This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management.

Patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD) often have controllable symptoms, and cures are possible. Technical improvements in surgery and radiotherapy have introduced the option of metastasis-directed ablative therapies as an adjunct or alternative to standard-of-care systemic therapies. Several clinical trials and registries are investigating the benefit of these therapeutic approaches across several cancer sites. This requires that patients are correctly included and followed with appropriate imaging. This article discusses the evidence and offers recommendations for the implementation of standard-of-care (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours measurements on computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and bone scintigraphy) and advanced imaging modalities (functional, metabolic and radionuclide targeted) for identifying and following up patients with OMD. Imaging requirements for recognising OMD vary with tumour type, metastatic location, and timing of measurement in relation to previous treatment. At each point in the disease cycle (diagnosis, response assessment and follow-up), imaging must be tailored to the clinical question and the context of prior treatment. The differential use of whole-body approaches such as 18F-FDG-positron emission tomography (PET)/CT, diffusion-weighted MRI, 18F-Choline-PET/CT and 68Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen-PET/CT require rationalisation depending on clinical risk assessment. Optimal standardised imaging approaches will enable OMD trials to document patterns of disease progression and outcomes of treatment. Quality assured and quality controlled imaging data included in databases such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Imaging platform for the Oligocare trial (a prospective, large-scale observational basket study being set up to collect outcome data from patients with OMD treated with radiation therapy) will establish a large and high-quality imaging warehouse for future research.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is the second most common form of human cancer and has an increasing annual incidence. Although most cSCC is cured with office-based therapy, advanced cSCC poses a significant risk for morbidity, impact on quality of life, and death. This document provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with cSCC. Topics addressed include biopsy techniques and histopathologic assessment, tumor staging, surgical and nonsurgical management, follow-up and prevention of recurrence, and management of advanced disease. The primary focus of these recommendations is on evaluation and management of primary cSCC and localized disease, but where relevant, applicability to recurrent cSCC is noted, as is general information on the management of patients with metastatic disease.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of human cancer, with a continually increasing annual incidence in the United States. When diagnosed early, the majority of BCCs are readily treated with office-based therapy, which is highly curative. In these evidence-based guidelines of care, we provide recommendations for the management of patients with BCC, as well as an in-depth review of the best available literature in support of these recommendations. We discuss biopsy techniques for a clinically suspicious lesion and offer recommendations for the histopathologic interpretation of BCC. In the absence of a formal staging system, the best available stratification based on risk for recurrence is reviewed. With regard to treatment, we provide recommendations on treatment modalities along a broad therapeutic spectrum, ranging from topical agents and superficially destructive modalities to surgical techniques and systemic therapy. Finally, we review the available literature and provide recommendations on prevention and the most appropriate follow-up for patients in whom BCC has been diagnosed.

Adults diagnosed with vestibular schwannomas.

This document is a summary of the French Intergroup guidelines on the management of gastro-intestinal lymphomas, available on the web-site of the French Society of Gastroenterology, SNFGE (www.tncd.org), updated in September 2017.

Well-established criteria for evaluating the response to treatment and the appropriate followup of individual patients are critical in clinical oncology. The current evidence-based data on these issues in terms of the management of gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) are unfortunately limited. This document by the Italian Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AME) on the criteria for the follow-up of GEP-NEN patients is aimed at providing comprehensive recommendations for everyday clinical practice based on both the best available evidence and the combined opinion of an interdisciplinary panel of experts. The initial risk stratification of patients with NENs should be performed according to the grading, staging and functional status of the neoplasm and the presence of an inherited syndrome. The evaluation of response to the initial treatment, and to the subsequent therapies for disease progression or recurrence, should be based on a cost-effective, risk-effective and timely use of the appropriate diagnostic resources. A multidisciplinary evaluation of the response to the treatment is strongly recommended and, at every step in the follow-up, it is mandatory to assess the disease state and the patient performance status, comorbidities, and recent clinical evolution. Local expertise, available technical resources and the patient preferences should always be evaluated while planning the individual clinical management of GEP-NENs.

Purpose Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-driven working framework for comprehensive genetic evaluation of inherited PCA in the multigene testing era addressing genetic counseling, testing, and genetically informed management. Methods An expert consensus conference was convened including key stakeholders to address genetic counseling and testing, PCA screening, and management informed by evidence review. Results Consensus was strong that patients should engage in shared decision making for genetic testing. There was strong consensus to test HOXB13 for suspected hereditary PCA, BRCA1/2 for suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and DNA mismatch repair genes for suspected Lynch syndrome. There was strong consensus to factor BRCA2 mutations into PCA screening discussions. BRCA2 achieved moderate consensus for factoring into early-stage management discussion, with stronger consensus in high-risk/advanced and metastatic setting. Agreement was moderate to test all men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA, regardless of family history, with stronger agreement to test BRCA1/2 and moderate agreement to test ATM to inform prognosis and targeted therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary consensus statement to address a genetic evaluation framework for inherited PCA in the multigene testing era. Future research should focus on developing a working definition of familial PCA for clinical genetic testing, expanding understanding of genetic contribution to aggressive PCA, exploring clinical use of genetic testing for PCA management, genetic testing of African American males, and addressing the value framework of genetic evaluation and testing men at risk for PCA-a clinically heterogeneous disease.

