Dataset Information

Evaluation of a National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines-Based Decision Support Tool in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: Importance:The association of guideline-based decision support with the quality of care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known. Objective:To evaluate the association of exposure to the National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN) guidelines with guideline-concordant care and patients' decisional conflict. Design, Setting, and Participants:A nonrandomized clinical trial, conducted at a tertiary care academic institution, enrolled patients from February 23, 2015, to September 28, 2017. Data analysis was conducted from July 19, 2019, to April 22, 2020. A cohort of 76 patients with NSCLC seen at diagnosis or disease progression and a retrospective cohort of 157 patients treated before the trial were included. Adherence to 6 NCCN recommendations were evaluated: (1) smoking cessation counseling, (2) adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage IB to IIB NSCLC after surgery, (3) pathologic mediastinal staging in patients with stage III NSCLC before surgery, (4) pathologic mediastinal staging in patients with stage III NSCLC before nonsurgical treatment, (5) definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC not having surgery, and (6) molecular testing for epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations for patients with stage IV NSCLC. Subgroup analysis was conducted to compare the rates of guideline concordance between the prospective and retrospective cohorts. Secondary end points included decisional conflict and satisfaction. Interventions:An online tool customizing the NCCN guidelines to patients' clinical and pathologic features was used during consultation, facilitated by a trained coordinator. Main Outcomes and Measures:Concordance of practice with 6 NCCN treatment recommendations on NSCLC and patients' decisional conflict. Results:Of the 76 patients with NSCLC, 44 were men (57.9%), median age at diagnosis was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 41-87 years), and 59 patients (77.6%) had adenocarcinoma. In the retrospective cohort, 91 of 157 patients (58.0%) were men, median age at diagnosis was 66 years (IQR, 61-65 years), and 105 patients (66.9%) had adenocarcinoma. After the intervention, patients received more smoking cessation counseling (4 of 5 [80.0%] vs 1 of 24 [4.2%], P?

SUBMITTER: Wu SY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7527870 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of a National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines-Based Decision Support Tool in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Wu Susan Y SY Lazar Ann A AA Gubens Matthew A MA Blakely Collin M CM Gottschalk Alexander R AR Jablons David M DM Jahan Thierry M TM Wang Victoria E H VEH Dunbar Taylor L TL Wong Melisa L ML Chan Jason W JW Guthrie William W Belkora Jeff J Yom Sue S SS

JAMA network open 20200901 9

<h4>Importance</h4>The association of guideline-based decision support with the quality of care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the association of exposure to the National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN) guidelines with guideline-concordant care and patients' decisional conflict.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>A nonrandomized clinical trial, conducted at a tertiary care academic institution, enrolled patients from Februa ...[more]

PMID: 32997124

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:PURPOSE:Engaging in positive health behaviors post-treatment is important for cancer survivors' health. However, little is known about whether survivors are practicing health promoting behaviors. We aimed to explore whether survivors are meeting the recent health behavior guidelines set forth by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and to examine associations between health behaviors and distress. METHODS:Sixty-six survivors completed a cross-sectional questionnaire assessing health behaviors prior to an initial appointment at a survivorship care clinic. Information about sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables and six health behavior recommendations, including physical activity, sunscreen use, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, weight management, and annual primary care provider visits, was collected. FINDINGS:Only 7.6% of survivors met all six NCCN health behavior guidelines. One in ten (10.6%) survivors had smoked a cigarette in the previous 30 days, and half did not use sunscreen regularly (50%), had an unhealthy body mass index (53%), and did not engage in >10 MET-h/week of physical activity (50%). Approximately 1 in 6 (15.1%) survivors reported drinking beyond the recommended limit, and a similar proportion had not seen a PCP in the previous year (27.3%). Clinically significant levels of distress (>5; range 0-10) on the NCCN distress scale were reported by 64.6% of survivors. Participants with clinical levels of distress were less likely to adhere to health behavior guidelines than those who were not distressed (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS:Overall, survivors engaged at a survivorship clinic did not meet the NCCN recommended health behavior guidelines. Implications for Psychosocial Providers or Policy: Survivors' health behaviors and distress should be assessed and intervened upon during survivorship care. Survivorship clinics may provide a unique forum in which to provide ongoing behavioral health counseling and psychosocial support for these patients.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the association of sociodemographic and hospital characteristics with adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines for stage IB-IIA cervical cancer and to analyze the relationship between adherent care and survival. METHODS:This is a retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with stage IB-IIA invasive cervical cancer reported to the California Cancer Registry from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2009. Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline care was defined by year- and stage-appropriate surgical procedures, radiation, and chemotherapy. Multivariate logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier estimate, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline adherence and cervical cancer-specific 5-year survival. RESULTS:A total of 6,063 patients were identified. Forty-seven percent received National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-adherent care, and 18.8% were treated in high-volume centers (20 or more patients/year). On multivariate analysis, lowest socioeconomic status (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.84), low-middle socioeconomic status (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.92), and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score 1 or higher (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.89) were patient characteristics associated with receipt of nonguideline care. Receiving adherent care was less common in low-volume centers (45.9%) than in high-volume centers (50.9%) (effect size 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.96). Death from cervical cancer was more common in the nonadherent group (13.3%) than in the adherent group (8.6%) (effect size 1.55, 95% CI 1.34-1.80). Black race (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.08-2.27), Medicaid payer status (adjusted hazard ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.15-1.87), and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score 1 or higher (adjusted hazard ratio 2.07, 95% CI 1.68-2.56) were all associated with increased risk of dying from cervical cancer. CONCLUSION:Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-nonadherent care was independently associated with increased cervical cancer-specific mortality along with black race and Medicaid payer status. Nonadherence was more prevalent in patients with older age, lower socioeconomic status, and receipt of care in low-volume centers. Attention should be paid to increase guideline adherence.

