It should be emphasized that these treatment practice guidelines are guidelines, not absolute recommendations for treatment. They represent an effort to distill and simplify an enormous body of knowledge and experience into fairly simple management algorithms. In general, treatment recommendations for primary tumors are based on better data than the recommendations for treating recurrent disease. Few, if any, firm recommendations can be made about more controversial issues such as the extent of work-up or intensity of follow-up of the melanoma patient. These guidelines are intended as a point of departure, recognizing all clinical decisions about individual patient management must be tempered by the clinician's judgment, and factors such as local resources and expertise and the individual patient's needs, wishes, and expectations. Furthermore, these guidelines are undergoing continual revision and upgrading as new data become available.

In this report, the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology (ADASP) provides guidelines for the reporting of lymphoid neoplasms. The World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues is the preferred international standard for diagnostic criteria (disease definition) and nomenclature. Ancillary studies are often required, and the Association recommends that immunophenotypic and genotypic information be integrated into the final report, to the extent possible.

Although cervical cancer was the leading cause of cancer death in American women as recently as the 1930s, both the incidence and mortality from cervical cancer have decreased by almost one half since the early 1970s, largely as a result of widespread screening with the Pap test (1-3). However, the annual incidence rate has remained at approximately 8 cases per 100,000 women over the past few years (4). New technology for performing cervical cytology is evolving rapidly, as are recommendations for classifying and interpreting the results. The purpose of this document is to provide a review of the best available evidence on screening for cervical cancer. Specific equipment and techniques for performing cervical cytology and interpretation of the results are discussed elsewhere.

A systematic assessment of radiotherapy for cancer was conducted by The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) in 2001. The assessment included a review of future developments in radiotherapy and an estimate of the potential benefits of improved radiotherapy in Sweden. The conclusions reached from this review can be summarized as: Successively better knowledge is available on dose-response relationships for tumours and normal tissues at different fractionation schedules and treated volumes. Optimization of dose levels and fractionation schedules should improve the treatment outcome. Improved treatment results may be expected with even more optimized fractionation schedules. The radiosensitivity of the tumour is dependent on the availability of free oxygen in the cells. The oxygen effect has been studied for a long time and new knowledge has emerged, but there is still no consensus on the best way to minimize its negative effect in the treatment of hypoxic tumours. Development in imaging techniques is rapid, improving accuracy in outlining targets and organs at risk. This is a prerequisite for advanced treatment planning. More accurate treatment can be obtained using all the computer techniques that are successively made available for calculating dose distributions, controlling the accelerator and multileaf collimator (MLC) and checking patient set-up. Optimized treatment plans can be achieved using inverse dose planning and intensity modulation radiation therapy (IMRT). Optimization algorithms based on biological data from clinical trials could be a part of future dose planning. New genetic markers might be developed that give a measure of the radiation responsiveness of tumours and normal tissue. This could lead to more individualized treatments. New types of radiation sources may be expected: protons, light ions, and improved beams (and compounds) for boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT). Proton accelerators with scanned-beam systems and energy modulation give good dose distribution. The results reported with carbon ions from Japan and Germany are promising. An interesting development is to verify the dose and position for the irradiated volume with PET on line. Safer margins are obtained and the treatment volume can thus be limited. Very large accelerators are needed to accelerate the carbon ions. Still, it should be possible to keep the costs per patient at the same level as those for other types of advanced radiotherapy, since far fewer treatments per patient are needed. It might also be possible to treat new groups of patients. Increased resources are needed to introduce all the currently available techniques. New types of particle accelerators require large investments and a new structure of radiotherapy in Sweden.

A systematic assessment of radiotherapy for cancer was conducted by The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) in 2001. The assessment included a critical review of the literature on radiotherapy for cancer published in 1994-2001 and a prospective survey of radiotherapy practice in Sweden during 12 weeks in the autumn of 2001. The results of the survey were compared with the evidence derived from the scientific literature, and the following conclusions could be drawn: Radiotherapy is currently given to approximately 47% of new cancer cases This figure is on a par with rates reported from other countries. For most tumour types, curative radiotherapy practices in Sweden are generally supported by the literature. Interstitial brachytherapy has been included in the treatment of non-gynaecological malignancies, and prostate cancer is now the most common indication. Palliative radiotherapy has increased and is today given in a more rational way using single or few fractions However, it still seems to be under-utilized in Sweden. The need for radiotherapy can be expected to increase until the year 2010.

