Morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancies are increased by viral infections. These mostly are reactivations of asymptomatic latent infections. They primarily concern clinical entities associated with the reactivation of herpes viruses, such as varicella zoster virus (VZV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV). Respiratory tract infections caused by influenza, parainfluenza or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are less common. Since reactivation of latent infections has major clinical impact, antiviral prophylaxis is an attractive approach for patients expecting immunosuppression. The main risk factor for clinically relevant reactivation is profound disruption of cellular immune response. Duration and severity of chemotherapy induced neutropenia are of lesser importance. The risk of viral complications rises significantly in the presence of sustained suppression of T-cell function, e.g. in recipients of allogeneic stem cell transplants or of alemtuzumab (Campath-1H) antibody therapy. The objective of this guideline is to review the basis of prophylactic strategies and to provide recommendations for clinicians treating patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumors.

The severity and duration of post chemotherapy neutropenia were recognized during the 1960s as main predisposing factors for infections in cancer patients. At the beginning of the 70's a standard management approach for all febrile neutropenia (FN) episodes was proposed, based on hospitalization and intravenous empirical broad spectrum antibiotic therapy. Widespread use of this approach resulted in a significant reduction in mortality attributable to bacterial infections. During the last 10 to 15 years, reappraisal of this standard approach has been done by several research groups who question the benefit of treating all FN patients similarly without taking in to consideration differences in severity of the FN episodes. This reappraisal has led during the 1990s to the development of the concept of high and low risk FN episodes that has been the base for the adoption of selective therapies based on the risk categorization of the individual patient. The Chilean Infectious Diseases Society called upon two government National Programs responsible for the appropriate distribution of chemotherapeutic drugs to all pediatric and adults cancer patients within the public health system, and upon the Chilean Hematology Society for the development of a Consensus on Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention of Infections during FN Episodes in Cancer patients. The need for this Consensus is based on two main aspects: the new approaches proposed during the past year for management of these episodes, and the increasing population of cancer patients receiving improved chemotherapeutic agents that has increased there survival possibilities as well as there possibility to suffer a FN episode. The topics discussed in this document are based on an updated systematic and analytic review of the medical literature including epidemiology, laboratory diagnostics, risk categorization, treatment and prophylaxis. National data was included when available in order to provide the healthcare personnel that take care of these patients with best evidence based recommendations adjusted to the Chilean reality.

This evidence-based practice guideline on the use of paclitaxel (Taxol) or docetaxel (Taxotere) as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who are candidates for palliative first-line chemotherapy is based on a systematic search and review of literature published in full or in abstract form between 1985 and April 2005. Forty-five randomized trials, including 11 abstracts, were reviewed and clinicians in the province of Ontario, Canada, provided feedback on a draft version of the guideline. Two phase III trials detected a statistically significant survival advantage for a taxane (paclitaxel or docetaxel) with best supportive care versus best supportive care alone. Among the nine fully published phase III trials comparing platinum-based chemotherapies, taxane-platinum combinations achieved higher response rates compared with older chemotherapy combinations, although significantly longer survival was observed only for docetaxel-cisplatin compared with vindesine-cisplatin. Response rates and survival were generally not significantly different for taxane-platinum combinations compared with other current chemotherapy combinations, although the toxicity profile of the regimens varied. However, in one large trial, improved tumor response and modest survival and quality of life benefits were associated with docetaxel-cisplatin compared with vinorelbine-cisplatin. No statistically significant survival differences were detected in the three fully published phase III trials comparing a taxane-gemcitabine combination with a taxane-platinum regimen.

The prophylactic use of myeloid growth factors reduces the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia and infection-related mortality. Perhaps most importantly, the prophylactic use of colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) has been shown to reduce the need for chemotherapy dose reductions and delays that may limit chemotherapy dose intensity, thereby increasing the potential for prolonged disease-free and overall survival in the curative setting. National surveys have shown that the majority of patients with potentially curable breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) do not receive prophylactic CSF support. In this issue, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network presents guidelines for the use of myeloid growth factors in patients with cancer. These guidelines recommend a balanced clinical evaluation of the potential benefits and harms associated with chemotherapy to define the treatment intention, followed by a careful assessment of the individual patient's risk for febrile neutropenia and its complications. The decision to use prophylactic CSFs is then based on the patient's risk and potential benefit from such treatment. The routine prophylactic use of CSFs in patients receiving systemic chemotherapy is recommended in patients at high risk (>20%) of developing febrile neutropenia or related complications that may compromise treatment. Where compelling clinical indications are absent, the potential for CSF prophylaxis to reduce or offset costs by preventing hospitalization for FN should be considered. The clinical, economic, and quality of life data in support of these recommendations are reviewed, and important areas of ongoing research are highlighted.

