A large number of organizations are currently developing practice guidelines in oncology. These include federal agencies; medical societies and groups, including both oncologic and nononcologic specialty societies; and informal and formal groups of oncologists at the national, regional, and local level. Despite this marked increase in guideline activity, the science of guideline development must still be considered embryonic. Several general principles appear to be important for the generation of sound practice guidelines: (1) selection of suitable topics; (2) appropriate composition of the panel; (3) objectivity of the process used to arrive at recommendations; and (4) specific provisions for review and revision. Like the science of guideline development, the science of guideline implementation is still in its infancy. The factors facilitating physician acceptance of guideline recom-mendations have yet to be identified. Also, systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of different implementation strategies is needed.
The Institute of Medicine has defined clinical practice guidelines as "systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for a specific clinical circumstance" . The marked expansion of interest in this area has arisen as a result of two converging themes in modern health care. The first proposes that one step toward controlling rising medical costs is the elimination of diagnostic tests and therapeutic interventions that do not contribute to a beneficial outcome for the patient .
The second maintains that today's physicians do not routinely base their medical practices on solid evidence, since it is virtually impossible for a single individual to process and objectively evaluate the mass of data impacting on medical decision-making . This is especially true when, paradoxically, there may be critical gaps in the data. The confluence of these perceptions has led policy makers and health service researchers to consider clinical practice guidelines as a vehicle for encouraging practices that are sound, consistent, and cost-effective.
Faced with these demands, the oncologic disciplines are being called upon by sundry sources to develop practice guidelines. As all who venture into this field rapidly learn, the complexities of managing the cancer patient place demands on oncology guideline developers that far exceed those confronting experts in other areas. Besides the sheer volume of diagnoses subsumed under the term "oncology," the task is complicated by the heterogeneity of clinical and pathophysiologic variables for each patient, which makes the delineation of comprehensive pathways extremely difficult. For these reasons, guideline activity in oncology has lagged behind that in other disciplines. A recent survey of 831 articles related to guidelines and outcome measures cites only 61 papers related to cancer, of which half address screening issues .
Despite these difficulties, the goal of providing instruments to assist in clinical decision-making remains a valid one, since the ultimate objective, the improvement of care for cancer patients, may be furthered by soundly derived guidelines.
As yet, no single authoritative body has emerged as the ultimate developer of practice guidelines in oncology. However, a wide spectrum of groups, ranging from federal agencies and medical societies to formal and informal groups of oncologists, are currently involved in developing these instruments (Table 1).
The federal initiative is being carried forth by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) . To date, panels of this organization have developed seven guidelines, only one of which, "The Management of Cancer Pain", is directed at cancer care.
The National Institutes of Health consensus process fosters the development of statements that evaluate broad areas of clinical care and delineate the current state of appropriate practice . Consensus statements are the products of an invited panel of experts who review relevant data and, in a nonstructured process, develop a consensus opinion. Recent consensus statements in the area of oncology have addressed the adjuvant therapy of colorectal carcinoma (1990), early breast cancer (1991), diagnosis and treatment of melanoma (1992), and management of ovarian cancer (1994).
The National Cancer Institute, in response to recent debates over mammographic screening in women age 40 to 49 years, has redefined its role in this area, reasoning that its goal should be to support relevant research, and thereby serve as the scientific resource agency in the guideline process .
Medical Groups and Societies
A second major developer of guidelines has been medical groups and societies . The American Cancer Society has been instrumental in formulating the parameters and indications for a broad range of screening and support activities [10,11]. The ACS has fulfilled a major requirement of sound guideline practice, namely, the commitment to periodic review and revision .
Another major group involved in guideline development has been the American College of Physicians, through its Clinical Efficacy Assessment Program (CEAP) . Initiated in 1981, this project has produced over 200 position papers, including several related to cancer topics, such as parenteral nutrition in cancer patients .
