To develop evidence-based guidelines on best available treatment options for patients with stage IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The basic conditions in the management of exudative age-related macular degeneration have changed considerably since the last statement of the German professional associations in 2006. While Pegaptanib was approved in Germany already in 2006 Ranibizumab was approved for the treatment of exudative macular degeneration in Germany in February 2007. More over the quality assurance regulations for the photodynamic treatment of choroidal neovascularizations with Verteporfin were modified including the treatment of occult lesions and implementing a simplified classification of extra- and subfoveal lesions. Consequently modification of the recommendations for the non-surgical treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration appeared inevitable.

Cetuximab is a human/mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds to the EGF receptor, competitively inhibiting ligand binding, and inducing receptor dimerization and downregulation. Cetuximab has been active in multiple tumors, including colorectal cancer (CRC), head and neck, pancreatic and lung cancers. Cetuximab has been approved by the FDA, in combination with irinotecan, for the treatment of metastatic CRC in patients refractory to irinotecan, and for use as a single agent in the treatment of recurrent metastatic CRC in patients intolerant of irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Most common toxicities are rash, diarrhea, fever, headache, nausea, hypomagnesemia and hypersensitivity reactions. Data from several clinical trials with cetuximab show a positive correlation between rash and response and/or survival. Rash occurred on 90% of patients treated with cetuximab monotherapy and grade 3 or 4 skin reactions occurred on as many as 16% of patients in the trials using cetuximab. A rash usually presents as pustular or maculopapular follicular eruption, often referred to as acneiform. Cetuximab will engage in productive dimerization complexes in human skin causing significant disruption of the normal development and maintenance of the hair follicle, which leads to follicular response and inflammatory response. At this time there are no standard or evidence-based treatment plans for the rash. Most of the evidence is based on institutional or personal experiences. The most commonly used agents are topical antibiotics, oral antibiotics, topical steroids, systemic immunomodulatory agents, topical immunomodulatory agents and anti-inflammatory preparations. As cetuximab is becoming widely used in general oncology practice, it is important to understand the toxicity of rash to develop practice guidelines for their management. This review addresses recommendations for toxicity management of rash caused by cetuximab in treatment of metatstatic CRC.

Considerable progress in research and clinical application has been made since the original guidelines for managing mucositis in cancer patients were published in 2004, and the first active drug for the prevention and treatment of this condition has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies in Europe and Australia. These changes necessitate an updated review of the literature and guidelines. Panel members reviewed the biomedical literature on mucositis published in English between January 2002 and May 2005 and reached a consensus based on the criteria of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Changes in the guidelines included recommendations for the use of palifermin for oral mucositis associated with stem cell transplantation, amifostine for radiation proctitis, and cryotherapy for mucositis associated with high-dose melphalan. Recommendations against specific practices were introduced: Systemic glutamine was not recommended for the prevention of gastrointestinal mucositis, and sucralfate and antimicrobial lozenges were not recommended for radiation-induced oral mucositis. Furthermore, new guidelines suggested that granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor mouthwashes not be used for oral mucositis prevention in the transplantation population. Advances in mucositis treatment and research have been complemented by an increased rate of publication on mucosal injury in cancer. However, additional and sustained efforts will be required to gain a fuller understanding of the pathobiology, impact on overall patient status, optimal therapeutic strategies, and improved educational programs for health professionals, patients, and caregivers. These efforts are likely to have significant clinical and economic impact on the treatment of cancer patients. Cancer 2007;109:820-31. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society.

The NCCN HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer Task Force was convened to critically evaluate the ability of the level of HER2 expression or gene amplification in breast cancer tumors to serve as a prognostic and a predictive factor in the metastatic and adjuvant settings, to assess the reliability of the methods of measuring HER2 expression or gene amplification in the laboratory, and to make recommendations regarding the interpretation of test results. The Task Force is a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts in breast cancer representing the disciplines of medical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, epidemiology, and patient advocacy. Invited members included members of the NCCN Breast Cancer Panel and other needed experts selected solely by the NCCN. During a 2-day meeting, individual task force members provided didactic presentations critically evaluating important aspects of HER2 biology and epidemiology: HER2 as a prognostic and predictive factor; results from clinical trials in which trastuzumab was used as a targeted therapy against HER2 in the adjuvant and metastatic settings; the available testing methodologies for HER2, including sensitivity, specificity, and ability to provide prognostic and predictive information; and the principles on which HER2 testing should be based. Each task force member was charged with identifying evidence relevant to their specific expertise and presentation. Following the presentations, an evidence-based consensus approach was used to formulate recommendations relating to the pathologic and clinical application of the evidence to breast cancer patient evaluation and care. In areas of controversy, this process extended beyond the meeting to achieve consensus. The Task Force concluded that accurate assignment of the HER2 status of invasive breast cancer is essential to clinical decision making in the treatment of breast cancer in both adjuvant and metastatic settings. Formal validation and concordance testing should be performed and reported by laboratories performing HER2 testing for clinical purposes. If appropriate quality control/assurance procedures are in place, either immunohistochemistry (IHC) or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) methods may be used. A tumor with an IHC score of 0 or 1+, an average HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio of less than 1.8, or an average number of HER2 gene copies/cell of 4 or less as determined by FISH is considered to be HER2 negative. A tumor with an IHC score of 3+, an average HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio of greater than 2.2 by FISH, or an average number of HER2 gene copies/cell of 6 or greater is considered HER2 positive. A tumor with an IHC score of 2+ should be further tested using FISH, with HER2 status determined by the FISH result. Tumor samples with an average HER2 gene/chromosome ratio of 1.8 to 2.2 or average number of HER2 gene copies/cell in the range of greater than 4 to less than 6 are considered to be borderline, and strategies to assign the HER2 status of such samples are proposed.