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) guideline for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in melanoma.

Actinic keratoses (AK) arise on sun-exposed regions of the skin. If left untreated, AK may progress to invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), although the rate of progression is low. A practical treatment algorithm for the treatment of AK in standard situations has been published by the AKTeam™ expert panel. However, management of particular situations of AK with increasing/higher carcinoma risk or AK progressing into carcinomas with increased aggressiveness due to their anatomical location (risky areas), or in patients with an increased risk of SCC requires further discussion. These include AK on the dorsal hands, forearms, legs, periorbital region, eyelids, ears, or lips, and organ transplant recipients, patients undergoing treatment with carcinogenic agents and patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. The main objective was to propose therapeutic strategies for the treatment of AK located in risky areas and in patients with more invasive/aggressive lesions and a higher risk of progression to SCC. A systematic review of the literature was initially performed, and results were discussed by the experts to propose best management practices in specific situations. Finally, adapted management strategies for AK occurring in risky areas and in high-risk patients are presented, taking into account the experts' own clinical experience and current guidelines. In most of these 'at-risk' situations, patients can be treated according to the AKTeam™ treatment algorithm. Difficult-to-treat lesions should be treated more aggressively due to their higher risk of transformation. For patients with skin that is highly susceptible to actinic damage, monitoring and sun protection strategies are mandatory, and patients should undergo more regular follow-up. Further assessment of newer therapies in clinical trials is necessary to determine optimal treatment conditions. This expert consensus provides guidance for the management of AK in risky body sites and in patients with an increasing/higher risk for SCCs.

Purpose To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) guideline for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in melanoma. Methods An ASCO-SSO panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted regarding SLN biopsy and completion lymph node dissection (CLND) after a positive sentinel node in patients with melanoma. Results Nine new observational studies, two systematic reviews, and an updated randomized controlled trial of SLN biopsy, as well as two randomized controlled trials of CLND after positive SLN biopsy, were included. Recommendations Routine SLN biopsy is not recommended for patients with thin melanomas that are T1a (nonulcerated lesions < 0.8 mm in Breslow thickness). SLN biopsy may be considered for thin melanomas that are T1b (0.8 to 1.0 mm Breslow thickness or < 0.8 mm Breslow thickness with ulceration) after a thorough discussion with the patient of the potential benefits and risk of harms associated with the procedure. SLN biopsy is recommended for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (T2 or T3; Breslow thickness of > 1.0 to 4.0 mm). SLN biopsy may be recommended for patients with thick melanomas (T4; > 4.0 mm in Breslow thickness), after a discussion of the potential benefits and risks of harm. In the case of a positive SLN biopsy, CLND or careful observation are options for patients with low-risk micrometastatic disease, with due consideration of clinicopathological factors. For higher-risk patients, careful observation may be considered only after a thorough discussion with patients about the potential risks and benefits of foregoing CLND. Important qualifying statements outlining relevant clinicopathological factors and details of the reference patient populations are included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Cancer of unknown primary site is a histologically confirmed cancer that manifests in advanced stage, with no identifiable primary site following standard diagnostic procedures. Patients are initially categorized based on the findings of the initial biopsy: adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell carcinoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma, and poorly differentiated carcinoma. Appropriate patient management requires understanding several clinical and pathological features that aid in identifying several subsets of patients with more responsive tumors.

Immunocompromised patients are at high risk of invasive fungal infections (IFI), in particular those with haematological malignancies undergoing remission-induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and recipients of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). Despite the development of new treatment options in the past decades, IFI remains a concern due to substantial morbidity and mortality in these patient populations. In addition, the increasing use of new immune modulating drugs in cancer therapy has opened an entirely new spectrum of at risk periods. Since the last edition of antifungal prophylaxis recommendations of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology in 2014, seven clinical trials regarding antifungal prophylaxis in patients with haematological malignancies have been published, comprising 1227 patients. This update assesses the impact of this additional evidence and effective revisions. Our key recommendations are the following: prophylaxis should be performed with posaconazole delayed release tablets during remission induction chemotherapy for AML and MDS (AI). Posaconazole iv can be used when the oral route is contraindicated or not feasible. Intravenous liposomal amphotericin B did not significantly decrease IFI rates in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) patients during induction chemotherapy, and there is poor evidence to recommend it for prophylaxis in these patients (CI). Despite substantial risk of IFI, we cannot provide a stronger recommendation for these patients. There is poor evidence regarding voriconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia (CII). Therapeutic drug monitoring TDM should be performed within 2 to 5 days of initiating voriconazole prophylaxis and should be repeated in case of suspicious adverse events or of dose changes of interacting drugs (BIItu). General TDM during posaconazole prophylaxis is not recommended (CIItu), but may be helpful in cases of clinical failure such as breakthrough IFI for verification of compliance or absorption.

