Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. Prophylaxis in the outpatient, inpatient, and perioperative settings was considered, as were treatment and use of anticoagulation as a cancer-directed therapy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published from December 2007 to December 2012 was completed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Committee reviewed evidence to determine which recommendations required revision. RESULTS: Forty-two publications met eligibility criteria, including 16 systematic reviews and 24 randomized controlled trials. RECOMMENDATIONS: Most hospitalized patients with cancer require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for outpatients with cancer. It may be considered for selected high-risk patients. Patients with multiple myeloma receiving antiangiogenesis agents with chemotherapy and/or dexamethasone should receive prophylaxis with either low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or low-dose aspirin. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis, starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Extending prophylaxis up to 4 weeks should be considered in those with high-risk features. LMWH is recommended for the initial 5 to 10 days of treatment for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as well as for long-term (6 months) secondary prophylaxis. Use of novel oral anticoagulants is not currently recommended for patients with malignancy and VTE. Anticoagulation should not be used for cancer treatment in the absence of other indications. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk. Oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines: formal systematic review-based consensus methodology.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines program employs a systematic review-based methodology to produce evidence-based guidelines. This is consistent with the stance of the Institute of Medicine on guideline development, which is that high-quality evidence syntheses form the basis for recommendation development. In the absence of high-quality evidence, recommendation development becomes more complex. One option is to provide no recommendations or withdraw a guideline topic. However, it is often the areas of greatest uncertainty in which the evidentiary base is incomplete, and thus, guidelines are needed most. To provide recommendations in such circumstances, an explicit methodology is needed to ensure that a credible process is undertaken, and rigorous, reliable advice is provided. In 2010, the ASCO Board of Directors approved development of guideline recommendations using consensus methodology. A modified Delphi approach to recommendation development, based on the best available data identified in a systematic review, was piloted with an ASCO guideline. Consensus was achieved through the rating of a series of recommendations by a large group of clinicians, including academic and community-based content and methodology experts. A prespecified threshold of agreement was determined to indicate when consensus was achieved. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥ 75% of raters. The formal consensus methodology used by ASCO enabled development of guideline recommendations on a challenging clinical issue based on limited evidence using a rigorous, transparent, and explicit method. This methodology is proposed for development of future ASCO guidelines on topics for which limited evidence is available.

Antiemetic Use in Oncology: Updated Guideline Recommendations from ASCO.

In 2011, ASCO updated its guideline for the use of antiemetics in oncology, informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. This is an abbreviated version of that guideline, which is available in full at www.asco.org/guidelines/antiemetics. Key changes from the prior update in 2006 include the following: Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and an NK1 receptor antagonist. A large trial validated the equivalency of fosaprepitant, a single-day intravenous formulation, with aprepitant; either therapy is appropriate. Preferential use of palonosetron is recommended for moderate emetic risk regimens, combined with dexamethasone. For low-risk agents, patients can be offered dexamethasone before the first dose of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing high emetic risk radiation therapy should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours following treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. Continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy is recommended. Clinicians often underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as vomiting. Detailed information about the development of the guideline as well as practice tools are available at www.asco.org/guidelines/antiemetics.

American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the cancer care Ontario practice guideline on adjuvant ovarian ablation in the treatment of premenopausal women with early-stage invasive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has policies and procedures for endorsing practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Guideline on Adjuvant Ovarian Ablation (OA) in the Treatment of Premenopausal Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ad hoc review panel of experts reviewed the content. RESULTS: The ASCO ad hoc OA guideline review panel concurred that the recommendations are clear, thorough, based on the most relevant scientific evidence in this content area, and present options that will be acceptable to patients. According to the CCO guideline: one, OA should not be routinely added to systemic therapy with chemotherapy, tamoxifen, or the combination of tamoxifen and chemotherapy; two, OA alone is not recommended as an alternative to any other form of systemic therapy, except in the specific case of patients who are candidates for other forms of systemic therapy but who, for some reason, will not receive any other systemic therapy (eg, patients who cannot tolerate other forms of systemic therapy or patients who choose no other form of systemic therapy); and three, when chemical suppression using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists is the chosen method of OA, in the opinion of the Breast Cancer Disease Site Group, monthly injection is the recommended mode of administration. The mode of administration in nearly all of the available trials has been monthly administration. CONCLUSION: The ASCO review panel agrees with the recommendations as stated in the CCO guideline, with the qualification that ongoing research studies may alter the recommendations of the panel.

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update.

PURPOSE: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline for antiemetics in oncology. METHODS: A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and meeting materials from ASCO and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer were all searched. Primary outcomes of interest were complete response and rates of any vomiting or nausea. RESULTS: Thirty-seven trials met prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria for this systematic review. Two systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration were identified; one surveyed the pediatric literature. The other compared the relative efficacy of the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists. RECOMMENDATIONS: Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist. A large trial validated the equivalency of fosaprepitant, a single-day intravenous formulation, with aprepitant; either therapy is appropriate. Preferential use of palonosetron is recommended for moderate emetic risk regimens, combined with dexamethasone. For low-risk agents, patients can be offered dexamethasone before the first dose of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing high emetic risk radiation therapy should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours after treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. The Update Committee noted the importance of continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy. Clinicians underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as emesis.

Antiemetics: american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update.

ASCO's update to its antiemetics guideline now includes an evaluation of evidence on complementary antiemetic therapy.

American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline: update on adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To develop evidence-based guidelines, based on a systematic review, for endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.