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.

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 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.