Few studies have reported large inter-observer variations in target volume selection and delineation in patients treated with radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Consensus guidelines have been published for the neck nodes (see Grégoire et al., 2003, 2014), but such recommendations are lacking for primary tumour delineation. For the latter, two main schools of thoughts are prevailing, one based on geometric expansion of the Gross Tumour Volume (GTV) as promoted by DAHANCA, and the other one based on anatomical expansion of the GTV using compartmentalization of head and neck anatomy.

Despite great improvements in the outcome of patients with lymphoma, some may still relapse or present with primary refractory disease. In these situations, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is a potentially curative option, this is true particularly in the case of after autologous stem cell transplantation if remission can be achieved. Recently, novel agents such as anti-PD1 and BTK inhibitors have started to challenge the use of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for relapsed or refractory lymphoma. During the 2016 annual workshop of the Francophone Society of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (SFGM-TC), we performed a comprehensive review of the literature published in the last 10 years and established guidelines to clarify the indications and transplant modalities in this setting. This section specifically reports on our conclusions regarding diffuse large B cell lymphoma.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is a major source of morbidity and mortality in women worldwide. In France, in 2015, EC was the first gynecological cancer in terms of incidence. Its prognosis is considered favorable because it is most often limited to the uterus at diagnosis. Nevertheless, it is a heterogeneous pathology and 5-year overall survival can vary from 92 % to 42 % in FIGO stage I depending on its histological characteristics. This great heterogeneity leads to important disparities in its surgical management as well as in indications for adjuvant therapies. A consensus conference including three different European learned societies (ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO) has recently established new recommendations in order to standardize its management. One of the main points is the emergence of a new subgroup of patients at risk of recurrence (high-intermediate risk group). Concerning nodal staging, indications are still somewhat blurred for intermediate and high-intermediate risk groups. The sentinel lymph node biopsy remains an experimental procedure in contrast with American guidelines. Concerning adjuvant therapies, the place of chemotherapy and its combination with external beam radiotherapy should be explored, especially for patients with high risk EC and for certain histological subtypes.

Purpose To update the guideline recommendations on the use of larynx-preservation strategies in the treatment of laryngeal cancer. Methods An Expert Panel updated the systematic review of the literature for the period from January 2005 to May 2017. Results The panel confirmed that the use of a larynx-preservation approach for appropriately selected patients does not compromise survival. No larynx-preservation approach offered a survival advantage compared with total laryngectomy and adjuvant therapy as indicated. Changes were supported for the use of endoscopic surgical resection in patients with limited disease (T1, T2) and for initial total laryngectomy in patients with T4a disease or with severe pretreatment laryngeal dysfunction. New recommendations for positron emission tomography imaging for the evaluation of regional nodes after treatment and best measures for evaluating voice and swallowing function were added. Recommendations Patients with T1, T2 laryngeal cancer should be treated initially with intent to preserve the larynx by using endoscopic resection or radiation therapy, with either leading to similar outcomes. For patients with locally advanced (T3, T4) disease, organ-preservation surgery, combined chemotherapy and radiation, or radiation alone offer the potential for larynx preservation without compromising overall survival. For selected patients with extensive T3 or large T4a lesions and/or poor pretreatment laryngeal function, better survival rates and quality of life may be achieved with total laryngectomy. Patients with clinically involved regional cervical nodes (N+) who have a complete clinical and radiologic imaging response after chemoradiation do not require elective neck dissection. All patients should undergo a pretreatment baseline assessment of voice and swallowing function and receive counseling with regard to the potential impact of treatment options on voice, swallowing, and quality of life. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Vulvar cancer and vaginal cancer are relatively rare tumors, and there had been no established treatment principles or guidelines to treat these rare tumors in Japan. The first version of the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO) guidelines for the treatment of vulvar cancer and vaginal cancer was published in 2015 in Japanese.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus guidelines for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was published in 2016, identifying both a more strategic approach to the administration of the available systemic therapy choices, and a greater emphasis on the use of ablative techniques, including surgery. At the 2016 ESMO Asia Meeting, in December 2016, it was decided by both ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting, endorsed by both ESMO and JSMO, immediately after the JSMO 2017 Annual Meeting. The aim was to adapt the ESMO consensus guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences relating to the toxicity as well as other aspects of certain systemic treatments in patients of Asian ethnicity. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with mCRC identified by the Presidents of the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology), Korea (Korean Association for Clinical Oncology), Malaysia (Malaysian Oncological Society), Singapore (Singapore Society of Oncology) and Taiwan (Taiwan Oncology Society). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.