A systematic assessment of radiotherapy for cancer was conducted by The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) in 2001. The assessment included an overview of the capacity for radiotherapy in terms of infrastructure of cancer care and an estimation of the costs of radiotherapy in Sweden. A postal questionnaire distributed to all 16 centres of radiotherapy in Sweden showed the following results: In 2000 there were 57 accelerators with complementary equipment in operation, 24 of which had been installed 10 or more years ago earlier. The total cost of external radiation therapy was estimated at SEK 427 million in the year 2000, or approximately 5% of the estimated total cost of oncology care in Sweden. The total cost of brachytherapy was estimated at SEK 43 million or about one-tenth of that of external radiotherapy. The total cost of external radiotherapy has increased since the last inquiry (1991) by about 16% more than the general inflation in Sweden, but at the same time the volume of fractions has increased by about 37%. Thus, an increase in the efficiency of external radiotherapy, calculated per fraction, was achieved in the 1990s. At the department level, there was a clear correlation between cost of salaries and output of fractions of external radiotherapy, thus indicating the adaptation of manpower to the volume of patients. There was an even higher correlation between the number of accelerators and the volume of fractions of radiotherapy, which suggests the occurrence of certain economies of scale in Swedish external radiotherapy.

A prospective survey of radiotherapy practice in Sweden was conducted during 12 weeks in the autumn of 2001. All hospitals that provided radiotherapy participated, and all patients who started radiotherapy during the study period were included. The final patient sample comprised 5,105 treatments given to 4,171 patients. The results were compared with those of a similar survey conducted in 1992, and the following conclusions were drawn: A substantial increase in the use of radiotherapy was noted; The estimated proportion of cancer cases receiving radiotherapy (compared to the incident number of cases) had increased from 32% in 1992 to 47%; The proportion of cancer patients receiving radiotherapy was estimated at between 37 and 46%; 54% of treatments were given with curative intent, a small increase since 1992; The difference between regional and county departments for proportion of treatments with curative intent had diminished; Treatments with curative intent used a higher proportion of resources measured in terms of fractions; The proportion of palliative treatment was slightly lower than in 1992, but the absolute number of treatments had increased by more than 20%; No improvement in participation in clinical trials was noted; Treatments given with curative intent were more complex with more fields; Hyperfractionation was used, mainly in treatments of cancers of the head and neck, lung, and bladder; The use of brachytherapy for non-gynaecological malignancies had increased dramatically; Treatment of bone metastases with a single or few fractions was used much more frequently; Dose planning and patient set-up showed a high standard but quality control of dosimetry of given treatment did not fully comply with Swedish and European recommendations; The treatment devices seem to be used more efficiently.

A systematic assessment of radiotherapy for cancer was conducted by The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) in 2001. It included an overview of the organisation of radiotherapy and cancer care in Sweden and education of staff. It further included an update of cancer statistics for Sweden and an estimate of the need for radiotherapy resources by the year 2010. The following conclusions were drawn: Compared with a similar assessment in 1992, the number of departments of oncology at the county hospital level has increased by one, and one more department was scheduled to start radiotherapy during 2002. The speciality of oncology in Sweden includes all types of non-surgical cancer treatment, in contrast to the situation in most countries, where radiation oncology and medical oncology are independent specialities. Gynaecologic oncology is a unique speciality for Sweden. The number of new cancer cases increased by 13% between 1990 and 2000, and continues to increase by more than 1.0% per year. The projections of cancer incidence stated in the previous report were checked against observed data for the year 2000 and found to be an underestimation. To maintain the current capacity for radiotherapy in relation to number of new cancer cases by the year 2010, a total of 65 accelerators would be needed.

To update the 2000 ASCO guidelines on the role of bisphosphonates in women with breast cancer and address the subject of bone health in these women.

The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, which started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French Regional Cancer Centers, and specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients.

The Standards, Options and Recommendations (SOR) collaborative project was initiated in 1993 by the Federation of the French Cancer Centres (FNCLCC), with the 20 French Regional Cancer Centres, several French public university and general hospitals, as well as private clinics and medical speciality societies. Its main objective is the development of serviceable clinical practice guidelines in order to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients. The methodology is based on a literature review, followed by critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts. Draft guidelines are produced, then validated by specialists in cancer care delivery.

The study was undertaken to provide consensus guidelines for the management of women with histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) that can act as a precursor to invasive cervical cancer and represents one of the most common significant gynecologic diseases of women of reproductive age.