitative scale. The use of medical humanities in its various forms may help oncology trainees and other physicians to rekindle empathy and cope with burnout. Indeed, Krasner et al demonstrated that an education program in mindful communication that included narratives and discussion of meaningful clinical experiences significantly increased empathy and reduced symptoms of burnout (including depersonalization and emotional exhaustion) among participants. Despite the increasing use of humanities-based medical education, a majority of these efforts to date have focused on medical students and, to a lesser extent, on residents, and only rarely on specialty fellows. Informal discussion forums and lecture series focusing on various aspects of oncology, particularly end-of-life care, have been created at various institutions. However, to our knowledge, there is no oncology-specific humanities curriculum. Furthermore, humanities are not a required part of oncology fellowship training, although humanities training may help trainees meet several required Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies, particularly in the areas of patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, and professionalism. Since 2003, we have held occasional lecture series related to medical humanities and narratives as part of oncology fellowship training at our institution. In 2009, we decided to create a more formal humanities curriculum and integrate it into the oncology fellowship curriculum. We describe here the development and implementation of this pilot program, discuss qualitative feedback, and offer suggestions that may help other oncology training programs to incorporate humanitiesbased curricula.

Purpose To develop guideline recommendations for the use of anticoagulation in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. Methods A comprehensive systematic review of the medical literature on the prevention and treatment of VTE in cancer patients was conducted and reviewed by a panel of content and methodology experts. Following discussion of the results, the panel drafted recommendations for the use of anticoagulation in patients with malignant disease. Results The results of randomized controlled trials of primary and secondary VTE medical prophylaxis, surgical prophylaxis, VTE treatment, and the impact of anticoagulation on survival of patients with cancer were reviewed. Recommendations were developed on the prevention of VTE in hospitalized, ambulatory, and surgical cancer patients as well as patients with established VTE, and for use of anticoagulants in cancer patients without VTE to improve survival. Conclusion Recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology VTE Guideline Panel include (1) all hospitalized cancer patients should be considered for VTE prophylaxis with anticoagulants in the absence of bleeding or other contraindications; (2) routine prophylaxis of ambulatory cancer patients with anticoagulation is not recommended, with the exception of patients receiving thalidomide or lenalidomide; (3) patients undergoing major surgery for malignant disease should be considered for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis; (4) low molecular weight heparin represents the preferred agent for both the initial and continuing treatment of cancer patients with established VTE; and (5) the impact of anticoagulants on cancer patient survival requires additional study and cannot be recommended at present.