Purpose In response to advances in the field, the College of American Pathologists (CAP), the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) recently updated their recommendations for molecular testing for the selection of patients with lung cancer for treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods The molecular testing guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. Then an ASCO Expert Panel reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CAP/IASLC/AMP molecular testing guideline are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the guideline with minor modifications. Recommendations This update clarifies that any sample with adequate cellularity and preservation may be tested and that analytical methods must be able to detect mutation in a sample with as little as 20% cancer cells. It strongly recommends against evaluating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression by immunohistochemistry for selection of patients for EGFR-targeted therapy. New for 2018 are recommendations for stand-alone ROS1 testing with additional confirmation testing in all patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, and RET, ERBB2 (HER2), KRAS, and MET testing as part of larger panels. ASCO also recommends stand-alone BRAF testing in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Recommendations are also provided for testing methods for lung cancers that have a nonadenocarcinoma non-small-cell component, for patients with targetable mutations who have relapsed on targeted therapy, and for testing the presence of circulating cell-free DNA. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Purpose Provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2015 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods The ASCO NSCLC Expert Panel made recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from February 2014 to December 2016 plus the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care's update of a previous ASCO search. Results This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Fourteen randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base; earlier phase trials also informed recommendation development. Recommendations New or revised recommendations include the following. Regarding first-line treatment for patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (without positive markers, eg, EGFR/ALK /ROS1), if the patient has high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, pembrolizumab should be used alone; if the patient has low PD-L1 expression, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. All other clinical scenarios follow 2015 recommendations. Regarding second-line treatment in patients who received first-line chemotherapy, without prior immune checkpoint therapy, if NSCLC tumor is positive for PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab; if tumor has negative or unknown PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use nivolumab or atezolizumab. All immune checkpoint therapy is recommended alone plus in the absence of contraindications. For patients who received a prior first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. For patients who cannot receive immune checkpoint inhibitor after chemotherapy, docetaxel is recommended; in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, pemetrexed is recommended. In patients with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, disease progression after first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, and T790M mutation, osimertinib is recommended; if NSCLC lacks the T790M mutation, then chemotherapy is recommended. Patients with ROS1 gene rearrangement without prior crizotinib may be offered crizotinib, or if they previously received crizotinib, they may be offered chemotherapy.

Purpose The College of American Pathologists (CAP), the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guideline on molecular testing for the selection of patients with lung cancer for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors was considered for endorsement. Methods American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) staff reviewed the CAP/IASLC/AMP guideline for developmental rigor; an ASCO ad hoc review panel of experts reviewed the guideline content. Results The ASCO panel concurred that the recommendations are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence in this content area and present options that will be acceptable to patients. The CAP/IASLC/AMP guideline comprises 37 recommendations (evidence grade A or B), expert consensus opinions, or suggestions that address the following five principal questions: (1) When should molecular testing be performed? (2) How should EGFR testing be performed? (3) How should ALK testing be performed? (4) Should other genes be routinely tested in lung adenocarcinoma? (5) How should molecular testing be implemented and operationalized? Conclusion The ASCO review panel endorses the CAP/IASLC/AMP guideline. This guideline represents an important advance toward standardization of EGFR and ALK testing practices and is of major clinical relevance in advancing the care of patients with lung cancer. In the Discussion section, the ASCO review panel highlights three evolving areas: advances in ALK testing methodology, considerations for selecting appropriate populations for molecular testing, and emergence of other targetable molecular alterations.

Background. Few women with locally advanced breast cancer remain disease‐free, even for 2 years. Response to induction chemotherapy may be associated with longer disease‐free and overall survival rates. The role of breast conservation in selected patients with response to induction chemotherapy was evaluated. Methods. Since 1979, patients with Stages IIB and III breast cancer have undergone induction chemotherapy; patients with response continued chemotherapy until a plateau of regression was achieved. Before 1983, all patients having a response to chemotherapy underwent mastectomy; since 1983, selected patients have undergone breast conservation. Outcomes were tallied comparing these two groups of patients. Results. The study group included 189 women, who were followed up for 12–159 months (median, 46 months) after diagnosis. Of the patients, 85% had a response to induction chemotherapy. Patients with no response were excluded from additional consideration in this study. One hundred three (64%) women underwent mastectomy; 55 (36%) were treated with breast conservation. The disease‐free 5‐year survival rate was 61% for all patients with a response to chemotherapy; 56% for those having mastectomy and 77% for those having breast conservation. The overall 5‐year survival rate was 69% for all patients with a response to chemotherapy, 67% for those undergoing mastectomy and 80% for those having breast conservation. Conclusions. Induction chemotherapy achieves significant tumor regression in most women with locally advanced breast cancer, permitting subsequent breast conservation or mastectomy with a greater expectation of long‐term success. Breast conservation is used more frequently with the same expectation of success as mastectomy, presuming careful selection based on response to chemotherapy.

The patients who undergo IORT with electrons and treated with perioperative chemotherapy (5-FU leucovorin) followed by additional external-beam radiation and chemotherapy appear to have improved survival, with few early or late complications. Dose escalation of external-beam radiation and chemotherapy may further improve local control of disease and survival of patients.

Eighty‐eight patients with localized unresectable carcinoma of the pancreas were treated at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital between 1974 and 1981. Four treatment regimens were used which were sequential modifications of the technique based on the experience in the preceeding group of patients. Each treatment changed the course of the disease, and as patterns of failure were identified, the treatment was altered to deal with them. Initially, all patients were treated with external beam radiation. Subsequently, Iodine‐125 implantation was added to improve local control; low‐dose preoperative radiotherapy to reduce the risk of peritoneal seeding; and adjuvant chemotherapy to reduce the risks of distant metastases. The addition of 125I implantation increased the local control from 22% to 81%, but did not increase the median survival, which was unchanged from 7 months. The addition of adjuvant chemotherapy increased the median survival from 7 months to 14 months, but had no impact on the control of the pancreatic tumor. Adjunctive chemotherapy and low‐dose preoperative radiotherapy appear synergistic in reducing the risk of peritoneal seeding. The combination of 125I implantation, external beam radiation, and adjunctive chemotherapy is safe and effective. This regimen produces excellent local control with acceptable morbidity. This regimen produced a 30% survival at 18 months. The patterns of failure among these patients suggest future modifications of the technique.

No abstract

No abstract