Literature DB >> 10888771

College of American Pathologists Conference XXXV: solid tumor prognostic factors-which, how and so what? Summary document and recommendations for implementation. Cancer Committee and Conference Participants.

M E Hammond1, P L Fitzgibbons, C C Compton, D J Grignon, D L Page, L P Fielding, D Bostwick, T F Pajak.   

Abstract

The College of American Pathologists convened a prognostic factor conference in June 1999 to consider prognostic and predictive factors in breast, colon, and prostate cancer, and to stratify these factors into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence. Because so little progress in prognostic factor clinical utility has been made in the last 5 years, the conference participants focused their attention on decreasing variation in methods, interpretation, and reporting of these factors so that greater clarity of value could be achieved. The conference was organized to promote discussion, broad input, and future planning. An initial plenary session provided an overview of the status of tumor marker research, the impact of variation in medicine and pathology, and statistical issues related to prognostic factor research. In working group sessions for each cancer type, participants interactively evaluated and refined the documents created by the expert panels. A second plenary session dealt with issues common to all 3 groups, including the problem of micrometastases in lymph nodes in these sites; statistical issues that arose during the breakout discussions; and issues of variation in methods, interpretation, and reporting of immunohistochemical assays. A faculty session brainstormed strategies that could be used to implement the changes recommended. This session included invited representatives of the Food and Drug Administration, Health Care Financing Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, American Joint Committee on Cancer, and International Union Against Cancer. Cancer site and general recommendations were presented and discussed during a final session to achieve consensus of the conference participants and to address feasibility of implementation of these recommendations. A final discussion focused on future initiatives that might lead to implementation of the changes proposed in the conference by the various organizations represented. This report summarizes the general conference recommendations, cancer working group recommendations, and plans for implementation of the recommendations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10888771     DOI: 10.5858/2000-124-0958-COAPCX

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med        ISSN: 0003-9985            Impact factor:   5.534


  27 in total

Review 1.  Development of quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery, using a 3-step modified Delphi approach.

Authors:  Anna R Gagliardi; Marko Simunovic; Bernard Langer; Hartley Stern; Adalsteinn D Brown
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Lymph node evaluation as a colon cancer quality measure: a national hospital report card.

Authors:  Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Andrew K Stewart; Mark S Talamonti; David P Winchester; Thomas R Russell; Clifford Y Ko
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-09-09       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Selection of chemotherapy by ex vivo assessment of tumor sensitivity to cytotoxic drugs: results of a clinical trial.

Authors:  Ake Berglund; Bengt Glimelius; Jonas Bergh; Ola Brodin; Marie-Louise Fjällskog; Hans Hagberg; Anne von Heideman; Rolf Larsson; Bengt Tholander; Manuel de la Torre; Gunnar Aström; Kjell Oberg; Gunnar Parö; Peter Nygren
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.064

4.  Predictors of lymph node count in colorectal cancer resections: data from US nationwide prospective cohort studies.

Authors:  Teppei Morikawa; Noriko Tanaka; Aya Kuchiba; Katsuhiko Nosho; Mai Yamauchi; Jason L Hornick; Richard S Swanson; Andrew T Chan; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Curtis Huttenhower; Deborah Schrag; Charles S Fuchs; Shuji Ogino
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2012-08

Review 5.  Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms.

Authors:  Rainer Engers
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-09-09       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Validation of biomarker-based risk prediction models.

Authors:  Jeremy M G Taylor; Donna P Ankerst; Rebecca R Andridge
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 7.  Molecular and genetic prognostic factors of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Arnab Chakravarti; Gary Guotang Zhai
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2003-08-09       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Factors associated with local recurrence after neoadjuvant chemoradiation with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Nam-Kyu Kim; Young-Wan Kim; Byung-Soh Min; Kang-Young Lee; Seung-Kook Sohn; Chang-Hwan Cho
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 9.  Tissue print micropeel: a new technique for mapping tumor invasion in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sandra M Gaston; Melissa P Upton
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  Clinicopathological study of male breast carcinoma: 24 years of experience.

Authors:  Parveen Shah; Irfan Robbani; Omar Shah
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.526

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.