Guideline development processes vary substantially, and many guidelines do not meet basic quality criteria. Standards for guideline development can help organizations ensure that recommendations are evidence-based and can help users identify high-quality guidelines. Such organizations as the U.S. Institute of Medicine and the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have developed recommendations to define trustworthy guidelines within their locales. Many groups charged with guideline development find the lengthy list of standards developed by such organizations to be aspirational but infeasible to follow in entirety. Founded in 2002, the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) is a network of guideline developers that includes 93 organizations and 89 individual members representing 46 countries. The G-I-N board of trustees recognized the importance of guideline development processes that are both rigorous and feasible even for modestly funded groups to implement and initiated an effort toward consensus about minimum standards for high-quality guidelines. In contrast to other existing standards for guideline development at national or local levels, the key components proposed by G-I-N will represent the consensus of an international, multidisciplinary group of active guideline developers. This article presents G-I-N's proposed set of key components for guideline development. These key components address panel composition, decision-making process, conflicts of interest, guideline objective, development methods, evidence review, basis of recommendations, ratings of evidence and recommendations, guideline review, updating processes, and funding. It is hoped that this article promotes discussion and eventual agreement on a set of international standards for guideline development.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. Results: Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conclusions: Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

Conflicts of interest (COIs) have been defined by the American Thoracic Society as "a divergence between an individual's private interests and his or her professional obligations such that an independent observer might reasonably question whether the individual's professional actions or decisions are motivated by personal gain, such as direct financial, academic advancement, clinical revenue streams, or community standing." In the context of guideline development, the concerns are not simply about identifying and disclosing direct financial or indirect COIs. Despite this recognition, the management of COIs in guidelines is often unsatisfactory. In response to requests from its international membership and informed by existing syntheses of the evidence and policies of international organizations, the Guidelines International Network Board of Trustees developed guidance on the disclosure of interests and management of COIs. Current approaches are relatively similar throughout the guideline development community, with an increasing recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing indirect COIs. Although there are differences in detail among the approaches, the similarities allow for the formulation of 9 core principles for managing COIs. In formulating these principles, the Guidelines International Network Board of Trustees recognizes that COIs cannot be totally avoided when panel members are being chosen for certain guidelines or in certain settings; thus, the important issue is the management of COIs in a fair, judicious, transparent manner.

No abstract

BackgroundLung metastasectomy in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without good evidence of survival or palliative benefit. We aimed to test its effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).MethodsMultidisciplinary teams in 13 hospitals recruited participants with potentially resectable lung metastases to a multicentre, two-arm RCT comparing active monitoring with or without metastasectomy. Other local or systemic treatments were decided by the local team. Randomisation was remote and stratified by site with minimisation for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, the number of metastases, and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The central Trial Management Group were blind to patient allocation until completion of the analysis. Analysis was on intention to treat with a margin for non-inferiority of 10%.ResultsBetween December 2010 and December 2016, 65 participants were randomised. Characteristics were well-matched in the two arms and similar to those in reported studies: age 35 to 86 years (interquartile range (IQR) 60 to 74); primary resection IQR 16 to 35 months previously; stage at resection T1, 2 or 3 in 3, 8 and 46; N1 or N2 in 31 and 26; unknown in 8. Lung metastases 1 to 5 (median 2); 16/65 had previous liver metastases; carcinoembryonic antigen normal in 55/65. There were no other interventions in the first 6 months, no crossovers from control to treatment, and no treatment-related deaths or major adverse events. The Hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing metastasectomy with control, was 0.82 (95%CI 0.43, 1.56).ConclusionsBecause of poor and worsening recruitment, the study was stopped. The small number of participants in the trial (N = 65) precludes a conclusive answer to the research question given the large overlap in the confidence intervals in the proportions still alive at all time points. A widely held belief is that the 5-year absolute survival benefit with metastasectomy is about 35%: 40% after metastasectomy compared to < 5% in controls. The estimated survival in this study was 38% (23–62%) for metastasectomy patients and 29% (16–52%) in the well-matched controls. That is the new and important finding of this RCT.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01106261. Registered on 19 April 2010

The majority of chemotherapy drugs are dosed based on body surface area (BSA). No standard BSA values for patients being treated in the United Kingdom are available on which to base dose and cost calculations. We therefore retrospectively assessed the BSA of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment at three oncology centres in the UK between 1st January 2005 and 31st December 2005.A total of 3613 patients receiving chemotherapy for head and neck, ovarian, lung, upper GI/pancreas, breast or colorectal cancers were included. The overall mean BSA was 1.79 m2 (95% CI 1.78–1.80) with a mean BSA for men of 1.91 m2 (1.90–1.92) and 1.71 m2 (1.70–1.72) for women. Results were consistent across the three centres. No significant differences were noted between treatment in the adjuvant or palliative setting in patients with breast or colorectal cancer. However, statistically significant, albeit small, differences were detected between some tumour groups.In view of the consistency of results between three geographically distinct UK cancer centres, we believe the results of this study may be generalised and used in future costings and budgeting for new chemotherapy agents in the UK.

Aim Lung metastases from colorectal cancer are resected in selected patients in the belief that this confers a significant survival advantage. It is generally assumed that the 5-year survival of these patients would be near zero without metastasectomy. We tested the clinical effectiveness of this practice in Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC), a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial. Method Multidisciplinary teams in 14 hospitals recruited patients with resectable lung metastases into a two-arm trial. Randomization was remote and stratified according to site, with minimization for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, number of metastases and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The trial management group was blind to patient allocation until after intention-to-treat analysis. Results From 2010 to 2016, 93 participants were randomized. These patients were 35-86 years of age and had between one and six lung metastases at a median of 2.7 years after colorectal cancer resection; 29% had prior liver metastasectomy. The patient groups were well matched and the characteristics of these groups were similar to those of observational studies. The median survival after metastasectomy was 3.5 (95% CI: 3.1-6.6) years compared with 3.8 (95% CI: 3.1-4.6) years for controls. The estimated unadjusted hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing the metastasectomy group with the control group, was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.56-1.56). Use of chemotherapy or local ablation was infrequent and similar in each group. Conclusion Patients in the control group (who did not undergo lung metastasectomy) have better survival than is assumed. Survival in the metastasectomy group is comparable with the many single-arm follow-up studies. The groups were well matched with features similar to those reported in case series.

No abstract