College of American Pathologists Conference XXXV

Solid tumor prognostic factors - Which, how and so what? Summary document and recommendations for implementation

M. Elizabeth H Hammond, Patrick L. Fitzgibbons, Carolyn Compton, David J. Grignon, David L. Page, L. Peter Fielding, David Bostwick, Thomas F. Pajak, Joe Schramm

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

91 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)958-965
Number of pages8
JournalArchives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Volume124
Issue number7
StatePublished - 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Neoplasms
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.)
Neoplasm Micrometastasis
National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
United States Food and Drug Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Tumor Biomarkers
Research
Colonic Neoplasms
Pathologists
Prostatic Neoplasms
Lymph Nodes
Medicine
Organizations
Pathology
Breast Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

College of American Pathologists Conference XXXV : Solid tumor prognostic factors - Which, how and so what? Summary document and recommendations for implementation. / Hammond, M. Elizabeth H; Fitzgibbons, Patrick L.; Compton, Carolyn; Grignon, David J.; Page, David L.; Fielding, L. Peter; Bostwick, David; Pajak, Thomas F.; Schramm, Joe.

In: Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vol. 124, No. 7, 2000, p. 958-965.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hammond, M. Elizabeth H ; Fitzgibbons, Patrick L. ; Compton, Carolyn ; Grignon, David J. ; Page, David L. ; Fielding, L. Peter ; Bostwick, David ; Pajak, Thomas F. ; Schramm, Joe. / College of American Pathologists Conference XXXV : Solid tumor prognostic factors - Which, how and so what? Summary document and recommendations for implementation. In: Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2000 ; Vol. 124, No. 7. pp. 958-965.
@article{9a5e7775e56a4cb0829ab701c23328f3,
title = "College of American Pathologists Conference XXXV: Solid tumor prognostic factors - Which, how and so what? Summary document and recommendations for implementation",
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.",
author = "Hammond, {M. Elizabeth H} and Fitzgibbons, {Patrick L.} and Carolyn Compton and Grignon, {David J.} and Page, {David L.} and Fielding, {L. Peter} and David Bostwick and Pajak, {Thomas F.} and Joe Schramm",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "124",
pages = "958--965",
journal = "Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine",
issn = "0003-9985",
publisher = "College of American Pathologists",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - College of American Pathologists Conference XXXV

T2 - Solid tumor prognostic factors - Which, how and so what? Summary document and recommendations for implementation

AU - Hammond, M. Elizabeth H

AU - Fitzgibbons, Patrick L.

AU - Compton, Carolyn

AU - Grignon, David J.

AU - Page, David L.

AU - Fielding, L. Peter

AU - Bostwick, David

AU - Pajak, Thomas F.

AU - Schramm, Joe

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033854631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033854631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 124

SP - 958

EP - 965

JO - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

JF - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

SN - 0003-9985

IS - 7

ER -