Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is being used increasingly in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. Response, in the form of pathological complete response, is a validated and evaluable surrogate end point of survival after neoadjuvant therapy. Thus, pathological complete response has become a primary end point for clinical trials. However, there is a current lack of uniformity in the definition of pathological complete response. A review of standard operating procedures used by 28 major neoadjuvant breast cancer trials and/or 25 sites involved in such trials identified marked variability in specimen handling and histologic reporting. An international working group was convened to develop practical recommendations for the pathologic assessment of residual disease in neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer and information expected from pathology reports. Systematic sampling of areas identified by informed mapping of the specimen and close correlation with radiological findings is preferable to overly exhaustive sampling, and permits taking tissue samples for translational research. Controversial areas are discussed, including measurement of lesion size, reporting of lymphovascular space invasion and the presence of isolated tumor cells in lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy, and retesting of markers after treatment. If there has been a pathological complete response, this must be clearly stated, and the presence/absence of residual ductal carcinoma in situ must be described. When there is residual invasive carcinoma, a comment must be made as to the presence/absence of chemotherapy effect in the breast and lymph nodes. The Residual Cancer Burden is the preferred method for quantifying residual disease in neoadjuvant clinical trials in breast cancer; other methods can be included per trial protocols and regional preference. Posttreatment tumor staging using the Tumor-Node-Metastasis system should be included. These recommendations for standardized pathological evaluation and reporting of neoadjuvant breast cancer specimens should improve prognostication for individual patients and allow comparison of treatment outcomes within and across clinical trials.

To provide recommendations on the appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib are standard-of-care for first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These drugs have a proven benefit in terms of higher response rate, delaying progression and improvement of quality of life over palliative platinum-based chemotherapy. The most common adverse events (AEs) are gastrointestinal (GI) (diarrhoea and stomatitis/mucositis) and cutaneous (rash, dry skin and paronychia). These are usually mild, but if they become moderate or severe, they can have a negative impact on the patient's quality of life (QOL) and lead to dose modifications or drug discontinuation. Appropriate management of AEs, including prophylactic measures, supportive medications, treatment delays and dose reductions, is essential. A consensus meeting of a UK-based multidisciplinary panel composed of medical and clinical oncologists with a special interest in lung cancer, dermatologists, gastroenterologists, lung cancer nurse specialists and oncology pharmacists was held to develop guidelines on prevention and management of cutaneous (rash, dry skin and paronychia) and GI (diarrhoea, stomatitis and mucositis) AEs associated with the administration of EGFR-TKIs. These guidelines detail supportive measures, treatment delays and dose reductions for EGFR-TKIs. Although the focus of the guidelines is to support healthcare professionals in UK clinical practice, it is anticipated that the management strategies proposed will also be applicable in non-UK settings.

The purpose of this consensus statement from the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) is to summarize recent advances and to generate general guidelines for the management of medically inoperable endometrial cancer patients with radiation therapy.

An American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA)-sponsored consensus meeting of expert panellists met on 15 January 2014 to review current evidence on the management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma in order to establish practice guidelines and to agree consensus statements. It was established that the treatment of patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to optimize the chances for both durable survival and effective palliation. An adequate diagnostic and staging work-up includes high-quality cross-sectional imaging; however, pathologic confirmation is not required prior to resection or initiation of a liver transplant trimodal treatment protocol. The ideal treatment for suitable patients with resectable hilar malignancy is resection of the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts, as well as resection of the involved ipsilateral liver. Preoperative biliary drainage is best achieved with percutaneous transhepatic approaches and may be indicated for patients with cholangitis, malnutrition or hepatic insufficiency. Portal vein embolization is a safe and effective strategy for increasing the future liver remnant (FLR) and is particularly useful for patients with an FLR of <30%. Selected patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma should be evaluated for a standard trimodal protocol incorporating external beam and endoluminal radiation therapy, systemic chemotherapy and liver transplantation. Post-resection chemoradiation should be offered to patients who show high-risk features on surgical pathology. Chemoradiation is also recommended for patients with locally advanced, unresectable hilar cancers. For patients with locally recurrent or metastatic hilar cholangiocarcinoma, first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin is recommended based on multiple Phase II trials and a large randomized controlled trial including a heterogeneous population of patients with biliary cancers.

An American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA)-sponsored consensus meeting of expert panellists was convened on 15 January 2014 to review current evidence on the management of gallbladder carcinoma in order to establish practice guidelines. In summary, within high incidence areas, the assessment of routine gallbladder specimens should include the microscopic evaluation of a minimum of three sections and the cystic duct margin; specimens with dysplasia or proven cancer should be extensively sampled. Provided the patient is medically fit for surgery, data support the resection of all gallbladder polyps of >1.0 cm in diameter and those with imaging evidence of vascular stalks. The minimum staging evaluation of patients with suspected or proven gallbladder cancer includes contrasted cross-sectional imaging and diagnostic laparoscopy. Adequate lymphadenectomy includes assessment of any suspicious regional nodes, evaluation of the aortocaval nodal basin, and a goal recovery of at least six nodes. Patients with confirmed metastases to N2 nodal stations do not benefit from radical resection and should receive systemic and/or palliative treatments. Primary resection of patients with early T-stage (T1b-2) disease should include en bloc resection of adjacent liver parenchyma. Patients with T1b, T2 or T3 disease that is incidentally identified in a cholecystectomy specimen should undergo re-resection unless this is contraindicated by advanced disease or poor performance status. Re-resection should include complete portal lymphadenectomy and bile duct resection only when needed to achieve a negative margin (R0) resection. Patients with preoperatively staged T3 or T4 N1 disease should be considered for clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Following R0 resection of T2-4 disease in N1 gallbladder cancer, patients should be considered for adjuvant systemic chemotherapy and/or chemoradiotherapy.

Current evidence suggests improved rates of curative secondary treatment following identification of recurrence among patients who participate in a surveillance program after initial curative resection of colon or rectal cancer. The newer data show that surveillance CEA, chest and liver imaging,and colonoscopy can also improve survival through early diagnosis of recurrence; thus, these modalities are now included in the current guideline. Although the optimum strategy of surveillance for office visits, CEA, chest and liver imaging, and colonoscopy is not yet defined, routine surveillance does improve the detection of recurrence that can be resected with curative intent. Recommended surveillance schedules are shown in Table 4. However, the factors to be considered when recommending surveillance include underlying risk for recurrence, patient comorbidity, and the ability to tolerate major surgery to resect recurrent disease or palliative chemotherapy, performance status, physiologic age, preference, and compliance. The success of surveillance for early detection of curable recurrence will depend on patient and provider involvement to adhere to the surveillance schedule and avoid unnecessary examination. It should be noted that, after curative resection of colorectal cancer, patients are still at risk for other common malignancies(lung, breast, cervix, prostate) for which standard screening recommendations should be observed and measures to maintain general health (risk reduction for cardiovascular disease, eg, cessation of smoking, control of blood pressure and diabetes mellitus, balanced diet, regular exercise and sleep, and flu vaccines) should be recommended.

Cancer Committee of the French Association of Urology (CCAFU) conducted a literature review concerning the follow-up of urothelial carcinomas and provides recommendations for monitoring.

Current guidelines for esophageal cancer contouring are derived from traditional 2-dimensional fields based on bony landmarks, and they do not provide sufficient anatomic detail to ensure consistent contouring for more conformal radiation therapy techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Therefore, we convened an expert panel with the specific aim to derive contouring guidelines and generate an atlas for the clinical target volume (CTV) in esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer.

Glioblastoma multiforme is one of the most aggressive central nervous system tumors and with worse prognosis. Until now,treatments have managed to significantly increase the survival of these patients, depending on age, cognitive status, and autonomy of the individuals themselves. Based on these parameters, both initial or recurrence treatments are performed, as well as monitoring of disease by imaging studies. When the patient enters the terminal phase and curative treatments are suspended, respect for the previous wishes of the patient and development and implementation of palliative therapies must be guaranteed.

A comprehensive pathological report is essential for optimal patient management, cancer staging and prognostication. In many countries, proforma reports are used but these vary in their content. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) is an alliance formed by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, the Royal College of Pathologists of the United Kingdom, the College of American Pathologists, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and the European Society of Pathology, with the aim of developing an evidence-based reporting data set for each cancer site. This will reduce the global burden of cancer data set development and reduplication of effort by different international institutions that commission, publish and maintain standardised cancer reporting data sets. The resultant standardisation of cancer reporting will benefit not only those countries directly involved in the collaboration but also others not in a position to develop their own data sets. We describe the development of a cancer data set by the ICCR expert panel for the reporting of primary ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinoma and present the 'required' and 'recommended' elements to be included in the report with an explanatory commentary. This data set encompasses the recent International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists staging system for these neoplasms and the updated World Health Organisation Classification of Tumours of the Female Reproductive Organs. The data set also addresses issues about site assignment of the primary tumour in high-grade serous carcinomas and proposes a scoring system for the assessment of tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The widespread implementation of this data set will facilitate consistent and accurate data collection, comparison of epidemiological and pathological parameters between different populations, facilitate research and hopefully will result in improved patient management.

In October 2011 the USPSTF (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) issued a draft guideline discouraging prostate specific antigen based screening for prostate cancer (grade D recommendation). We evaluated the effect of the USPSTF guideline on the number and distribution of new prostate cancer diagnoses in the United States.

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), produced in cooperation with the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS). It addresses the benefit and burden associated with combined endobronchial and esophageal mediastinal nodal staging of lung cancer. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) approach was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.The article has been co-published with permission in Endoscopy and the European Respiratory Journal.