One of the first major guideline efforts in oncology was undertaken by the Oncology Nursing Society, which published a comprehensive set of pathways for performing nursing assessments of the cancer patient . The Association of Community Cancer Centers recently announced plans to convene working groups to derive management plans for the common cancer sites.
During the past 2 years, three of the major oncology specialty societies, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Society of Hematology, and the Society of Surgical Oncologists, have formed committees to develop guidelines related to oncology practice. The American Society of Clinical Oncology is utilizing expert panels to derive evidence-based guidelines. The first of these documents, on hematopoietic growth factors, was published recently . Future guidelines will focus on the use of tumor markers in breast and colon cancer, and issues related to the role of peripheral stem-cell support of high-dose chemotherapy.
The American Society of Hematology is approaching guideline development from a disease-oriented perspective, and will address specific neoplastic entities in the future. The surgical group is developing a set of guidelines related to the site-specific surgical management of a broad range of tumors.
Another avenue to practice guideline development was recently opened by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, which has promulgated a set of guidelines delineating practice para-meters related to bone marrow transplantation .
In addition to the oncology specialty organizations, the subspecialty oncology groups are also generating guidelines specific to their areas. The American Society of Bone Marrow Transplant is developing guidelines for the appropriate resources for performing transplant procedures and for the credentialing of bone marrow facilities. The International Society of Hematotransplant and Graft Enhancement has been working with the Office of Health Technology Assessments to formulate a set of guidelines covering the technical aspects of procuring bone-marrow, peripheral stem-cell, and cord specimens.
Nononcologic specialty societies have also become involved in cancer topics as part of their general guideline activities. Recent examples include the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which developed several technical papers directly dealing with oncologic problems ; the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, which promulgated guidelines for the management of colorectal cancers ; and the American Academy of Dermatology, which published guidelines for the management of malignant melanoma .
The third, and probably most active, locus of guideline development has been a multiplicity of formal and informal groups operating at the local, regional, and national levels. The aim of these groups has been to delineate the clinical practice pathways for the majority of common tumors. These pathways seek to standardize diagnostic and staging workups, detail appropriate primary and adjuvant therapies, specify types and schedules of follow-up examinations, and outline options for salvage therapy.
The impetus for this grass-roots guideline effort is the desire to decrease variations in oncology care, with the assumption that this will curtail the overutilization of services and thereby decrease costs. Since guidelines must be implemented on the local level, "buy-in" by practicing oncologists may be heightened if they are part of the developmental process.
Given the plethora of ad hoc guideline activities, there is probably a considerable amount of overlap in the areas being covered. Since the composition and authority of the panels differ, the methodology used for deriving guidelines varies widely, ranging from the informal consensus of experts to formal, evidence-based processes .
Major health maintenance organizations, such as Kaiser-Permanente, are investing significant resources in developing a guideline program. Insurance companies, too, may have a major impact on guideline generation. Blue Cross and Blue Shield organizations in several states have been either independently deriving or contracting for
the development of clinical practice pathways.
1. Field MJ, Lohr KN (eds): Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Agency. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1990.
2. Leape L: Practice guidelines and standards: An overview. Qual Rev Bull 16(2):42-49, 1990.
3. Brook RH: Practice guidelines and practicing medicine: Are they compatible? JAMA 262(21):3027-3030, 1989.
4. Vilbert S, Reichard J (eds): The 1993-1994 Medical Outcomes and Guidelines Sourcebook. New York, Faulkner & Gray, 1993.
5. VanAmringe M, Shannon TE: Awareness, assimilation, and adoption: The challenge of effective dissemination and the first AHCPR-sponsored guidelines. Qual Rev Bull 18(12):397-404, 1992.
6. Jacox A, Carr DB, Payne R, et al: Management of Cancer Pain: Clinical Practice Guideline No. 9. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, publ 94-0592, Bethesda, Maryland, 1994.
7. Guidelines for the Planning and Management of NIH Consensus Development Conferences. National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director, Office of Medical Applications of Research, Bethesda, Maryland, 1993.
8. Kaluzny AD, Rimer B, Harris R: The National Cancer Institute and guideline development: Lessons from the breast cancer screening controversy. J Natl Cancer Inst 86(12):901-903, 1994.
9. The Experience of Medical Specialty Societies. United States General Accounting Office Practice Guidelines, GAO/PEMD-91-11, 1991.
10. Mettlin C, Smart CR: Breast cancer detection guidelines for women aged 40 to 49 years: Rationale for the American Cancer Society reaffirmation of recommendations. CA Cancer J Clin 44(4):248-255, 1994.
11. Weinhouse S, Bal DG, et al: American Cancer Society guidelines on diet, nutrition, and cancer: The Work Study Group on diet, nutrition and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 41(6):334-338, 1991.
12. Mettlin C, Jones G, Averette H, et al: Defining and updating the American Cancer Society guidelines for the cancer-related check-up: Prostate and endometrial cancers. CA Cancer J Clin 43(1):42-46, 1993.
13. White LJ, Ball JR: The clinical efficacy assessment project of the American College of Physicians. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1:169-174, 1985.
14. McGeer AJ, Detsky AS, et al: Parenteral nutrition in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med 110(9):734-736, 1989.
15. Standards of Oncology Nursing Practice. American Nurses' Association and Oncology Nursing Society, Kansas City, Missouri, 1987.
16. American Society of Clinical Oncology: American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: Evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Oncol 12(11):2471-2508, 1994.
17. Rowe JM, Ciobanu N, Ascensao J, et al: Recommended guideline for the management of autologous and allogeneic bone marrow transplantation: A report from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). Ann Intern Med 120(2):143-158, 1994.
18. ACOG Technical Bulletin Number 162: Carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynecol Obstet 40:255-261, 1993.
19. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons: Practice parameters for the treatment of rectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 36(11):989-1006, 1993.
20. Drake LA, et al: Guidelines of care for malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 28(4):638-641, 1993.
21. Audet AM, Greenfield S, Field M: Medical practice guidelines: Current activities and future directions. Ann Intern Med 113(9):709-714, 1990.
22. Coffey RJ, Richards JS, et al: An introduction to critical paths. Qual Mgmt Health Care 1(1):45-54, 1992.
23. Margolis CZ: Uses of clinical algorithms. JAMA 249(5):627-632, 1983.
24. Implementing Practice Parameters on the Local/State/Regional Level. Office of Quality Assurance and Medical Review, American Medical Association, Chicago, 1993.
25. Woolf SH: Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine: II. Methods of developing guidelines. Arch Intern Med 152(5):946-952, 1992.
26. Woolf SH, Battista RN, Anderson GM, et al: Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive maneuvers: Analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations: A report by the Canadian Task Force on the periodic health examination. J Clin Epidemiol 43(9):891-905, 1990.
27. Eddy DM: Guidelines for policy statements: The explicit approach. JAMA 263(16):2239-2243, 1990.
28. Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierre K, et al: Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 321(19):1306-1311, 1989.
29. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT: Achieving health gain through clinical guidelines: I. Developing scientifically valid guidelines. Qual Health Care 2:243-248, 1993.
30. Sherman CR, Potosky AL, Weis KA, et al: The Consensus Development Program: Detecting changes in medical practice following a consensus conference on the treatment of prostate cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 8(4):683-693, 1992.
31. Ford LG, Hunter CP, Dihr P, et al: Effects of patient management guidelines on physician practice patterns: The community hospital oncology program experience. J Clin Oncol 5(3):504-511, 1987.
32. Greco PJ, Eisenberg JM: Changing physicians' practices. N Engl J Med 329(17):1271-1273, 1993.
33. Lomas J, Haynes RB: A taxonomy and critical review of tested strategies for the application of clinical practice recommendations: From "official" to "individual" clinical policy. Am J Prev Med 4(suppl 4):77-97, 1988.
34. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT: Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: A systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 392:1317-1322, 1993