People living with HIV (PLWH) are diagnosed with cancer at an increased rate over the general population and generally have a higher mortality due to delayed diagnoses, advanced cancer stage, comorbidities, immunosuppression, and cancer treatment disparities. Lack of guidelines and provider education has led to substandard cancer care being offered to PLWH. To fill that gap, the NCCN Guidelines for Cancer in PLWH were developed; they provide treatment recommendations for PLWH who develop non-small cell lung cancer, anal cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma, and cervical cancer. In addition, the NCCN Guidelines outline advice regarding HIV management during cancer therapy; drug-drug interactions between antiretroviral treatments and cancer therapies; and workup, radiation therapy, surgical management, and supportive care in PLWH who have cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the targeted therapy and immunotherapy sections in the NCCN Guidelines. For the 2018 update, a new section on biomarkers was added.

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is dosed by body surface area, a practice unable to reduce the interindividual variability in exposure. Endorsed by the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology (IATDMCT), we evaluated clinical evidence and strongly recommend TDM for the management of 5-FU therapy in patients with colorectal or head-and-neck cancer receiving common 5-FU regimens. Our systematic methodology provides a framework to evaluate published evidence in support of TDM recommendations in oncology.

Therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma should be tailored to the circumstances and preferences of the individual patient. Age should not be a barrier to effective treatment. Systematic geriatric screening and assessment contributes to the goal of personalised management, in addition to the involvement of a multidisciplinary team. A task force from the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) updated its 2009 consensus statement on the management of elderly patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma by reviewing data from studies involving recently approved targeted drugs and immunotherapies for this disease. Overall, it seems that age alone does not appreciably affect efficacy. Among the pivotal studies that were included, there is a striking scarcity of analyses that relate toxic effects to patient age. Even if the adverse effects of therapy are no more frequent or severe in elderly patients than in their younger counterparts, the practical, psychological, and functional impact of treatment may be greater, especially if toxic effects are chronic and cumulative.

The NCCN Guidelines Panel for Melanoma debuted new guidelines for uveal melanoma at the NCCN 23rd Annual Conference. Although uveal melanoma and cutaneous melanoma share the same name, they do have different characteristics and treatments. The NCCN Guidelines describe how tumor size guides therapeutic options, which for most tumors is radiotherapy. Predictors of melanoma-related mortality include advanced age, larger tumor size, and histopathologic and molecular features. The NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma have not changed notably, but adjuvant therapy with immunotherapies is now recommended. The best second-line treatment in the metastatic setting remains unclear.

The emergence of CDK4/6 inhibitors has changed the treatment algorithm for advanced/metastatic estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. In pivotal trials of palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib, doubling in progression-free survival has been seen. All 3 agents in this class are now included in the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer, and clinicians should be incorporating these agents into their treatment algorithms. The other important issue in this breast cancer setting is extended duration of endocrine therapy. Most of the benefit is modest and toxicity is an issue; therefore, extended-duration endocrine therapy should be highly individualized. For triple-negative disease, platinum agents and PARP inhibitors are helping some patients, but immunotherapies and other novel classes of drugs now in development hold the promise of even better outcomes. In HER2-positive early-stage disease, dual HER2 blockade is of modest benefit, and extended treatment with neratinib may be a good option for some high-risk patients.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now FDA-approved for the treatment of 8 different cancers, and more approvals are likely, including use of these drugs in combinations. Although ICIs represent a true advance in cancer care, they can cause a range of immune-related adverse events. As more experience with ICIs is gained, more information is becoming available on immunotoxicity and optimal management. Physicians and patients need to be educated about potential adverse events and management of ICI-associated toxicity. In recognition of the need for better information, NCCN in collaboration with ASCO has developed the first set of NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities.

