James L. Wade

2006 Update of Recommendations for the Use of White Blood Cell Growth Factors: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE To update the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSF). UPDATE METHODOLOGY The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of pertinent data published from 1999 through September 2005. Guided by the 1996 ASCO clinical outcomes criteria, the Update Committee formulated recommendations based on improvements in survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction and cost-effectiveness. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2005 Update Committee agreed unanimously that reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) is an important clinical outcome that justifies the use of CSFs, regardless of impact on other factors, when the risk of FN is approximately 20% and no other equally effective regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of FN in patients who are at high risk based on age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. CSF use allows a modest to moderate increase in dose-density and/or dose-intensity of chemotherapy regimens. Dose-dense regimens should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Prophylactic CSF for patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma aged 65 years and older treated with curative chemotherapy (CHOP or more aggressive regimens) should be given to reduce the incidence of FN and infections. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death due to injury to other organs, includes the prompt administration of CSF or pegylated G-CSF.

Update of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial: Preventing breast cancer

The selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM) tamoxifen became the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved agent for reducing breast cancer risk but did not gain wide acceptance for prevention, largely because it increased endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. The FDA approved the SERM raloxifene for breast cancer risk reduction following its demonstrated effectiveness in preventing invasive breast cancer in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR). Raloxifene caused less toxicity (versus tamoxifen), including reduced thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer. In this report, we present an updated analysis with an 81-month median follow-up. STAR women were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/d) or raloxifene (60 mg/d) for 5 years. The risk ratio (RR; raloxifene:tamoxifen) for invasive breast cancer was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.47) and for noninvasive disease, 1.22 (95% CI, 0.95–1.59). Compared with initial results, the RRs widened for invasive and narrowed for noninvasive breast cancer. Toxicity RRs (raloxifene:tamoxifen) were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.36–0.83; P = 0.003) for endometrial cancer (this difference was not significant in the initial results), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.12–0.29) for uterine hyperplasia, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.60–0.93) for thromboembolic events. There were no significant mortality differences. Long-term raloxifene retained 76% of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in preventing invasive disease and grew closer over time to tamoxifen in preventing noninvasive disease, with far less toxicity (e.g., highly significantly less endometrial cancer). These results have important public health implications and clarify that both raloxifene and tamoxifen are good preventive choices for postmenopausal women with elevated risk for breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res; 3(6); 696–706. ©2010 AACR.

Initial Hormonal Management of Androgen-Sensitive Metastatic, Recurrent, or Progressive Prostate Cancer: 2007 Update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology Practice Guideline

PURPOSE To update the 2004 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on initial hormonal management of androgen-sensitive, metastatic, recurrent, or progressive prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS The writing committee based its recommendations on an updated systematic literature review. Recommendations were approved by the Expert Panel, the ASCO Health Services Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors. RESULTS Seven randomized controlled trials (four new), one systematic review, one meta-analysis (new), one Markov model, and one delta-method 95% CI procedure for active controlled trials (new) informed the guideline update. RECOMMENDATIONS Bilateral orchiectomy or luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists are recommended initial androgen-deprivation treatments (ADTs). Nonsteroidal antiandrogen monotherapy merits discussion as an alternative; steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy should not be offered. Combined androgen blockade should be considered. In metastatic or progressive PCa, immediate versus symptom-onset institution of ADT results in a moderate decrease (17%) in relative risk (RR) for PCa-specific mortality, a moderate increase (15%) in RR for non-PCa-specific mortality, and no overall survival advantage. Therefore, the Panel cannot make a strong recommendation for early ADT initiation. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics and other metrics allow identification of populations at high risk for PCa-specific and overall mortality. Further studies must be completed to assess whether patients with adverse prognostic factors gain a survival advantage from immediate ADT. For patients electing to wait until symptoms for ADT, regular monitoring visits are indicated. For patients with recurrence, clinical trials should be considered if available. Currently, data are insufficient to support use of intermittent androgen blockade outside clinical trials

Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines

In 1993, the Health Services Research Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) charged an Outcomes Working Group with defining the outcomes of adult and pediatric cancer treatment to be used for technology assessment and development of cancer treatment guidelines. The Working Group defined by consensus outcomes for technology assessment and guideline development, focusing on cancer treatments. The Working Group considered a variety of perspectives on outcomes, including those of patients, physicians, clinical investigators, ASCO, and policy makers. Because ASCOs guidelines will define what constitutes the best treatment and not whether that treatment should be paid for, the Working Group gave higher priority to the clinical and clinical research perspectives than to the health policy perspective. Survival is the most important outcome of cancer treatment. An improvement in at least disease-free survival is a prerequisite for recommending adjuvant therapy. In the case of metastatic cancer, treatment can be recommended even without an improvement in survival, if it improves quality of life. Quality of life includes global quality of life, as well as its physical, psychologic, and social dimensions. To be an outcome of cancer treatment, quality-of-life measures must be sensitive to clinically meaningful changes produced by treatment; evaluations must control for placebo effects and determinants of quality of life not related to cancer or its treatment. Toxicity, both short and long term, is vitally important, with the latter being particularly critical in children. The value of cancer outcomes like tumor response (eg, complete or partial response) and biomarkers (eg, CA-125) for technology assessment and guideline development depends on their ability to predict patient outcomes (survival and quality of life) or to influence decisions about treatment. Complete response is an important outcome when it predicts survival. Progression is important because it signals the need to change or stop treatment. Cost-effectiveness is an especially important outcome to consider when the benefits of treatment are modest or the costs are high. Patient outcomes (eg, survival and quality of life) should receive higher priority than cancer outcomes (eg, response rate), but both types of outcomes are important in technology assessment and guideline development. Multiple outcomes should be considered because no single outcome adequately describes the results of cancer treatment. In general, there is no minimum benefit above which treatments are justified; rather, benefits should be balanced against toxicity and cost.

American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of pharmacologic interventions including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition for breast cancer risk reduction.

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.

Use of Pharmacologic Interventions for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE To update the 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer (BC) risk reduction. METHODS A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses published from June 2007 through June 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Collaboration Library. Primary outcome of interest was BC incidence (invasive and noninvasive). Secondary outcomes included BC mortality, adverse events, and net health benefits. Guideline recommendations were revised based on an Update Committees review of the literature. RESULTS Nineteen articles met the selection criteria. Six chemoprevention agents were identified: tamoxifen, raloxifene, arzoxifene, lasofoxifene, exemestane, and anastrozole. RECOMMENDATIONS In women at increased risk of BC age ≥ 35 years, tamoxifen (20 mg per day for 5 years) should be discussed as an option to reduce the risk of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive BC. In postmenopausal women, raloxifene (60 mg per day for 5 years) and exemestane (25 mg per day for 5 years) should also be discussed as options for BC risk reduction. Those at increased BC risk are defined as individuals with a 5-year projected absolute risk of BC ≥ 1.66% (based on the National Cancer Institute BC Risk Assessment Tool or an equivalent measure) or women diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ. Use of other selective ER modulators or other aromatase inhibitors to lower BC risk is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. Health care providers are encouraged to discuss the option of chemoprevention among women at increased BC risk. The discussion should include the specific risks and benefits associated with each chemopreventive agent.