Because patients with hormone-refractory prostate carcinoma are a very diverse group, management of these patients represents a unique challenge. Despite much research, to the authors' knowledge few studies published to date have provided definitive treatment answers. The Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) convened a multidisciplinary panel of urologists, oncologists, and radiation oncologists to develop a treatment algorithm for patients with hormone-refractory prostate carcinoma. The resulting treatment outline was based on a review of the literature review and on the expert opinions of the panelists. The current article provided a logical progression of treatment choices that included hormonal manipulations, chemotherapeutic options, and adjunctive therapies. Future clinical trials and therapies were also discussed by the authors. Management strategies should be targeted toward the individual patient. Although significant progress has been made in understanding and treating hormone-refractory prostate carcinoma, earlier interventions would be ideal and better therapeutic approaches to prolong survival are necessary.

To update and expand on previously published clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of cancer treatment-induced diarrhea.

Oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis can affect up to 100% of patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, 80% of patients with malignancies of the head and neck receiving radiotherapy, and a wide range of patients receiving chemotherapy. Alimentary track mucositis increases mortality and morbidity and contributes to rising health care costs. Consequently, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society for Oral Oncology assembled an expert panel to evaluate the literature and to create evidence-based guidelines for preventing, evaluating, and treating mucositis.

These guidelines propose a treatment algorithm in which patients are evaluated regularly for fatigue using a brief screening instrument, and are treated as indicated by their fatigue level. The algorithm's goal is to identify and treat all patients with fatigue that causes distress or interferes with their daily activities or functioning. Management of fatigue begins with primary oncology team members who perform the initial screening and either provide basic education and counseling or expand the initial screening to a more focused evaluation for moderate or higher levels of fatigue. At this point the patient is assessed for current disease and treatment status, a review of body systems, and an in-depth fatigue evaluation. In addition, the patient is assessed for the presence of seven treatable factors known to contribute to fatigue: pain, emotional distress, sleep disturbance, anemia, alterations in nutrition, deconditioning, and comorbidities. If any of these conditions are present, they should be treated according to practice guidelines, with referral to other care professionals as appropriate, and the patient's fatigue should be reevaluated regularly. If none of the seven factors are present or the fatigue is unresolved, selection of appropriate fatigue management and treatment strategies is considered within the context of the patient's clinical status: receiving active cancer treatment, receiving disease-free long-term follow-up, or receiving care at the end of life. Management of fatigue is cause-specific when conditions known to cause fatigue can be identified and treated. When specific causes, such as infection, fluid and electrolyte imbalances, or cardiac dysfunction, cannot be identified and corrected, nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment of the fatigue should be considered. Nonpharmacologic interventions may include a moderate exercise program to improve functional capacity and activity tolerance, psychosocial programs to manage stress and increase support, restorative therapies to decrease cognitive alterations and improve mood state, and nutritional and sleep interventions for patients with disturbances in eating or sleeping. Pharmacologic therapy may include drugs, such as antidepressants for depression or erythropoietin for anemia. A few clinical reports of the use of psychostimulants suggest the need for further research on these agents as potential treatment modalities in managing fatigue. Effective management of cancer-related fatigue involves an informed and supportive oncology care team that assesses patients' fatigue levels regularly and systematically, educates and counsels patients regarding strategies for coping with fatigue, and uses institutional fatigue management experts for referral of patients with unresolved fatigue.

The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French cancer centers and specialists from French public university and general hospitals and private clinics. Its main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and outcome for cancer patients. The methodology is based on literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery.