The practice of radiation oncology is primarily based on precise technical delivery of highly conformal, image-guided external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy. However, systematic research efforts are being made to facilitate individualised radiation dose prescriptions on the basis of gene-expressssion profiles that reflect the radiosensitivity of tumour and normal tissue. This advance in precision radiotherapy should complement those benefits made in precision cancer medicine that use molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapies. The personalisation of cancer therapy, predicated largely on genomic interrogation, is facilitating the selection of therapies that are directed against driver mutations, aberrant cell signalling, tumour microenvironments, and genetic susceptibilities. With the increasing technical power of radiotherapy to safely increase local tumour control for many solid tumours, it is an opportune time to rigorously explore the potential benefits of combining radiotherapy with molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies to increase cancer survival outcomes. This theme provides the basis and foundation for this American Society for Radiation Oncology guideline on combining radiotherapy with molecular targeting and immunotherapy agents.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in France with low response rates to conventional chemotherapy. Nevertheless, new therapies have emerged recently, among which PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), such as nivolumab (OPDIVO®, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®, Merck & Co), or PD-L1 ICI, such as atezolizumab (TECENTRIQ®, Genentech), durvalumab (IMFINZI®, Astra-Zeneca), and avelumab (BAVENCIO®, EMD Serono). The prescription of pembrolizumab for advanced stage non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients requires the demonstration of PD-L1 expression by tumor cells by immunohistochemistry (IHC) (minimum of 50% of positive tumor cells is required for first-line setting, and of 1% for second-line and beyond) and PD-L1 assay is now considered as a companion diagnostic tool for this drug. Numerous standardized PD-L1 assays performed on dedicated platforms have been validated in clinical trials, each antibody being associated to one specific PD1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. However, not all pathologists have access to the dedicated platforms and the high cost of these assays is still a limitation to their implementation; in addition, the small size of the NSCLC tumor samples does not allow to perform at the same time multiple assays for multiple drugs. The use of laboratory-developed tests seems feasible but their validation must guarantee the same sensitivities and specificities as standardized tests. In this context, the French group of thoracic pathologists PATTERN has teamed up with thoracic oncologists to provide recommendations on the indication, the critical technical steps and the interpretation of the PD-L1 IHC test to help pathologists to implement quickly and in the best conditions this new theranostic test.

Purpose To provide an updated joint ASCO/Infectious Diseases Society of American (IDSA) guideline on outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in patients with cancer. Methods ASCO and IDSA convened an Update Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of relevant studies. The guideline recommendations were based on the review of evidence by the Expert Panel. Results Six new or updated meta-analyses and six new primary studies were added to the updated systematic review. Recommendation Clinical judgment is recommended when determining which patients are candidates for outpatient management, using clinical criteria or a validated tool such as the Multinational Association of Support Care in Cancer risk index. In addition, psychosocial and logistic considerations are outlined within the guideline. The panel continued to endorse consensus recommendations from the previous version of this guideline that patients with febrile neutropenia receive initial doses of empirical antibacterial therapy within 1 hour of triage and be monitored for ≥ 4 hours before discharge. An oral fluoroquinolone plus amoxicillin/clavulanate (or clindamycin, if penicillin allergic) is recommended as empirical outpatient therapy, unless fluoroquinolone prophylaxis was used before fever developed. Patients who do not defervesce after 2 to 3 days of an initial, empirical, broad-spectrum antibiotic regimen should be re-evaluated and considered as candidates for inpatient treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Purpose To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) therapy. Methods A multidisciplinary, multi-organizational panel of experts in medical oncology, dermatology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonology, endocrinology, urology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialist, and advocacy was convened to develop the clinical practice guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic review of the literature and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and case series published from 2000 through 2017. Results The systematic review identified 204 eligible publications. Much of the evidence consisted of systematic reviews of observational data, consensus guidelines, case series, and case reports. Due to the paucity of high-quality evidence on management of immune-related adverse events, recommendations are based on expert consensus. Recommendations Recommendations for specific organ system-based toxicity diagnosis and management are presented. While management varies according to organ system affected, in general, ICPi therapy should be continued with close monitoring for grade 1 toxicities, with the exception of some neurologic, hematologic, and cardiac toxicities. ICPi therapy may be suspended for most grade 2 toxicities, with consideration of resuming when symptoms revert to grade 1 or less. Corticosteroids may be administered. Grade 3 toxicities generally warrant suspension of ICPis and the initiation of high-dose corticosteroids (prednisone 1 to 2 mg/kg/d or methylprednisolone 1 to 2 mg/kg/d). Corticosteroids should be tapered over the course of at least 4 to 6 weeks. Some refractory cases may require infliximab or other immunosuppressive therapy. In general, permanent discontinuation of ICPis is recommended with grade 4 toxicities, with the exception of endocrinopathies that have been controlled by hormone replacement. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

To present a position statement from the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) that pertains to dose rounding of biologic and cytotoxic anticancer agents.

Patients with active CNS disease are often excluded from clinical trials, and data regarding the CNS efficacy of systemic agents are usually obtained late in the drug development process or not at all. In this guideline from the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) working group, we provide detailed recommendations on when patients with brain metastases from solid tumours should be included or excluded in clinical trials of systemic agents. We also discuss the limitations of retrospective studies in determining the CNS efficacy of systemic drugs. Inclusion of patients with brain metastases early on in the clinical development of a drug or a regimen is needed to generate appropriate CNS efficacy or non-efficacy signals. We consider how to optimally incorporate or exclude such patients in systemic therapy trials depending on the likelihood of CNS activity of the agent by considering three scenarios: drugs that are considered very unlikely to have CNS antitumour activity or efficacy; drugs that are considered very likely to have CNS activity or efficacy; and drugs with minimal baseline information on CNS activity or efficacy. We also address trial design issues unique to patients with brain metastases, including the selection of appropriate CNS endpoints in systemic therapy trials.

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.