Search

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Importance: Modern precision radiotherapy is an innovative and effective treatment of cancer, yet it is unclear how radiotherapy trials are affected by expanding targeted and immune therapies and declining National Institutes of Health funding., Objective: To analyze and compare the characteristics of radiotherapy trials with other oncological trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cross-sectional analysis of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between June 1, 2007, and May 8, 2017. Records of all 243 758 clinical studies registered by May 8, 2017, were downloaded, but only 25 907 interventional oncological trials registered between June 1, 2007, and May 8, 2017, and whose primary purpose was "treatment" were included in the final analysis. Trials were categorized according to cancer type and other registration information., Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics of radiotherapy trials were compared with characteristics of other oncological trials. Chronological shifts in radiotherapy trials were also analyzed., Results: Of the 25 907 trials selected, 1378 (5.3%) were radiotherapy trials and 24 529 (94.7%) were other oncological studies. The number of radiotherapy trials increased gradually from 94 (June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008) to 192 (June 1, 2015, through May 31, 2016). Radiotherapy trials were less likely than other oncological studies to be registered before participant enrollment (763 of 1370 [55.7%] vs 16 105 of 24 434 [65.9%]; P < .001), to be blinded (45 of 1378 [3.3%] vs 2784 of 24 529 [11.3%]; P < .001), or to involve multiple geographic regions (2.4% vs 9.5%; P < .001), but they were more likely to be phase 2 to 3 (773 of 1124 [68.8%] vs 12 910 of 22 300 [57.9%]; P < .001) and to have a data-monitoring committee (839 of 1264 [66.4%] vs 11 728 of 21 060 [55.7%]; P < .001). Only a minority of radiotherapy trials were industry sponsored, which was significantly lower than for other oncological trials (80 of 1378 [5.8%] vs 10 651 of 24 529 [43.4%]; P < .001; adjusted odds ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.06-0.10). The number of National Institutes of Health-sponsored radiotherapy trials decreased from 80 of 544 trials (14.7%) from 2007 to 2012 to 72 of 834 trials (8.6%) from 2012 to 2017 (P < .001). Radiotherapy trials with a sample size of more than 100 patients decreased from 155 of 543 trials (28.5%) from 2007 to 2012 to 157 of 833 trials (18.8%) from 2012 to 2017 (P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: The limited number of and the scarcity of funding for radiotherapy trials is concerning given the integral role of radiotherapy in the clinical management of patients with cancer worldwide. A multidisciplinary collaboration to promote and fund more radiotherapy research is warranted.

The impact of marital status at diagnosis on survival outcomes and its change over time in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) are unclear. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to identify patients diagnosed with NPC in the United States from 1973 to 2012. A primary comparison (married vs. unmarried) was implemented with 1:1 propensity score matching. Secondary comparisons were performed individually between three unmarried subgroups (single, separated/divorced, widowed) and married group. The effect of marital status on cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using univariate/multivariate analysis. Moreover, we investigated the change over time (1973-2012) in the effect of marital status on NPC survival. Married patients had better 5-year CSS/OS than unmarried patients (61.1% vs. 52.6%, P < 0.001; 55.6% vs. 45.3%, P < 0.001, respectively). In multivariate analysis, unmarried patients had significantly poorer CSS/OS than married patients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.35, P < 0.001; aHR = 1.40, P < 0.001, respectively). The survival benefit of being married was only detected in non-Hispanic white and Chinese American patients. Single, separated/divorced, and widowed patients had significantly poorer CSS/OS than married patients (aHR = 1.37 and 1.37; 1.46 and 1.42; 1.43 and 1.48, respectively; all P < 0.001). The change over time in the effect of marital status on survival was more stable in male than female. The strength of the negative effect of separated/divorced and widowed status showed a downward and upward trend, respectively. Gender difference in the adverse effect of single status on NPC survival became smaller over time. Only non-Hispanic white and Chinese American patients with NPC obtain survival benefits from married status. Single and widowed patients are regarded as high-risk population., (© 2017 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)