Search

PurposeTo endorse Cancer Care Ontario's guideline on Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations.MethodsThe Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The ASCO Endorsement Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations.ResultsThe ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 2015, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifying statements. The Cancer Care Ontario recommendation regarding 5-alpha reductase inhibitors was not endorsed by the ASCO panel.RecommendationsFor most patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤ 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the recommended disease management strategy. Factors including younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into account when making management decisions. Select patients with low-volume, intermediate-risk (Gleason 3 + 4 = 7) prostate cancer may be offered active surveillance. Active surveillance protocols should include prostate-specific antigen testing, digital rectal examinations, and serial prostate biopsies. Ancillary radiologic and genomic tests are investigational but may have a role in patients with discordant clinical and/or pathologic findings. Patients who are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score ≥ 7) or who have significant increases in tumor volume on subsequent biopsies should be offered active therapy.

The article presents questions and answers related to the 2023 collaborative guidelines on penile cancer by the European Association of Urology (EAU) and American Society of Clinical Oncology, including the impact of penile cancer on patients' quality of life and the significance of p16 status.

The laboratory evaluation of patients suspected of having acute leukemia (AL) is complex and has evolved significantly with the incorporation of advanced laboratory techniques. The first broadly accepted classification in [...], * Context.--A complete diagnosis of acute leukemia requires knowledge of clinical information combined with morphologic evaluation, immunophenotyping and karyotype analysis, and often, molecular genetic testing. Although many aspects of the workup for acute leukemia are well accepted, few guidelines have addressed the different aspects of the diagnostic evaluation of samples from patients suspected to have acute leukemia. Objective.--To develop a guideline for treating physicians and pathologists involved in the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of new acute leukemia samples, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, and acute leukemias of ambiguous lineage. Design.--The College of American Pathologists and the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts in hematology and hematopathology to develop recommendations. A systematic evidence review was conducted to address 6 key questions. Recommendations were derived from strength of evidence, feedback received during the public comment period, and expert panel consensus. Results.--Twenty-seven guideline statements were established, which ranged from recommendations on what clinical and laboratory information should be available as part of the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of acute leukemia samples to what types of testing should be performed routinely, with recommendations on where such testing should be performed and how the results should be reported. Conclusions.--The guideline provides a framework for the multiple steps, including laboratory testing, in the evaluation of acute leukemia samples. Some aspects of the guideline, especially molecular genetic testing in acute leukemia, are rapidly changing with new supportive literature, which will require on-going updates for the guideline to remain relevant. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:1342-1393; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0504-CP)

The article presents answers to questions related to lutetium-177-PSMA-617 therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer based on a randomized controlled trial.

Agreement on the diagnosis of hematologic neoplasms generally exists among pathologists, based on widely adopted classification schemes, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and [...], Context.--There is ample evidence from the solid tumor literature that synoptic reporting improves accuracy and completeness of relevant data. No evidence-based guidelines currently exist for synoptic reporting for bone marrow samples. Objective.--To develop evidence-based recommendations to standardize the basic components of a synoptic report template for bone marrow samples. Design.--The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a panel of experts in hematopathology to develop recommendations. A systematic evidence review was conducted to address 5 key questions. Recommendations were derived from strength of evidence, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus. Results.--Nine guideline statements were established to provide pathology laboratories with a framework by which to develop synoptic reporting templates for bone marrow samples. The guideline calls for specific data groups in the synoptic section of the pathology report; provides a list of evidence-based parameters for key, pertinent elements; and addresses ancillary testing. Conclusion.--A framework for bone marrow synoptic reporting will improve completeness of the final report in a manner that is clear, succinct, and consistent among institutions. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016; 140:932-949; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0450-SA)

Abstract Background Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. The large and growing number of patients affected, the high mortality rates, the worldwide geographic variation in practice, and the large body of good quality research warrants a systematic review with meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer to inform evidence-based practice was produced. MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for trial reports. Included were randomized trials or meta-analyses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with surgery alone or other treatments in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. Either one- or three-year mortality data were pooled and reported as relative risk ratios. Results Thirty-four randomized controlled trials and six meta-analyses were obtained and grouped into 13 basic treatment approaches. Single randomized controlled trials detected no differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. - Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate. - Postoperative chemotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. - Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy plus protein-bound polysaccharide versus chemoradiation versus chemoradiation plus protein-bound polysaccharide. Pooling one-year mortality detected no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials). - Postoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials). - Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). - Preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (two randomized trials). - Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). Single randomized controlled trials detected differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparison: - Preoperative hyperthermia and chemoradiotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in favour of hyperthermia. Pooling three-year mortality detected no statistically significant difference in mortality between treatments for the following comparison: - Postoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (two randomized trials). Pooling three-year mortality detected statistically significant differences between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials) in favour of preoperative chemoradiation with surgery. - Preoperative chemotherapy compared with preoperative radiotherapy (one randomized trial) in favour of preoperative radiotherapy. Conclusion For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice.

Abstract Background Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. A clinical practice guideline was developed based on a systematic review investigating neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Methods A systematic review with meta-analysis was developed and clinical recommendations were drafted. External review of the practice guideline report by practitioners in Ontario, Canada was obtained through a mailed survey, and incorporated. Final approval of the practice guideline was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. Results The systematic review was developed and recommendations were drafted, and the report was mailed to Ontario practitioners for external review. Ninety percent of respondents agreed with both the evidence summary and the draft recommendations, while only 69% approved of the draft recommendations as a practice guideline. Based on the external review, a revised document was created. The revised practice guideline was submitted to the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee for review. All 11 members of the PGCC returned ballots. Eight PGCC members approved the practice guideline report as written and three members approved the guideline conditional on specific concerns being addressed. After these recommended changes were made, the final practice guideline report was approved. Conclusion In consideration of the systematic review, external review, and subsequent Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee revision suggestions, and final approval, the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group recommends the following: For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice.

Abstract Background This systematic review with meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the literature and to develop recommendations regarding the use of preoperative radiotherapy in the management of patients with resectable rectal cancer. Methods The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the annual proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Relevant reports were reviewed by four members of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group and the references from these reports were searched for additional trials. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. Results Two meta-analyses of preoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone, nineteen trials that compared preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery to surgery alone, and five trials that compared preoperative radiotherapy to alternative treatments were obtained. Randomized trials demonstrate that preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery is significantly more effective than surgery alone in preventing local recurrence in patients with resectable rectal cancer and it may also improve survival. A single trial, using surgery with total mesorectal excision, has shown similar benefits in local recurrence. Conclusion For adult patients with clinically resectable rectal cancer we conclude that: • Preoperative radiotherapy is an acceptable alternative to the previous practice of postoperative radiotherapy for patients with stage II and III resectable rectal cancer; • Both preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy decrease local recurrence but neither improves survival as much as postoperative radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy. Therefore, if preoperative radiotherapy is used, chemotherapy should be added postoperatively to at least patients with stage III disease.

Abstract Background A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of follow-up on colorectal cancer patient survival and, in a second phase, recommendations were developed. Methods The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the 1997 to 2002 proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Study selection was limited to randomized trials and meta-analyses that examined different programs of follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer where five-year overall survival was reported. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. Results Six randomized trials and two published meta-analyses of follow-up were obtained. Of six randomized trials comparing one follow-up program to a more intense program, only two individual trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit favouring the more intense follow-up program. Pooling of all six randomized trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival favouring more intense follow-up (Relative Risk Ratio 0.80 (95%CI, 0.70 to 0.91; p = 0.0008). Although the rate of recurrence was similar in both of the follow-up groups compared, asymptomatic recurrences and re-operations for cure of recurrences were more common in patients with more intensive follow-up. Trials including CEA monitoring and liver imaging also had significant results, whereas trials not including these tests did not. Conclusion Follow-up programs for patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer do improve survival. These follow-up programs include frequent visits and performance of blood CEA, chest x-rays, liver imaging and colonoscopy, however, it is not clear which tests or frequency of visits is optimal. There is a suggestion that improved survival is due to diagnosis of recurrence at an earlier, asymptomatic stage which allows for more curative resection of recurrence. Based on this evidence and consideration of the biology of colorectal cancer and present practices, a guideline was developed. Patients should be made aware of the risk of disease recurrence or second bowel cancer, the potential benefits of follow-up and the uncertainties requiring further clinical trials. For patients at high-risk of recurrence (stages IIb and III) clinical assessment is recommended when symptoms occur or at least every 6 months the first 3 years and yearly for at least 5 years. At the time of those visits, patients may have blood CEA, chest x-ray and liver imaging. For patients at lower risk of recurrence (stages I and Ia) or those with co-morbidities impairing future surgery, only visits yearly or when symptoms occur. All patients should have a colonoscopy before or within 6 months of initial surgery, and repeated yearly if villous or tubular adenomas >1 cm are found; otherwise repeat every 3 to 5 years. All patients having recurrences should be assessed by a multidisciplinary team in a cancer centre.

Purpose: In 2017, Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-based Care released a guideline on Bone Health and Bone-targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer. This guideline included recommendations across a relatively broad clinical spectrum within prostate cancer. Topics addressed ranged from management of osteoporotic fracture risk in non-metastatic disease to management of men with castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) metastatic to bone. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods: The Bone Health and Bone-targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results: The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Bone Health and Bone-targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO wholly endorses the Bone Health and Bone-targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline. Recommendations: The ASCO Expert Panel endorses all the original guideline recommendations as written and offered a series of discussion points to guide practice for clinicians as they manage bone-related risks within this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]