Literature DB >> 30459237

Evidence Underlying Recommendations and Payments from Industry to Authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines.

Xu Liu1, Ling-Long Tang1, Yan-Ping Mao1,2, Qing Liu3, Ying Sun1, Lei Chen1,4, Jin-Ching Lin5, Jun Ma6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are among the most widely used guidance in oncology. It is critical to understand the extent to which the recommendations in these guidelines are supported by evidence and to investigate whether these recommendations have been influenced by payments from industry to authors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined the quality and consistency of evidence, as scored by guidelines authors, for systemic treatment incorporated in the NCCN guidelines. Payments data in 2015 were manually abstracted using the Open Payments database, which discloses all payments between the industry and American physicians. Correlations between the percentage of authors who received payments and the proportion of recommendations developed from low-level evidence per guideline were calculated using Spearman rank correlation.
RESULTS: In total, 1,782 recommendations were identified in 29 guidelines, of which 1,282 (71.9%) were based on low-quality or low-consistency evidence (low-level evidence), including "case reports or clinical experience only" (18.9%). A substantial proportion (31/143, 21.7%) of category 1 (the highest level) recommendations were based on low-level evidence. The majority of authors (87.1%) received payments from industry. However, no association was found between the prevalence of payments among authors and the percentage of recommendations developed from low-level evidence per guideline.
CONCLUSION: The majority of systemic treatment recommendations in the NCCN guidelines are based on low-level evidence, including more than one in five category 1 recommendations. Payments from industry were prevalent among authors. However, industrial payments among authors were not associated with inclusion of regimen/agent for which there is no conclusive evidence in the guidelines. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The authors found that the majority (71.9%) of systemic treatment recommendations issued in the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were based on low-level evidence. Physicians should remain cautious when using current guidelines as the sole source guiding patient care decisions. © AlphaMed Press 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer chemotherapy; Cancer treatment; Clinical practice guidelines; Conflict of interest; National Comprehensive Cancer Network; Open Payments database

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30459237      PMCID: PMC6459246          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0655

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  31 in total

Review 1.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.

Authors:  Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-07-05       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  The ESMO guideline strategy: an identity statement and reflections on improvement.

Authors:  G Pentheroudakis; F Cardoso; D Arnold; C Sessa; S Peters; A Horwich; N Pavlidis; R Stahel; A Cervantes
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 32.976

3.  Compendia and anticancer therapy under Medicare.

Authors:  Katherine Tillman; Brijet Burton; Louis B Jacques; Steve E Phurrough
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-02-16       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Pierluigi Tricoci; Joseph M Allen; Judith M Kramer; Robert M Califf; Sidney C Smith
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-02-25       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2010.

Authors:  Robert M Califf; Deborah A Zarin; Judith M Kramer; Rachel E Sherman; Laura H Aberle; Asba Tasneem
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Characteristics of Radiotherapy Trials Compared With Other Oncological Clinical Trials in the Past 10 Years.

Authors:  Xu Liu; Yuan Zhang; Ling-Long Tang; Quynh Thu Le; Melvin L K Chua; Joseph T S Wee; Nancy Y Lee; Brian O'Sullivan; Anne W M Lee; Ying Sun; Jun Ma
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 31.777

7.  Everyone's a little bit biased (even physicians).

Authors:  Daylian M Cain; Allan S Detsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-06-25       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  NCCN Guidelines and Quality Cancer Care: Where Have We Come From, and Where Should We Be Going?

Authors:  Daniel G Coit
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 11.908

9.  Time to Reassess the Cancer Compendia for Off-label Drug Coverage in Oncology.

Authors:  Angela K Green; William A Wood; Ethan M Basch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Types and Distribution of Payments From Industry to Physicians in 2015.

Authors:  Kathryn R Tringale; Deborah Marshall; Tim K Mackey; Michael Connor; James D Murphy; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Sahar Tabatabavakili; Rishad Khan; Michael A Scaffidi; Nikko Gimpaya; David Lightfoot; Samir C Grover
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes       Date:  2021-01-19

2.  Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.

Authors:  Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard; Lisa Bero; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Anders W Jørgensen; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Mary Le; Andreas Lundh
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-12-08

3.  Evidence-Based Medicine in Oncology: Commercial Versus Patient Benefit.

Authors:  Volker Schirrmacher; Tobias Sprenger; Wilfried Stuecker; Stefaan W Van Gool
Journal:  Biomedicines       Date:  2020-07-23

4.  Levels of Evidence for Radiation Therapy Recommendations in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Guidelines.

Authors:  Miguel Angel Noy; Benjamin J Rich; Ricardo Llorente; Deukwoo Kwon; Matthew Abramowitz; Brandon Mahal; Eric A Mellon; Nicholas G Zaorsky; Alan Dal Pra
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-10-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.