Dataset Information

Level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines beyond Food and Drug Administration approvals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A previous analysis of 113 National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) recommendations reported that NCCN frequently recommends beyond Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (44 off-label recommendations) and claimed that the evidence for these recommendations was weak.

Methods

In order to determine the strength of the evidence, we carried out an in-depth re-analysis of the 44 off-label recommendations listed in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®).

Results

Of the 44 off-label recommendations, 14 were later approved by the FDA and/or are supported by randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. In addition, 13 recommendations were either very minor extrapolations from the FDA label (n?=?8) or were actually on-label (n?=?5). Of the 17 remaining extrapolations, 8 were for mechanism-based agents applied in rare cancers or subsets with few available treatment options (median response rate = 43%), 7 were based on non-RCT data showing significant efficacy (>50% response rates), and 2 were later removed from the NCCN Guidelines because newer therapies with better activity and/or safety became available.

Conclusion

Off-label drug use is a frequent component of care for patients with cancer in the United States. Our findings indicate that when the NCCN recommends beyond the FDA-approved indications, the strength of the evidence supporting such recommendations is robust, with a significant subset of these drugs later becoming FDA approved or supported by RCT. Recommendations without RCT data are often for mechanism-based drugs with high response rates in rare cancers or subsets without effective therapies.

SUBMITTER: Kurzrock R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6857604 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines beyond Food and Drug Administration approvals.

Kurzrock R R Gurski L A LA Carlson R W RW Ettinger D S DS Horwitz S M SM Kumar S K SK Million L L von Mehren M M Benson A B AB

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20191001 10

<h4>Background</h4>A previous analysis of 113 National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) recommendations reported that NCCN frequently recommends beyond Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (44 off-label recommendations) and claimed that the evidence for these recommendations was weak.<h4>Methods</h4>In order to determine the strength of the evidence, we carried out an in-depth re-analysis of the 44 off-label recommendations listed in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines ...[more]

PMID: 31373348

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines influence medical practice, payor coverage, and standards of care. The levels of evidence underlying radiation therapy recommendations in NCCN have not been systematically explored. Herein, we aim to systematically investigate the NCCN recommendations pertaining to the categories of consensus and evidence (CE) for radiation therapy.Methods and materialsWe evaluated the distribution of CE underlying current treatment recommendations for the 20 most prevalent cancers in the United States with at least 10 radiation therapy recommendations in the NCCN clinical guidelines. For context, the distribution of evidence in the radiation therapy guidelines was compared with that of systemic therapy using a χ2 test. The proportion of category I CE between radiation and systemic therapy was compared using a 2-proportion, 2-tailed z-test in total and for each disease site. A P value of < .05 was considered significant.ResultsAmong all radiation therapy recommendations, the proportions of category I, IIA, IIB, and III CE were 9.7%, 80.6%, 8.4%, and 1.3%, respectively. When analyzed by disease site, cervix and breast cancer had the highest portion of category I CE (33% and 31%, respectively). There was no radiation therapy category I CE for hepatobiliary, bone, pancreatic, melanoma, and uterine cancers. There was a significant difference in the distribution of CE between the systemic therapy recommendations and the radiation therapy recommendations (χ2 statistic 64.16, P < .001). Overall, there was a significantly higher proportion of category I CE in the systemic therapy recommendations compared with the radiation therapy recommendations (12.3% vs 9.7%, P = .043).ConclusionsOnly 9.7% of radiation therapy recommendations in NCCN guidelines are category I CE. The highest levels of evidence for radiation therapy are in breast and cervical cancers. Despite major advances in the field, these data underline that the majority of NCCN radiation therapy recommendations are based on uniform expert opinion and not on higher level evidence.

Project description:BackgroundIntegration of specialist palliative care into routine oncologic care improves patients' quality of life and survival. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer treatment guidelines are instrumental in standardizing cancer care, yet it is unclear how palliative and hospice care are integrated in these guidelines. In this study, we examined the frequency of occurrence of "palliative care" and "hospice care" in NCCN guidelines and compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines.Materials and methodsWe reviewed all 53 updated NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer. We documented the frequency of occurrence of "palliative care" and "hospice care," the definitions for these terms if available, and the recommended timing for these services.ResultsWe identified a total of 37 solid tumor and 16 hematologic malignancy guidelines. Palliative care was mentioned in 30 (57%) guidelines (24 solid tumor, 6 hematologic). Palliative care was mentioned more frequently in solid tumor than hematologic guidelines (median, 2 vs. 0; p = .04). Among the guidelines that included palliative care in the treatment recommendation, 25 (83%) only referred to NCCN palliative care guideline. Specialist palliative care referral was specifically mentioned in 5 of 30 (17%) guidelines. Only 14 of 24 (58%) solid tumor guidelines and 2 of 6 (33%) hematologic guidelines recommended palliative care in the front line setting for advanced malignancy. Few guidelines (n = 3/53, 6%) mentioned hospice care.Conclusion"Palliative care" was absent in almost half of NCCN cancer treatment guidelines and was rarely discussed in guidelines for hematologic malignancies. Our findings underscored opportunities to standardize timely palliative care access across NCCN guidelines.Implications for practiceIntegration of specialist palliative care into routine oncologic care is associated with improved patient outcomes. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology have an important role to standardize palliative care involvement for cancer patients. It is unclear how often palliative care referral is recommended in these guidelines. In this study involving 53 NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer, the researchers found that palliative care was not mentioned in over 40% of NCCN guidelines and was rarely discussed in guidelines for hematologic malignancies. These findings underscored opportunities to standardize timely palliative care access across NCCN guidelines.

Project description:ImportanceThe growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market.ObjectiveTo estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US.Design, setting, participantsThis is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019.ExposuresData related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending.ResultsA total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients.Conclusions and relevanceNew cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used widely. Alternatively, only low-level use of the new drugs is consistent with market forecasting.

Project description:ImportanceWhile there have been multiple assessments of clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the cumulative percentage of approvals based on trials with a limitation remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the percentage of clinical trials with limitations in 4 domains-lack of randomization, lack of significant overall survival advantage, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of suboptimal control arms-that led to FDA approvals from June 30, 2014, to July 31, 2019.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational analysis included all anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA from June 30, 2014, through July 31, 2019. All indications were investigated, and each clinical trial was evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary end points, and presence of a limitation in the domains of interest. The standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. The percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all limitations of interest was then calculated.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated percentage of clinical trials with limitations of interest that led to an anticancer drug marketing authorization by the FDA.ResultsA total of 187 trials leading to 176 approvals for 75 distinct novel anticancer drugs by the FDA were evaluated. Sixty-four (34%) were single-arm clinical trials, and 123 (63%) were randomized clinical trials. A total of 125 (67%) had at least 1 limitation in the domains of interest; 60 of the 125 trials (48%) were randomized clinical trials. Of all 123 randomized clinical trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a suboptimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately.Conclusions and relevanceTwo-thirds of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with limitations in at least 1 of 4 essential domains. Efforts to minimize these limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anticancer drugs truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.

Dataset Information

Level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines beyond Food and Drug Administration approvals.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines beyond Food and Drug Administration approvals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets