SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • childhood and young adult cancer survivors;
  • collaboration;
  • guidelines;
  • late effects

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
  5. WORKING GROUPS
  6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
  7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  8. TOPIC SELECTION
  9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES
  13. Supporting Information

Childhood and young adult cancer survivors should receive optimum care to reduce the consequences of late effects and improve quality of life. We can facilitate achieving this goal by international collaboration in guideline development. In 2010, the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group was initiated. The aim of the harmonization endeavor is to establish a common vision and integrated strategy for the surveillance of late effects in childhood and young adult cancer survivors. With the implementation of our evidence-based methods, we provide a framework for the harmonization of guidelines for the long-term follow-up of childhood and young adult cancer survivors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013; 60: 543–549. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
  5. WORKING GROUPS
  6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
  7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  8. TOPIC SELECTION
  9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES
  13. Supporting Information

Over the last few decades advances in the treatment of childhood and young adult cancer have greatly improved survival 1–3. As a result most children and young adults diagnosed with cancer are expected to become long-term survivors 4. Unfortunately, the improved prognosis has been accompanied by the occurrence of late, treatment-related complications 5, 6. These late effects may emerge many years, even decades, after completion of treatment. The most frequent occurring late effects affecting quality of life include second malignancies, organ dysfunction, endocrine and metabolic disorders, and cognitive and psychosocial problems 5–7. Previous studies showed that about three in four childhood cancer survivors are likely to develop late effects, which can be severe or life-threatening in 25% 5, 6. Late treatment-related sequelae can be expected to increase the incidence of chronic diseases in adult survivors of childhood and young adult cancer and may ultimately reduce life expectancy 8. Long-term follow-up care for childhood and young adult cancer survivors is important to facilitate early detection of late effects and timely initiation of interventions to preserve health 4, 9, 10.

This overview describes the process of a worldwide collaborative effort to harmonize the recommendations for surveillance of late effects after treatment for childhood and young adult cancer and to prioritize topics for this harmonization endeavor.

RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
  5. WORKING GROUPS
  6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
  7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  8. TOPIC SELECTION
  9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES
  13. Supporting Information

To ensure that childhood and young adult cancer survivors receive optimum health care, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential. According to the Institute of Medicine, CPGs are defined as “statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options” 11. CPGs are an important part of the “quality circle” for health care improvement and can help to bridge the gap between research and clinical practice (see Fig. 1) 12, 13. CPGs are considered as powerful tools to improve the quality of care, to reduce variability in daily practice, and to reduce costs 14–16. However, studies have shown that many existing CPGs are of poor quality and that recommendations may differ among CPGs on the same topic 17–20.

thumbnail image

Figure 1. The quality circle for healthcare improvement.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Currently, CPGs addressing the surveillance for late effects in long-term survivors of childhood and young adult cancer have been published by the North American Children's Oncology Group (COG), the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group (DCOG), the United Kingdom Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group (CCLG), and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) 21–25. As each group worked independently to develop their recommendations, patient risk groups, diagnostic tests, and screening intervals vary among the CPGs. This non-integrated approach of CPG development leads to duplication of work, inefficient use of resources, and uncertainty about which guideline to follow. Until recently international collaboration in CPG development for the long-term follow-up of childhood and young adult cancer survivors was lacking. In 2010, recognition regarding the potential benefits of collaboration (i.e., reduce duplication of effort, optimize use of expertise, and enhance research opportunities) resulted in an international endeavor to harmonize CPG recommendations for survivors of childhood and young adult cancer: the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group.

The main goal of this ongoing initiative is to establish a common vision and integrated strategy for the surveillance of late effects in childhood and young adult cancer survivors throughout the world. With the implementation of the guideline, we intend to increase the quality of life and decrease complication-related healthcare costs for childhood and young adult cancer survivors throughout the lifespan. We aim to promote healthy lifestyles, to provide ongoing monitoring of health status, to facilitate early detection of late effects, and to advise about timely intervention strategies for late effects to preserve health.

For each recommendation we will address five key issues: (1) Who needs surveillance?; (2) At what age or time from exposure should surveillance be initiated?; (3) At what frequency should surveillance be performed?; (4) What surveillance modality should be used?; (5) What effective treatments are available if health problems are identified?. This latter question is relevant since if no management options are available, screening recommendations are not needed. The guideline is not intended to recommend on specific treatments, but only advise about possible management if health problems are identified.

The guideline is aimed at clinicians who provide ongoing healthcare to survivors of childhood and young adult cancer. The recommendations are important for physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurses in the fields of pediatrics, oncology, internal medicine, family practice, and gynecology, as well as subspecialists in many other fields (e.g., endocrinology, cardiology, pulmonology).

WORKING GROUPS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
  5. WORKING GROUPS
  6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
  7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  8. TOPIC SELECTION
  9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES
  13. Supporting Information

The International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group is directed by a multidisciplinary core group of 11 representatives from the COG, DCOG, CCLG, and SIGN guideline groups (Supplemental Appendix I). This core group includes healthcare professionals, content experts, and methodologists with skills in evidence appraisal and synthesis, who held leadership positions in the development of their national/cooperative group guidelines. For each guideline topic, 20–30 individuals with expertise pertinent to the specific topic will be invited by the core group to participate in the harmonization working group. The expert members will represent all relevant disciplines, ranging from pediatric and radiation oncologists and survivorship care providers to guideline methodologists and epidemiologists. In addition, we will involve patient representatives.

To avoid duplication of work, new national or international groups with guideline initiatives for the follow-up care of childhood and young adult cancer survivors will be asked to actively participate in this process. All involved members are asked to disclose any conflicts of interest.

PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
  5. WORKING GROUPS
  6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
  7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  8. TOPIC SELECTION
  9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES
  13. Supporting Information

The core group established the overall policy for the harmonization process and topic selection. This proposal was discussed with an extended group with scientific and clinical research expertise relevant to guideline development for childhood and young adult cancer survivors (Supplemental Appendix I). The key steps used in the harmonization process are outlined in Figure 2. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Collaboration 26 and the standards for Developing Trustworthy CPGs of the Institute of Medicine 11, we aim to develop harmonized surveillance recommendations based on scientific evidence, that are easily implemented and effective in practice. For each separate topic, the concordances and discordances and underlying evidence supporting recommendations in existing guidelines will be evaluated. Extensive evidence summaries will be organized to formulate recommendations related to the five key issues as mentioned above.

thumbnail image

Figure 2. The international guideline harmonization process.

Download figure to PowerPoint

In the case of concordance, we will determine if there is sufficient or insufficient supporting evidence as cited by the guidelines. Focused clinical questions will be formulated for the discordant surveillance recommendations and systematic literature searches will be performed to identify all available evidence. In addition, references supporting the existing recommendations will be researched and experts in the field will be asked for additional evidence. The evidence will be summarized in evidence tables. When evidence is lacking for childhood and young adult cancer survivors, we will carefully extrapolate evidence from other populations. Finally, the experts will discuss the evidence and formulate recommendations considering the quality of the evidence, the benefits versus harms of the screening intervention, and the need to maintain flexibility across health care systems. This latter criterion is essential when developing worldwide recommendations. We aim to formulate recommendations in a way that it can serve as a basis for local adaptation. Recommendations will be finalized after total group consensus has been reached following informal group discussions.

The final recommendations will be discussed at one of the international conferences for late effects in survivors of childhood and young adult cancer 27, 28. In addition, if there is insufficient supporting evidence, the unresolved clinical issues will be included in the research agenda.