Project description:Importance:Reproducible research practices are essential to biomedical research because these practices promote trustworthy evidence. In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, reproducible research practices ensure that summary effects used to guide patient care are stable and trustworthy. Objective:To evaluate the reproducibility in theory of meta-analyses in oncology systematic reviews cited by the 49 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for the treatment of cancer by site and evaluate whether Cochrane reviews or systematic reviews that report adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines use more reproducible research practices. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional investigation of all systematic reviews with at least 1 meta-analysis and at least 1 included randomized clinical trial (RCT) that are cited by NCCN guidelines for treatment of cancer by site. We scanned the reference list of all NCCN guidelines (n?=?49) for potential systematic reviews and meta-analyses. All retrieved studies were screened, and data were extracted, independently and in duplicate. The analysis was carried out between May 6, 2018, and January 28, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The frequency of reproducible research practices, defined as (1) effect estimate and measure of precision (eg, hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval); (2) clear list of studies included for each analysis; and (3) for subgroup and sensitivity analyses, it must be clear which studies were included in each group or level. Results:We identified 1124 potential systematic reviews, and 154 meta-analyses comprising 3696 meta-analytic effect size estimates were included. Only 2375 of the 3696 meta-analytic estimates (64.3%), including subgroup and sensitivity analyses, were reproducible in theory. Forest plots appear to improve the reproducibility of meta-analyses. All meta-analytic estimates were reproducible in theory in 100 systematic reviews (64.9%), and in 15 systematic reviews (9.7%), no meta-analytic estimates could potentially be reproduced. Data were said to be imputed in 29 meta-analyses, but none specified which data. Only 1 meta-analysis included a link to an online data set. Conclusions and Relevance:More reproducible research practices are needed in oncology meta-analyses, as suggested by those that are cited by the NCCN. Reporting meta-analyses in forest plots and requirements for full data sharing are recommended.

Project description:Appropriate thromboprophylaxis for patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF) remains a national challenge. The recent availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with comparable efficacy and improved safety compared with warfarin alters the balance between risk factors for stroke and benefit of anticoagulation. Our objective was to examine the impact of DOACs as an alternative to warfarin on the net benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) in a real-world population of AF patients.This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with paroxysmal or persistent nonvalvular AF. We updated an Atrial Fibrillation Decision Support Tool (AFDST) to include DOACs as treatment options. The tool generates patient-specific recommendations based upon individual patient risk factor profiles for stroke and major bleeding using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated for each treatment strategy by a decision analytic model. The setting included inpatient and ambulatory sites in an academic health center in the midwestern United States. The study involved 5,121 adults with nonvalvular AF seen for any ambulatory visit or inpatient hospitalization over the 1-year period (January through December 2016). Outcome measure was net clinical benefit in QALYs.When DOACs are a therapeutic option, the AFDST recommends OAT for 4,134 (81%) patients and no antithrombotic therapy or aspirin for 489 (9%). A strong recommendation for OAT could not be made in 498 (10%) patients. When warfarin is the only option, OAT is recommended for 3,228 (63%) patients and no antithrombotic therapy or aspirin for 973 (19%). A strong recommendation for OAT could not be made in 920 (18%) patients. In total, 1,508 QALYs could be gained if treatment were changed to that recommended by the AFDST.Availability of DOACs increases the proportion of patients for whom oral anticoagulation therapy is recommended in a real-world cohort of AF patients and increased projected QALYs by more than 1,500 when all patients are receiving thromboprophylaxis as recommended by the AFDST compared with current treatment.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of a National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines-Based Decision Support Tool in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Evaluation of a National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines-Based Decision Support Tool in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets