Category of evidence and consensus underlying National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines: Is there evidence of progress?

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care, financial reimbursements and quality improvement initiatives in oncology. We studied the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) in the guidelines for the common cancers in the United States. We evaluated the EC categories in staging, therapy and surveillance recommendations in 2019 guidelines and compared them with the same in 2010. The latest 2019 version of NCCN guidelines were obtained. The definitions for various categories of EC used were, Category 1 (high level evidence, uniform consensus), Category 2A (lower level of evidence [LOE], uniform consensus), Category 2B (lower LOE, no uniform consensus but with no major disagreement) and Category 3 (any LOE, major disagreement). We compared our results with previously published results from 2010 guidelines. Total number of recommendations increased by 77% from 1023 (2010) to 1818 (2019). Of the 1818 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 7%, 87%, 6% and 0%, respectively, while in 2010 they were 6%, 83%, 10% and 1%. Breast (30%), lung (10%) and kidney (10%) cancer had the highest proportions of Category 1 therapeutic recommendations in their respective guidelines. No Category 1 recommendations were found in screening or surveillance guidelines or in pancreatic and uterine cancer guidelines. Recommendations in 2019 NCCN guidelines are largely Category 2A (lower levels of evidence, uniform expert opinion), unchanged from the previous study in 2010.

Financial conflicts of interest among National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guideline panelists in 2019.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evidence-based guidelines that serve as a standard of care in oncology practice, reimbursements, and quality improvement initiatives. To our knowledge, the extent of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines have not been systemically evaluated. The current study evaluated the extent of FCOIs in the NCCN CPGs for the most common malignancies in the United States. METHODS: The authors examined the latest 2019 versions of the NCCN CPGs for the 10 most common cancers by incidence in the United States. Using disclosure lists, they catalogued the FCOIs for the panelists under various categories outlined in the CPG. The authors also tabulated the companies and institutions involved in each panel disclosure. An "episode" describes 1 instance of participation of a panelist in 1 company in 1 category of each guideline. "Affiliation" describes an industrial, commercial, or institutional affiliation reported by a panelist in each episode. RESULTS: Of the 491 panelists on the CPG panel, 483 (98.3%) completed FCOI disclosures. A total of 224 (46.4%) reported at least 1 FCOI episode. A total of 1103 episodes were disclosed with an average of 4.9 episodes reported per panelist with FCOIs. Acting as part of scientific advisory boards, as a consultant, or as an expert witness was the most common FCOI category (19.9%). A total of 191 companies were associated with 1103 episodes of FCOI. The top companies were Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, and AstraZeneca. Among cancers, the prevalence of FCOIs was highest for lung cancer (56%), bladder cancer (52%), pancreatic cancer (52%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (50%), kidney cancer (49%), colorectal cancer (43%), breast cancer (42%), melanoma (40%), prostate cancer (38%), and uterine cancer (32%). Among the panelists with FCOIs, 26%, 17%, and 57%, respectively, reported 1, 2, and >3 episodes. There were 127 episodes noted among the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs who reported FCOIs (mean, 6.4 episodes). The chairs and/or vice chairs of CPGs for uterine cancer, pancreatic cancer, melanoma, and prostate cancer were not found to have any FCOIs. CONCLUSIONS: FCOIs are very prevalent among NCCN CPG panelists. In nearly one-half of the CPGs, the majority of the panelists had at least 1 FCOI. Greater than one-half of the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs reported multiple FCOIs. Further research studies are necessary to determine the impact of these FCOIs.

Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: The level of scientific evidence on which the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are based has not been systematically investigated. We describe the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common cancers with regard to recommendations for staging, initial and salvage therapy, and surveillance. METHODS: NCCN uses a system of guideline development distinct from other major professional organizations. The NCCN definitions for EC are as follows: category I, high level of evidence with uniform consensus; category IIA, lower level of evidence with uniform consensus; category IIB, lower level of evidence without a uniform consensus but with no major disagreement; and category III, any level of evidence but with major disagreement. RESULTS: Of the 1,023 recommendations found in the 10 guidelines, the proportions of category I, IIA, IIB, and III EC were 6%, 83%, 10%, and 1%, respectively. Recommendations with category I EC were found in kidney (20%), breast (19%), lung (6%), pancreatic (6%), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (6%), melanoma (6%), prostate (4%), and colorectal (1%) guidelines. Urinary bladder and uterine guidelines did not have any category I recommendations. Eight percent of all therapeutic recommendations were category I. Guidelines with the highest proportions of category I therapeutic recommendations were for breast (30%) and kidney (28%) cancers. No category I recommendations were found on screening or surveillance. CONCLUSION: Recommendations issued in the NCCN guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence but with uniform expert opinion. This underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand evidence base in oncology.