The following two distinctly different issues should be taken into account when planning patient care following curative-intent therapy for lung cancer: adequate follow-up to manage complications related to the curative-intent therapy; and surveillance to detect recurrences of the primary lung cancer and/or development of a new primary lung cancer early enough to allow potentially curative retreatment. Follow-up for complications should be performed by the specialist responsible for the curative-intent therapy and should last 3 to 6 months. Recurrences of the original lung cancer will be more likely during the first 2 years after curative-intent therapy, but there will be an increased lifelong risk of approximately 1 to 2% per year of developing a metachronous, or new primary, lung cancer. A standard surveillance program for these patients is recommended based on periodic visits, with chest-imaging studies and counseling patients on symptom recognition. Whether subgroups of patients with a higher risk of developing a metachronous lung cancer (eg, those patients whose primary lung cancer was radiographically occult or central and those patients surviving for > 2 years after treatment for small cell lung cancer) should have a more intensive surveillance program is presently unclear. The surveillance program should be coordinated by a multidisciplinary tumor board and overseen by the physician who diagnosed and initiated therapy for the original lung cancer. Smoking cessation is recommended for all patients following curative-intent therapy for lung cancer.

Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) denotes the presence of metastatic disease and is largely incurable using present-day therapies. Chemotherapy remains a therapeutic option in this patient population, and there are many pertinent issues surrounding its use in patients with stage IV NSCLC. Eleven questions were framed by the American College of Chest Physicians Lung Cancer Guidelines Committee, and these were addressed by a systematic search of the available literature. The issues addressed included the identification of prognostic factors in selecting patients for chemotherapy and a critical analysis of the survival benefit provided by chemotherapy. Given the development of several new chemotherapy agents over the past decade, the impact that these agents have made was addressed as well as the definition of a standard of care regarding chemotherapeutic regimens. Given the fact that chemotherapy does not represent a curative option, other issues addressed were the optimal duration of treatment as well as its impact on symptom relief and quality of life, the role of second-line therapy, and the outcomes expectations from both first-line and second-line chemotherapy. The question of what specialty delivered the chemotherapy also was addressed. Once the data were identified, a critical analysis was undertaken attempting to objectively portray the data in support of answers for each of the questions posed. We believe the data support the fact that properly selected patients benefit from chemotherapy with regard to survival and palliation in both first-line and second-line settings. It appears that in trials addressing the duration of first-line therapy, this survival and palliative benefit occurs early, and prolonged therapy is not indicated. Therapy in this setting is cost-effective, and there are several regimens that can be considered to be "standard-of-care" options. Physicians involved in the diagnosis of these patients should be aware of the potential benefits of chemotherapy, allowing them to give recommendations to patients that are based on data derived from clinical trials. In addition, this awareness will allow them to make referrals, when appropriate, to physicians who are trained in the administration of chemotherapy and the management of patients undergoing such therapy.

Lung carcinogenesis is a chronic and multi-step process resulting in malignant lung tumors. This progression from normal to neoplastic pulmonary cells or tissues could be arrested or reversed through pharmacologic treatments, which are known as cancer chemoprevention. These therapeutic interventions should reduce or avoid the clinical consequences of lung cancer by treating early neoplastic lesions before the development of clinically evident signs or symptoms of malignancy. Preclinical, clinical, and epidemiologic findings relating to different classes of candidate chemopreventive agents provide strong support for lung cancer prevention as an attractive therapeutic strategy. Smoking prevention and smoking cessation represent an essential approach to reduce the societal impact of tobacco carcinogenesis. However, even if all the goals of the national antismoking efforts were met, there still would be a large population of former smokers who would be at increased risk for lung cancers. Lung cancer also can occur in those persons who never have smoked. This article focuses on what is now known about pharmacologic strategies for lung cancer prevention. Randomized clinical trials using beta-carotene, retinol, isotretinoin or N-acetyl-cysteine did not show benefit for primary and tertiary lung cancer prevention. There is also evidence that the use of beta-carotene and isotretinoin for lung cancer chemoprevention in high-risk individuals may increase the risk for lung cancer, especially in individuals who continue to smoke. There is a need for relevant in vitro models to identify pathways that activate chemopreventive effects in the lung. An improved understanding of cancer prevention mechanisms should aid in the design of clinical trials and in the validation of candidate chemopreventive targets as well as the discovery of new targets. Until such studies are completed, no agent or combination of agents should be used for lung cancer prevention outside of a clinical trial.