ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE: To guide the vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and nonrandomized studies on the efficacy and safety of vaccines used by adults with cancer or their household contacts. This review builds on a 2013 guideline by the Infectious Disease Society of America. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2013, to February 16, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 102 publications were included in the systematic review: 24 systematic reviews, 14 RCTs, and 64 nonrandomized studies. The largest body of evidence addressed COVID-19 vaccines. RECOMMENDATIONS: The goal of vaccination is to limit the severity of infection and prevent infection where feasible. Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer. This approach includes the documentation of vaccination status at the time of the first patient visit; timely provision of recommended vaccines; and appropriate revaccination after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, or B-cell–depleting therapy. Active interaction and coordination among healthcare providers, including primary care practitioners, pharmacists, and nursing team members, are needed. Vaccination of household contacts will enhance protection for patients with cancer. Some vaccination and revaccination plans for patients with cancer may be affected by the underlying immune status and the anticancer therapy received. As a result, vaccine strategies may differ from the vaccine recommendations for the general healthy adult population vaccine. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are a cellular immunotherapy with remarkable efficacy in treating multiple hematologic malignancies but they are associated with extremely high prices that are, for many countries, prohibitively expensive. As their use increases both for hematologic malignancies and other indications, and large numbers of new cellular therapies are developed, novel approaches will be needed both to reduce the cost of therapy, and to pay for them. We review the many factors that lead to the high cost of CAR T-cells and offer proposals for reform.

In March and April 2018, more than 150 patients presented to hospitals in Illinois with coagulopathy and bleeding diathesis. Area physicians and public health organizations identified an association between coagulopathy and synthetic cannabinoid use. Preliminary tests of patient serum samples and drug samples revealed that brodifacoum, an anticoagulant, was the likely adulterant.

(1) Background: Vaccine hesitancy and rejection are major threats to controlling coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is a paucity of information about the attitudes of cancer patients towards vaccinations and the role of clinical oncologists in influencing vaccination acceptance. (2) Methods: Cancer patients and caregivers were invited to participate in a webinar and two surveys (pre- and post-webinar) assessing intention and thought processes associated with receiving COVID-19 vaccines. (3) Results: Two hundred and sixty-four participants participated in the webinar and registered to take at least one survey. Participants reported receiving most of their COVID-19 vaccine information from their doctor, clinic, or hospital. Before the webinar, 71% of participants reported the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, 24% were unsure, and 5% had no intention of receiving a vaccine. The strongest predictors of vaccine enthusiasm were (a) planning to encourage the vaccination of family, friends, co-workers, and community, and (b) physician recommendation. The chief reason for vaccine hesitancy was a fear of side effects. After the webinar, 82.5% reported the intention to receive a vaccine, 15.4% were still unsure, and 2% stated that they had no intention of receiving a vaccine. The webinar shifted the attitude towards vaccine enthusiasm, despite an already vaccine-enthusiastic population. Communicating about vaccines using positive framing is associated with greater vaccine enthusiasm. (4) Conclusions: Patient education programs co-hosted by multiple stakeholders and delivered by oncologists can increase cancer patient enthusiasm for COVID-19 vaccination.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Although most patients can be managed safely with anticoagulation, inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) represent an important alternative to anticoagulation in a small subset of patients. IVCF use has expanded exponentially with the advent of retrievable filters. Indications for IVCFs have liberalized despite limited evidence supporting this practice. Because indiscriminate use of IVCFs can be associated with net patient harm, knowledge of the risks and benefits of these devices is essential to optimal evidence-based practice. Patients with acute VTE and absolute contraindications to anticoagulation or major complications from anticoagulation are universally agreed indications for IVCFs. However, the reliance on IVCFs for primary VTE prophylaxis in high-risk patients is not substantiated by the available literature. This review examines trends in IVCF use, practice-based recommendations on IVCF use in various clinical scenarios, complications associated with indwelling IVCFs, and indications for IVCF retrieval.

First-line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) achieves durable remission in approximately 60% of patients. In relapsed or refractory disease, only about 20% achieve durable remission with salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The ZUMA-7 (axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel]) and TRANSFORM (lisocabtagene maraleucel [liso-cel]) trials demonstrated superior event-free survival (and, in ZUMA-7, overall survival) in primary-refractory or early-relapsed (high-risk) DLBCL with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) compared with salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative ASCT; however, list prices for CAR-T exceed $400 000 per infusion. To determine the cost-effectiveness of second-line CAR-T versus salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative ASCT. State-transition microsimulation model. ZUMA-7, TRANSFORM, other trials, and observational data. "High-risk" patients with DLBCL. Lifetime. Health care sector. Axi-cel or liso-cel versus ASCT. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200 000 per QALY. The increase in median overall survival was 4 months for axi-cel and 1 month for liso-cel. For axi-cel, the ICER was $684 225 per QALY and the iNMB was -$107 642. For liso-cel, the ICER was $1 171 909 per QALY and the iNMB was -$102 477. To be cost-effective with a WTP of $200 000, the cost of CAR-T would have to be reduced to $321 123 for axi-cel and $313 730 for liso-cel. Implementation in high-risk patients would increase U.S. health care spending by approximately $6.8 billion over a 5-year period. Differences in preinfusion bridging therapies precluded cross-trial comparisons. Neither second-line axi-cel nor liso-cel was cost-effective at a WTP of $200 000 per QALY. Clinical outcomes improved incrementally, but costs of CAR-T must be lowered substantially to enable cost-effectiveness. No research-specific funding.