For every specific guideline topic, we will ask external independent experts in the field and patient representatives to review the recommendations. This review process will include not only content-related review, but also methodological review of both the evidence report and the guideline. We will continue to monitor the literature on a bi-annual basis and will update the recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
  5. WORKING GROUPS
  6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
  7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  8. TOPIC SELECTION
  9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES
  13. Supporting Information

Many different evidence and recommendation grading systems have been previously published by different countries and professional groups. Within the four international pediatric cancer guideline groups, different systems for grading of evidence and recommendations have been used (Supplemental Appendix II). For the purpose of this international guideline harmonization endeavor, we will use a common system to evaluate the levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Within the core group, we decided to use an adapted version of the “Applying classification of recommendations and level of evidence” criteria of the American Heart Association 29 and of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria of the GRADE working group 30 (see Table I). Concerning the levels of evidence, the conclusions of the original papers will be scored based on clinical and scientific expertise following three categories: A, high level of evidence; B, moderate/low level of evidence; and C, very low level of evidence. Recommendations will be classified into four categories: class I (green), strong recommendations to do; class IIa (yellow), moderate recommendation to do; class IIb (orange), weak recommendation to do; class III (red), recommendation not to do.

Table I. Criteria for Grading the Levels of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations* Thumbnail image of
  • *

    Adapted from the “Applying classification of recommendations and level of evidence” criteria of the American Heart Association 29 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria of the GRADE working group 30.

  • TOPIC SELECTION

    1. Top of page
    2. Abstract
    3. INTRODUCTION
    4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
    5. WORKING GROUPS
    6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
    7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
    8. TOPIC SELECTION
    9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
    10. CONCLUSIONS
    11. Acknowledgements
    12. REFERENCES
    13. Supporting Information

    The core group selected the first two topics: secondary breast cancer and cardiomyopathy surveillance, considering the prevalence and severity of these outcomes as well as the availability of accurate screening modalities and effective treatment options. These same principles were deliberated in a modified Delphi survey undertaken by three authors (L.K., R.M., K.O.) to determine which surveillance recommendations should be next on the overall harmonization agenda. This method is a well-recognized process to achieve consensus, relying on anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and statistical aggregation of group responses 31.

    Between July 2011 and October 2011, panelists completed a series of two questionnaires. Among 36 experts invited to participate in the Delphi panel, 30 returned the Round One questionnaire. One participant passively dropped out of the panel after the first round and four additional members of the harmonization initiative group participated in the second round. In all, 33 experts completed and returned the Round Two questionnaire. In total, the panel consisted of 26 members of the International Guideline Harmonization Group and eight additional experts working in the field of late effects in childhood and young adult cancer survivors.

    The Delphi process is outlined in Figure 3. In the first Delphi round, the panelists were asked to rate four questions for each late effect on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (low ranking) to 5 (high). The panelists had the option to suggest late effects that were missing. Late effects were selected for the second Delphi round if the mean scores of all four questions were at least 2.5 (see Table II). The second Delphi round included the 20 highest-scoring late effects for re-rating, as well as 12 write-in additions. The panelists were asked to rate how important it is that the international harmonization endeavor addresses the late effect. The experts had to answer this question on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (less important) to 4 (most important). Mean rating scores for each item are presented in Table III. Based on the two Delphi rounds the panelists determined that the following surveillance recommendations will be prioritized in upcoming harmonization endeavors: (1) gonadal ovarian and testicular dysfunction; (2) coronary artery disease; (3) central nervous system (CNS) malignancies; (4) growth hormone deficiency; (5) neurocognitive deficits. After the completion of the harmonization of these topics, we will proceed based on the importance score as rated in the Delphi survey.

    thumbnail image

    Figure 3. The Delphi process.

    Download figure to PowerPoint

    Table II. Results Delphi Round One Questionnaire
    Late effectMean scorea
    High prevalence such that screening warrantedSevere such that screening warrantedAccurate screening tests to detect earlyEarly effective treatment options
    • CNS, central nervous system.

    • a

      On a scale of 1–5.

    Secondary malignant neoplasms
     Acute myeloid leukemia2.274.342.792.44
     Bladder cancer3.572.244.144.21
     Cervical cancer2.244.144.214.14
     CNS benign tumors3.473.313.863.14
     CNS malignant tumors2.624.383.542.75
     Colorectal cancer2.484.454.214.34
     Endometrial cancer1.524.072.893.61
     Kidney cancer1.624.142.703.36
     Lung cancer2.104.312.893.04
     Melanoma2.534.403.644.11
     Non-melanoma skin cancer3.503.003.574.29
     Oral cancer1.964.313.043.46
     Prostate cancer1.833.833.593.93
     Testicular cancer1.383.793.074.14
     Thyroid cancer3.233.673.434.18
    Cardiovascular disease
     Arrhythmias2.003.393.433.37
     Cardiac valvular abnormalities2.183.324.112.79
     Carotid artery disease2.173.893.683.37
     Coronary artery disease2.834.243.613.64
     Pericardial disease1.642.893.252.52
    Bone abnormalities
     Osteonecrosis2.573.613.112.68
     Osteoporosis3.524.344.143.71
    Endocrine abnormalities
     Adrenal dysfunction1.864.043.614.07
     Gonadal ovarian dysfunction3.794.073.963.89
     Gonadal testicular dysfunction3.724.044.183.79
     Growth hormone deficiency3.504.143.974.34
     Insulin resistance3.363.823.823.64
     Thyroid dysfunction2.933.484.033.00
    Pulmonary toxicity
     Diffusion capacity impairment2.753.394.112.21
     Obstructive lung disease2.393.684.072.93
     Restrictive lung disease2.933.724.072.18
    Renal toxicity
     Glomerular injury2.613.543.962.57
     Tubular injury2.933.484.033.00
    Hepatic toxicity
     Biliary tract disease1.572.893.112.61
     Cellular liver injury2.143.043.432.46
    Ocular toxicity
     Cataract3.243.322.293.33
     Retinopathy1.753.543.782.70
    Psychosocial problems
     Behavioral disorders3.303.673.153.04
     Fatigue3.433.352.852.42
    Other
     Dental abnormalities3.313.183.883.62
     Hearing disabilities3.523.894.443.57
     Mental health disorders2.963.743.192.85
     Neurocognitive deficits3.624.253.933.04
    Table III. Results Delphi Round Two Questionnaire
     Mean scorea
     Importance to address in harmonization endeavor
    • CNS, central nervous system.

    • a

      On a scale of 1–4.

    Late effect
     Gonadal ovarian dysfunction3.30
     Coronary artery disease3.24
     Gonadal testicular dysfunction3.18
     CNS malignant tumors3.06
     Growth hormone deficiency3.00
     Neurocognitive deficits3.00
     Thyroid cancer2.85
     Osteoporosis2.85
     Thyroid dysfunction2.73
     CNS benign tumors2.55
     Insulin resistance2.45
     Tubular injury2.41
     Hearing disabilities2.39
     Melanoma2.27
     Osteonecrosis2.27
     Mental health disorders2.27
     Glomerular injury2.19
     Non-melanoma skin cancer1.91
     Behavioral disorders1.82
     Dental abnormalities1.58
    “Write in” additions Round One
     Metabolic syndrome2.88
     CNS vasculopathy2.79
     Obesity2.58
     Diabetes2.52
     Sarcomas2.42
     Hypercholesterolaemia2.39
     Hypertension2.30
     Oesophageal cancer1.91
     Stomach cancer1.91
     Scoliosis1.88
     Epilepsy1.64
     Alopecia1.33

    PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

    1. Top of page
    2. Abstract
    3. INTRODUCTION
    4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
    5. WORKING GROUPS
    6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
    7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
    8. TOPIC SELECTION
    9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
    10. CONCLUSIONS
    11. Acknowledgements
    12. REFERENCES
    13. Supporting Information

    To facilitate dissemination and implementation of the harmonized recommendations, the evidence and deliberations related to each topic will be summarized in a manuscript appropriate for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The evidence summaries will be published in additional online tables.

    Until the International Guideline Harmonization Group has completed the harmonization of the entire long-term follow-up guideline content, the four guideline groups will incorporate the new harmonized recommendations in their existing guidelines. In addition, the harmonized recommendations will give new guideline opportunities for countries without any guidelines.

    To facilitate future updating for the topic guidelines an interactive website will be developed. Within this website, the evidence summaries, uniform recommendations and research agenda will be available as well as an interactive tool to add new evidence and to adapt the recommendations by experts in the field if necessary.

    For years it has been known that development of a guideline does not mean that this guideline will be implemented in practice 32. To optimize implementation of future guidelines, special attention should be paid to obstacles in the professional setting, in patient behavior, in the organization of care and in available resources. The development of specialized education for professionals, health policy makers and patients, development of interactive clinical decision-support tools, shared care models, and quality indicators to monitor the process and the yield of surveillance will help to overcome obstacles to the implementation of our future guidelines. Focused implementation strategies will be important to improve the care for all survivors of childhood and young adult cancer.

    CONCLUSIONS

    1. Top of page
    2. Abstract
    3. INTRODUCTION
    4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
    5. WORKING GROUPS
    6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
    7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
    8. TOPIC SELECTION
    9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
    10. CONCLUSIONS
    11. Acknowledgements
    12. REFERENCES
    13. Supporting Information

    Until recently guideline development for the surveillance of childhood young adult cancer survivors had significant shortcomings. With the initiation of this international guideline harmonization endeavor we have taken the first step in optimizing collaboration in guideline development that we anticipate will reduce duplication of effort and improve the quality of care for survivors of childhood and young adult cancer. We welcome all experts who are willing to contribute to the initiative.

    Acknowledgements

    1. Top of page
    2. Abstract
    3. INTRODUCTION
    4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
    5. WORKING GROUPS
    6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
    7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
    8. TOPIC SELECTION
    9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
    10. CONCLUSIONS
    11. Acknowledgements
    12. REFERENCES
    13. Supporting Information

    We would like to thank the following people for their participation in the Delphi survey: Mark Brougham, Richard Cohn, Fiona Cowie, Rachel Cox, Elvira van Dalen, Mary Dwyer, Angela Edgar, Riccardo Haupt, Mike Hawkins, Tara Henderson, Marry van den Heuvel, Lars Hjorth, David Hodgson, Yasushi Ishida, Hiroyuki Ishiguro, Helen Jenkinson, Shunicho Kato, Alison Leiper, Miho Maeda, Paul Nathan, Helena van der Pal, Liedeke Postma, Cécile Ronckers, Charles Sklar, Wim Tissing, and Susumu Yokoya.

    REFERENCES

    1. Top of page
    2. Abstract
    3. INTRODUCTION
    4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
    5. WORKING GROUPS
    6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
    7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
    8. TOPIC SELECTION
    9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
    10. CONCLUSIONS
    11. Acknowledgements
    12. REFERENCES
    13. Supporting Information
    • 1
      Curry HL, Parkes SE, Powell JE, et al. Caring for survivors of childhood cancers: The size of the problem. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 501508.
    • 2
      Gatta G, Zigon G, Capocaccia R, et al. Survival of European children and young adults with cancer diagnosed 1995–2002. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 9921005.
    • 3
      Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al., editors. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2008. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/, based on November 2010 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2011.
    • 4
      Hewitt M, Weiner SL, Simone JV, editors Childhood Cancer Survivorship: Improving Care and Quality of Life. Washington, DC: The International Academies Press; 2003.
    • 5
      Oeffinger KC, Mertens AC, Sklar CA, et al. Chronic health conditions in adult survivors of childhood cancer. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 15721582.
    • 6
      Geenen MM, Cardous-Ubbink MC, Kremer LC, et al. Medical assessment of adverse health outcomes in long-term survivors of childhood cancer. JAMA 2007; 297: 27052715.
    • 7
      Wallace HB, Green DM, editors. Late effects of childhood cancer. London: Arnold Publication; 2004.
    • 8
      Yeh JM, Nekhlyudov L, Goldie SJ, et al. A model-based estimate of cumulative excess mortality in survivors of childhood cancer. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152: 409117.
    • 9
      Wallace WH, Blacklay A, Eiser C, et al. Developing strategies for long term follow up of survivors of childhood cancer. BMJ 2001; 323: 271274.
    • 10
      Oeffinger KC, Hudson MM, Landier W. Survivorship: Childhood cancer survivors. Prim Care 2009; 36: 743780.
    • 11
      IOM (Institute of Medicine). Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
    • 12
      Gibbons RJ, Smith SC, Jr., Antman E. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guidelines: Part II: Evolutionary changes in a continuous quality improvement project. Circulation 2003; 107: 31013107.
    • 13
      Califf RM, Peterson ED, Gibbons RJ, et al. Integrating quality into the cycle of therapeutic development. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40: 18951901.
    • 14
      Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, et al. Closing the gap between research and practice: An overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. BMJ 1998; 317: 465468.
    • 15
      Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: A systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993; 342: 13171322.
    • 16
      Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, et al. Clinical guidelines: Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999; 318: 527530.
    • 17
      Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 1999; 281: 19001905.
    • 18
      Thomson R, McElroy H, Sudlow M. Guidelines on anticoagulant treatment in atrial fibrillation in Great Britain: Variation in content and implications for treatment. BMJ 1998; 316: 509513.
    • 19
      Richmond TK, Freed GL, Clark SJ, et al. Guidelines for adolescent well care: Is there consensus? Curr Opin Pediatr 2006; 18: 365370.
    • 20
      Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, et al. Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: The need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 2000; 355: 103106.
    • 21
      Landier W, Bhatia S, Eshelman DA, et al. Development of risk-based guidelines for pediatric cancer survivors: The Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines from the Children's Oncology Group Late Effects Committee and Nursing Discipline. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 49794990.
    • 22
      Children's Oncology Group. Long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancers. Version 3.0; 2008. Available online: http://www.survivorshipguidelines.org/
    • 23
      Dutch Childhood Oncology Group. Richtlijn follow-up na kinderkanker meer dan 5 jaar na diagnose. SKION, Den Haag/Amsterdam; 2010. Available online: http://www.skion.nl/
    • 24
      Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Long term follow up of survivors of childhood cancer. A national clinical guideline. 2004. Available online: http://www.sign.ac.uk/
    • 25
      United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group Late Effects Group. Therapy based long term follow up practice statement. 2011. Available online: http://www.cclg.org.uk/
    • 26
      The AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: The AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: 1823.
    • 27
      European Symposium on Late Complications after Childhood Cancer. http://www.eslccc.org/
    • 28
      International Conference on Long-Term Complications of Treatment of Children and Adolescents for Cancer. http://www.stjude.org/
    • 29
      Gibbons RJ, Smith S, Antman E. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guidelines: Part I: Where do they come from? Circulation 2003; 107: 29792986.
    • 30
      GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 14901494.
    • 31
      Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311: 376380.
    • 32
      Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: Effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 2003; 362: 12251230.

    Supporting Information

    1. Top of page
    2. Abstract
    3. INTRODUCTION
    4. RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINE HARMONIZATION
    5. WORKING GROUPS
    6. PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS
    7. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS
    8. TOPIC SELECTION
    9. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
    10. CONCLUSIONS
    11. Acknowledgements
    12. REFERENCES
    13. Supporting Information

    Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.

    FilenameFormatSizeDescription
    pbc_24445_sm_SuppAppendixI.doc62KSupplemental Appendix I. Members of the international harmonization endeavour
    pbc_24445_sm_SuppAppendixII.doc66KSupplemental Appendix II. Grading systems for evidence and/or recommendations used in existing guidelines for long-term surveillance of childhood cancer survivors

    Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.