Breast cancer, the most commonly occurring cancer in women in the United States, is the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality. Mortality rates in breast cancer have, however, declined by 2.3% per year from 1990 to 2001, partly because of the development of better chemotherapy agents and regimens, which have resulted in major changes in the standards of care. To study the changes in the past decade in expert opinion about the preferred chemotherapy for breast cancer, we compared the treatment guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for 1996, 2000, and 2005. The myelotoxicity associated with the NCCN-recommended agents was also assessed by using data from the prescribing information for the drugs. This review showed that many of the agents, combinations of agents, and new dosing schedules currently recommended in the NCCN guidelines for the treatment of breast cancer are associated with myelosuppression. Many of these myelosuppressive regimens, which were used in the past to treat advanced-stage or metastatic disease, are now prescribed for early-stage disease. Furthermore, the cytotoxic agents and regimens recommended by the NCCN are more myelosuppressive than those recommended a decade ago. Many oncologists are aware of this trend toward the more intensive treatment of patients with cancer and take proactive steps to minimize the risk of myelosuppression and its complications.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is not only a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality, but is also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact on the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. The incidence of severe or FN can be reduced by prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim, lenograstim or pegfilgrastim. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. While several academic groups have produced evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in an effort to standardise and optimise the management of FN, there remains a need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines. To this end, we undertook a systematic literature review and formulated recommendations for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors such as elderly age (>or=65 years), be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk prior to administering each cycle of chemotherapy. In addition, when using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in >20% patients, prophylactic G-CSF is recommended. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Finally, studies have shown that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications, where indicated.

Neutropenia is the primary dose-limiting toxicity in patients with cancer treated with systemic chemotherapy. The risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) has been estimated on the basis of the chemotherapy regimen, but studies are now finding a number of patient-related and disease-related risk factors for FN and other complications, such as hospitalization, chemotherapy dose reductions and delays, and mortality. These patient-related risk factors have been incorporated into clinical guidelines for managing neutropenia. The newly released guidelines on the use of myeloid growth factors with cancer chemotherapy of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network use disease- and patient-related factors along with the chemotherapy regimen risk. These guidelines also differ from previous guidelines in that they recommend the routine use of colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) in patients in whom the risk of neutropenia is > 20% (the previous threshold was > or = 40%); this recommendation is based on recent data that show the clinical benefits of filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) in studies in which the overall populations had FN risks of between 20% and 40%. The use of guidelines such as these in clinical practice will make it possible to target CSFs to appropriate patients in the first cycle of chemotherapy, when the risk of neutropenia is highest.

To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

The introduction of imatinib mesylate (IM) has revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Although experience is too limited to permit evidence-based evaluation of survival, the available data fully justify critical reassessment of CML management. The panel therefore reviewed treatment of CML since 1998. It confirmed the value of IM (400 mg/day) and of conventional allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). It recommended that the preferred initial treatment for most patients newly diagnosed in chronic phase should now be 400 mg IM daily. A dose increase of IM, alloHSCT, or investigational treatments were recommended in case of failure, and could be considered in case of suboptimal response. Failure was defined at 3 months (no hematologic response [HR]), 6 months (incomplete HR or no cytogenetic response [CgR]), 12 months (less than partial CgR [Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph(+)) > 35%]), 18 months (less than complete CgR), and in case of HR or CgR loss, or appearance of highly IM-resistant BCR-ABL mutations. Suboptimal response was defined at 3 months (incomplete HR), 6 months (less than partial CgR), 12 months (less than complete CgR), 18 months (less than major molecular response [MMolR]), and, in case of MMolR loss, other mutations or other chromosomal abnormalities. The importance of regular monitoring at experienced centers was highlighted.

The choice of the most suitable chemotherapy schedule for the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer has been reviewed by the TTD group, as well as the principles of risk assessment for patients with stage II disease. In the light of data now available, oxaliplatin- based schedules (FOLFOX4 or FLOX) are recommended. Alternatives in special situations are monotherapy with capecitabine, UFT/LV, or 5- FU/LV in infusion. In patients with stage II disease, the indication of chemotherapy must be individualized and based on the patient's risk of recurrence (perforation, obstruction, peritumoral lymphovascular involvement, poorly differentiated histology, number of lymph nodes examined < or = 11, pre-surgical CEA), and comorbidities that can compromise the safety of treatment or survival of the patient.