Search

In October 2011, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF, or "Task Force") released draft recommendations on prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA), concluding that "PSA-based screening results in small or no reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality and is associated with harms related to subsequent evaluation and treatments, some of which may be unnecessary." This statement was accompanied by a grade "D" recommendation, which indicates that in the Task Force's judgment there "is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits." The Task Force, an independent panel of nonfederal (U.S.) experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine, conducts systematic evidence reviews of preventive health care services and makes recommendations about preventive services in primary care. Task Force recommendations do not set U.S. federal policy but can and do influence reimbursement and clinical practice. In this article, we will present evidence the Task Force considered when making its decision, including two highly influential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prostate cancer screening, the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). The two trials arrived at different conclusions about the efficacy of routine prostate cancer screening, but similar conclusions about the accompaniment of clinically relevant harms with prostate cancer screening, including overdiagnosis (screen detection of cancers that never would be diagnosed in the absence of screening). We also will present other available evidence on benefits and harms of PSA-based screening and consider that evidence and the findings of ERSPC and PLCO in conjunction with one another.

PURPOSE An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing information. This PCO addresses recommendations for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection screening in patients receiving cytotoxic or immunosuppressive chemotherapy for treatment of malignant diseases., Clinical Context: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued Recommendations for Identification and Public Health Management of Persons with Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection, recommending screening for hepatitis B infection (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], antihepatitis B core antigen [anti-HBc], and antibodies to HBsAg [anti-HBs]) for "persons receiving cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapy (eg, chemotherapy for malignant diseases...).", Provisional Clinical Opinion: The evidence is insufficient to determine the net benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic HBV infection in individuals with cancer who are about to receive cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapy or who are already receiving therapy. Individuals with cancer who undergo certain cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapies and have HBV infection or prior exposure to HBV may be at elevated risk of liver failure from HBV reactivation. As such, HBV screening requires clinical judgment. Physicians may consider screening patients belonging to groups at heightened risk for chronic HBV infection or if highly immunosuppressive therapy is planned. Highly immunosuppressive treatments include, but are not limited to, hematopoietic cell transplantation and regimens including rituximab. Screening based on a high risk of prior HBV exposure or risk of reactivation due to planned therapeutic regimens should include testing for HBsAg as a serologic marker for HBV infection. In some populations, testing for anti-HBc should also be considered. There is no evidence to support serologic testing for anti-HBs in this context. When evidence for chronic HBV infection is found, antiviral therapy before and throughout the course of chemotherapy may be considered to reduce the risk of HBV reactivation, although evidence from controlled trials of this approach is limited. Screening and/or treating HBV infection should not delay the initiation of chemotherapy., Note: ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written, and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision-making and identify questions and settings for further research. Due to the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs address only the topics specifically identified in the PCO and are not applicable to interventions, diseases or stages of disease not specifically identified. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients, and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical practice and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical trials. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.

PURPOSE To update the 2002 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer (BC) risk reduction. METHODS A literature search identified relevant randomized trials published since 2002. Primary outcome of interest was BC incidence (invasive and noninvasive). Secondary outcomes included BC mortality, adverse events, and net health benefits. An expert panel reviewed the literature and developed updated consensus guidelines. Results Seventeen articles met inclusion criteria. In premenopausal women, tamoxifen for 5 years reduces the risk of BC for at least 10 years, particularly estrogen receptor (ER) -positive invasive tumors. Women < or = 50 years of age experience fewer serious side effects. Vascular and vasomotor events do not persist post-treatment across all ages. In postmenopausal women, raloxifene and tamoxifen reduce the risk of ER-positive invasive BC with equal efficacy. Raloxifene is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolic disease, benign uterine conditions, and cataracts than tamoxifen in postmenopausal women. No evidence exists establishing whether a reduction in BC risk from either agent translates into reduced BC mortality. Recommendations In women at increased risk for BC, tamoxifen (20 mg/d for 5 years) may be offered to reduce the risk of invasive ER-positive BC, with benefits for at least 10 years. In postmenopausal women, raloxifene (60 mg/d for 5 years) may also be considered. Use of aromatase inhibitors, fenretinide, or other selective estrogen receptor modulators to lower BC risk is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. Discussion of risks and benefits of preventive agents by health providers is critical to patient decision making.

A MESSAGE FROM ASCO'S PRESIDENT: For the third year, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is publishing Clinical Cancer Advances: Major Research Advances in Cancer Treatment, Prevention, and Screening, an annual review of the most significant cancer research presented or published over the past year. ASCO publishes this report to demonstrate the important progress being made on the front lines of clinical cancer research today. The report is intended to give all those with an interest in cancer care-the general public, cancer patients and organizations, policymakers, oncologists, and other medical professionals-an accessible summary of the year's most important cancer research advances. These pages report on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer screening, the association between hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer incidence, the link between human papillomavirus and head and neck cancers, and the use of radiation therapy to prevent lung cancer from spreading. They also report on effective new targeted therapies for cancers that have been historically difficult to treat, such as liver cancer and kidney cancer, among many others. A total of 24 advances are featured in this year's report. These advances and many more over the past several years show that the nation's long-term investment in cancer research is paying off. But there are disturbing signs that progress could slow. We are now in the midst of the longest sustained period of flat government funding for cancer research in history. The budgets for the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have been unchanged for four years. When adjusted for inflation, cancer research funding has actually declined 12% since 2004. These budget constraints limit the NCI's ability to fund promising cancer research. In the past several years the number of grants that the NCI has been able to fund has significantly decreased; this year, in response to just the threat of a 10% budget cut, the nation's Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups reduced the number of patients participating in clinical trials by almost 2,000 and senior researchers report that many of the brightest young minds no longer see the promise of a career in science, choosing other careers instead. It's time to renew the nation's commitment to cancer research. Without additional support, the opportunity to build on the extraordinary progress to date will be lost or delayed. This report demonstrates the essential role that clinical cancer research plays in finding new and better ways to care for the more than 1.4 million people expected to be diagnosed with cancer this year. I want to thank the Editorial Board members, the Specialty Editors, and the ASCO Cancer Communications Committee for their dedicated work to develop this report. I hope you find it useful. Sincerely, Nancy E. Davidson, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A MESSAGE FROM ASCO's PRESIDENT For the second consecutive year, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is publishing Clinical Cancer Advances: Major Research Advances in Cancer Treatment, Prevention, and Screening, an annual review of the most significant cancer research presented or published over the past year. ASCO developed this report to demonstrate the enormous progress being made on the front lines of cancer research today. The report is intended to give all those with an interest in cancer care-the general public, cancer patients and physicians, policymakers, oncologists, and other medical professionals-an accessible summary of the year's most important cancer research advances. These pages report on new targeted therapies that are improving survival and response rates in hard-to-treat cancers such as kidney cancer, HER-2-positive breast cancer, head and neck cancer, and chronic myelogenous leukemia; the FDA's approval of the world's first preventive vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), which has the potential to dramatically reduce the global burden of cervical cancer; and advances in the fast-growing field of personalized medicine, including a new lung cancer test that could help physicians better target treatments and predict prognosis. These advances are only part of the landscape. Survival rates are on the rise, the number of cancer deaths in the United States began declining for the first time since 1930, and new research is showing that the rates of certain common cancers, such as those of the breast and colon, have stabilized, and may have even begun to decline. However, cancer research still faces a number of major obstacles. At a time of extraordinary scientific potential, declining federal funding of cancer research threatens to stall or even reverse recent progress. Such funding cuts have already led to fewer clinical trials, fewer talented young physicians entering the field, and a growing bottleneck of basic science discoveries waiting to be "translated" into useful therapies and diagnostics. In addition to highlighting the major research advances over the past year, this report also identifies key barriers to accelerating the pace of cancer research and outlines ASCO's recommendations for overcoming them. Despite these and other challenges, there is much good news on the front lines of cancer research. This report demonstrates the essential role of clinical cancer research in finding new and better ways to treat, diagnose, and prevent a group of diseases that strike half of men and one-third of women in the United States.

Improvements in technology have led to a number of tests that can be used to suggest that a patient has a cancer. Advances in cancer biology and medical imaging have led to a number of cancer screening tests. Cancer screening is commonly advocated, but its complexity is often lost in guidelines that have sound-bite quality. It is commonly viewed as of no harm, when in fact there are harms associated with every known screening test. Indeed, many screening experts believe a screening test should only be used when the potential for benefit clearly outweighs the potential for harm. Cancer screening principles are classically within the realm of the epidemiologist. As more screening tests are developed, these principles have become more relevant to the practicing clinician. What is known and what is unknown about screening is distinctly different from what is believed by the public and many practicing clinicians. Many tests have both screening and diagnostic uses, and it is only the context in which these are used that determines whether they are screening or diagnostic. A screening test is done on asymptomatic individuals who receive the test principally because they are of the age or sex at risk for the cancer. A diagnostic test is done on an individual because of clinical suspicion of disease.