Recommendations for the Use of WBC Growth Factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE To update the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs). METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Update Committee and conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews from October 2005 through September 2014. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by the Update Committee. RESULTS Changes to previous recommendations include the addition of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz, moderation of the recommendation regarding routine use of CSFs in older patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and addition of recommendations against routine dose-dense chemotherapy in lymphoma and in favor of high-dose-intensity chemotherapy in urothelial cancer. The Update Committee did not address recommendations regarding use of CSFs in acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes in adults. RECOMMENDATIONS Prophylactic use of CSFs to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febrile neutropenia is approximately 20% or higher and no other equally effective and safe regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients who are at high risk on the basis of age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. Dose-dense regimens that require CSFs should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total-body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death as a result of injury to other organs, include the prompt administration of CSFs.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Recommendations for the Initial Hormonal Management of Androgen-Sensitive Metastatic, Recurrent, or Progressive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE To develop a clinical practice guideline for the management of men with metastatic, recurrent, or progressive carcinoma of the prostate. The focus of this document is on the use, combinations, and timing of various forms of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the palliation of men with androgen-sensitive disease. METHODS An expert panel and writing committee were formed. The questions to be addressed by the guideline were determined, and a systematic review of the literature was performed, which included a search of online databases, bibliographic review, and consultation with content experts. A priori criteria were used to select studies for analysis and study authors were contacted when necessary. RESULTS There were 10 randomized controlled trials, six systematic reviews, and one Markov model available to inform the guidelines. CONCLUSION A full discussion between practitioner and patient should occur to determine which therapy is best for the patient. Bilateral orchiectomy or luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonists are the recommended initial treatments. Nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy may be discussed as an alternative, but steroidal antiandrogens should not be offered as monotherapy. Patients willing to accept the increased toxicity of combined androgen blockage for a small benefit in survival should be offered nonsteroidal antiandrogen in addition to castrate therapy. Until data from studies using modern medical diagnostic/biochemical tests and standardized follow-up schedules become available, no specific recommendations can be issued regarding the question of early versus deferred ADT. A discussion about the pros and cons of early versus deferred ADT should occur.

Phase II Trial of Weekly Intravenous Gemcitabine With Continuous Infusion Fluorouracil in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer

PURPOSE To determine the clinical response rate of the combination of weekly intravenous (IV) gemcitabine with continuous infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between June 1998 and February 1999, 41 patients with metastatic RCC were enrolled onto this multi-institutional phase II study of gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 and 5-FU 150 mg/m(2)/d via continuous IV infusion through a permanent catheter on days 1 to 21 of a 28-day cycle. Patients had a Cancer and Leukemia Group B performance status of 0 or 1, with a median time since diagnosis of metastatic disease of 10 months (range, 0 to 129 months). Thirty-three patients (80%) had multiple metastatic sites, and 34 patients (83%) had prior chemotherapy or immunotherapy. RESULTS Of the 39 assessable patients, there were no complete responses but seven partial responses (objective response rate = 17%; 95% confidence interval, 8% to 34%). Five minor responses (25% to 50% decreased tumor size) were also observed. The duration of response for the seven partial responders was 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 months. Median progression-free survival for the gemcitabine/5-FU group was 28.7 weeks versus 8 weeks for a similar cohort of patients treated on previous phase II studies at the University of Chicago (P =.008). The regimen was well tolerated, with fatigue, mucositis, nausea/vomiting, and grade 2 hematologic toxicities being most common. CONCLUSION Weekly gemcitabine with continuous infusion 5-FU is an active combination in patients with metastatic RCC. Therapy was well tolerated and produced an improvement in progression-free survival over historical controls.

A phase II study of farnesyl transferase inhibitor R115777 in pancreatic cancer: A Southwest oncology group (SWOG 9924) study

Ninety per cent of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PC) contain mutations of the K-Ras proto-oncogene resulting in constitutively activated Ras protein. A critical step in Ras activation is farnesylation of Ras protein. Farnesyl transferase inhibitors are compounds that inhibit farnesylation. We report the results of a phase II trial of R115777, an oral farnesyl transferase inhibitor, in patients with surgically incurable locally advanced or metastatic PC. Between 6/1/2000 and 11/20/2001, 58 cases were accrued, 53 of whom were eligible and analyzable. Patients were required to have a performance status (PS) 0 to 1, be able to take oral medications, and to have adequate renal, hepatic, and hematologic functions. Fifty-five percent were male. Median age was 64.7 years (38.9 to 80.6), and patients had no previous systemic therapy for advanced PC. Treatment consisted of R115777 300 mg po bid given for 3 out of every 4 weeks. Toxicities were as follows: Grade 3 in 19/53 (36%), grade 4 in 53 (173%), and grade 5 in 53 (8%). Most frequent toxicities were: anemia 35/53 (66%), fatigue and malaise 33/53 (62%), nausea 31/53 (58%). Grade 5 toxicities included: thromboembolism 1, infection 2, other 1. Median survival was 2.6 months (mo) (95% CI 2.1–3.6), 6-mo survival is 19% (95% CI, 8–29%), median time to treatment failure was 1.4 mo (95% GI 1.1–1.6). R115777 is ineffective as monotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer.