The updated VCOG‐CTCAE v2 guidelines contain several important updates and additions since the last update (v1.1) was released in 2011 and published within Veterinary and Comparative Oncology in 2016. As the Veterinary Cooperative Oncology Group (VCOG) is no longer an active entity, the original authors and contributors to the VCOG‐CTCAE v1.0 and v1.1 were consulted for input, and additional co‐authors sought for expansion and refinement of the adverse event (AE) categories. VCOG‐CTCAE v2 includes expanded neurology, cardiac and immunologic AE sections, and the addition of procedural‐specific AEs. It is our intent that, through inclusion of additional authors from ACVIM subspecialties and the American College of Veterinary Surgery, that we can more comprehensively capture AEs that are observed during clinical studies conducted across a variety of disease states, clinical scenarios, and body systems. It is also our intent that these updated veterinary CTCAE guidelines will offer improved application and ease of use within veterinary practice in general, as well as within clinical trials that assess new therapeutic strategies for animals with a variety of diseases. Throughout the revision process, we strived to ensure the grading structure for each AE category was reflective of the decision‐making process applied to determination of dose‐limiting events. As phase I trial decisions are based on these criteria and ultimately determine the maximally tolerated dose, there is impact on standard dosing recommendations for any new drug registration or application. This document should be updated regularly to reflect ongoing application to clinical studies carried out in veterinary patients.

Objective: To evaluate reporting of surgical complications and other adverse events in clinical research articles describing soft tissue and oncologic surgery in dogs and cats.Study design: Systematic literature review.Sample: English‐language articles describing soft tissue and oncologic surgeries in client‐owned dogs and cats published in peer‐reviewed journals from 2013 to 2016.Methods: CAB, AGRICOLA, and MEDLINE databases were searched for eligible articles. Article characteristics relevant to complications were abstracted and summarized, including reported events, definitions, criteria used to classify events according to severity and time frame, and relevant citations.Results: One hundred fifty‐one articles involving 10 522 animals were included. Canine retrospective case series of dogs predominated. Ninety‐two percent of articles mentioned complications in study results, but only 7.3% defined the term complication. Articles commonly described complications according to time frame and severity, but terminology and classification criteria were highly variable, conflicting between studies, or not provided. Most (58%) reported complications could have been graded with a published veterinary adverse event classification scheme, although common intraoperative complications were notable exceptions.Conclusion: Definitions and criteria used to classify and report soft tissue and oncologic surgical complications are often absent, incomplete, or contradictory among studies.Clinical significance: Lack of consistent terminology contributes to inadequate communication of important information about surgical complications. Standardization of terminology and consistency in severity scoring will improve comparative evaluation of clinical research results.

Standardization of tumor assessment lays the foundation for validation of grading systems, permits reproducibility of oncologic studies among investigators, and increases confidence in the significance of study results. Currently, there is minimal methodological standardization for assessing tumors in veterinary medicine, with few attempts to validate published protocols and grading schemes. The current article attempts to address these shortcomings by providing standard guidelines for tumor assessment parameters and protocols for evaluating specific tumor types. More detailed information is available in the Supplemental Files, the intention of which is 2-fold: publication as part of this commentary, but more importantly, these will be available as “living documents” on a website ( www.vetcancerprotocols.org ), which will be updated as new information is presented in the peer-reviewed literature. Our hope is that veterinary pathologists will agree that this initiative is needed, and will contribute to and utilize this information for routine diagnostic work and oncologic studies. Journal editors and reviewers can utilize checklists to ensure publications include sufficient detail and standardized methods of tumor assessment. To maintain the relevance of the guidelines and protocols, it is critical that the information is periodically updated and revised as new studies are published and validated with the intent of providing a repository of this information. Our hope is that this initiative (a continuation of efforts published in this journal in 2011) will facilitate collaboration and reproducibility between pathologists and institutions, increase case numbers, and strengthen clinical research findings, thus ensuring continued progress in veterinary oncologic pathology and improving patient care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess histologic evaluation of mandibular lymph nodes (MLNs) and medial retropharyngeal lymph nodes (MRLNs) for metastatic disease during tumor staging for dogs with oral malignant melanoma (OMM) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). DESIGN: Retrospective multi-institutional study. ANIMALS: 27 dogs with OMM and 21 dogs with OSCC. PROCEDURES: Medical record databases of 8 institutions were searched to identify dogs with OMM or OSCC that underwent unilateral or bilateral extirpation of the MLNs and MRLNs during the same procedure between January 2004 and April 2016. Information extracted from the records included signalment, primary mass location and size, diagnostic imaging results, histologic results for the primary tumor and all lymph nodes evaluated, and whether distant metastasis developed. RESULTS: Prevalence of lymph node metastasis did not differ significantly between dogs with OMM (10/27 [37%]) and dogs with OSCC (6/21 [29%]). Distant metastasis was identified in 11 (41%) dogs with OMM and was suspected in 1 dog with OSCC. The MRLN was affected in 13 of 16 dogs with lymph node metastasis, and 3 of those dogs had metastasis to the MRLN without concurrent metastasis to an MLN. Metastasis was identified in lymph nodes contralateral to the primary tumor in 4 of 17 dogs that underwent contralateral lymph node removal. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated histologic evaluation of only 1 MLN was insufficient to definitively rule out lymph node metastasis in dogs with OMM or OSCC; therefore, bilateral lymphadenectomy of the MLN and MRLN lymphocentra is recommended for such dogs.