Frequency and level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines beyond approvals of the US Food and Drug Administration: Retrospective observational study

Jeffrey Wagner, John Marquart, Julia Ruby, Austin Lammers, Sham Mailankody, Victoria Kaestner, Vinay Prasad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To determine the differences between recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCNN) guidelines and Food and Drug Administration approvals of anticancer drugs, and the evidence cited by the NCCN to justify recommendations where differences exist. Design Retrospective observational study. Setting National Comprehensive Cancer Network and FDA. Participants 47 new molecular entities approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015. Main outcome measures Comparison of all FDA approved indications (new and supplemental) with all NCCN recommendations as of 25 March 2016. When the NCCN made recommendations beyond the FDA's approvals, the recommendation was classified and the cited evidence noted. Results 47 drugs initially approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015 for adult hematologic or solid cancers were examined. These 47 drugs were authorized for 69 FDA approved indications, whereas the NCCN recommended these drugs for 113 indications, of which 69 (62%) overlapped with the 69 FDA approved indications and 44 (39%) were additional recommendations. The average number of recommendations beyond the FDA approved indications was 0.92. 23% (n=10) of the additional recommendations were based on evidence from randomized controlled trials, and 16% (n=7) were based on evidence from phase III studies. During 21 months of follow-up, the FDA granted approval to 14% (n=6) of the additional recommendations. Conclusion The NCCN frequently recommends beyond the FDA approved indications even for newer, branded drugs. The strength of the evidence cited by the NCCN supporting such recommendations is weak. Our findings raise concern that the NCCN justifies the coverage of costly, toxic cancer drugs based on weak evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberk668
JournalBMJ (Online)
Volume360
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

United States Food and Drug Administration
Observational Studies
Retrospective Studies
Guidelines
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Neoplasms
Drug Approval
Poisons
Randomized Controlled Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Frequency and level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines beyond approvals of the US Food and Drug Administration : Retrospective observational study. / Wagner, Jeffrey; Marquart, John; Ruby, Julia; Lammers, Austin; Mailankody, Sham; Kaestner, Victoria; Prasad, Vinay.

In: BMJ (Online), Vol. 360, k668, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1450f38057da4bdfacd6012990453abb,
title = "Frequency and level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines beyond approvals of the US Food and Drug Administration: Retrospective observational study",
abstract = "Objective To determine the differences between recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCNN) guidelines and Food and Drug Administration approvals of anticancer drugs, and the evidence cited by the NCCN to justify recommendations where differences exist. Design Retrospective observational study. Setting National Comprehensive Cancer Network and FDA. Participants 47 new molecular entities approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015. Main outcome measures Comparison of all FDA approved indications (new and supplemental) with all NCCN recommendations as of 25 March 2016. When the NCCN made recommendations beyond the FDA's approvals, the recommendation was classified and the cited evidence noted. Results 47 drugs initially approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015 for adult hematologic or solid cancers were examined. These 47 drugs were authorized for 69 FDA approved indications, whereas the NCCN recommended these drugs for 113 indications, of which 69 (62{\%}) overlapped with the 69 FDA approved indications and 44 (39{\%}) were additional recommendations. The average number of recommendations beyond the FDA approved indications was 0.92. 23{\%} (n=10) of the additional recommendations were based on evidence from randomized controlled trials, and 16{\%} (n=7) were based on evidence from phase III studies. During 21 months of follow-up, the FDA granted approval to 14{\%} (n=6) of the additional recommendations. Conclusion The NCCN frequently recommends beyond the FDA approved indications even for newer, branded drugs. The strength of the evidence cited by the NCCN supporting such recommendations is weak. Our findings raise concern that the NCCN justifies the coverage of costly, toxic cancer drugs based on weak evidence.",
author = "Jeffrey Wagner and John Marquart and Julia Ruby and Austin Lammers and Sham Mailankody and Victoria Kaestner and Vinay Prasad",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.k668",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "360",
journal = "BMJ (Online)",
issn = "0267-0623",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Frequency and level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines beyond approvals of the US Food and Drug Administration

T2 - Retrospective observational study

AU - Wagner, Jeffrey

AU - Marquart, John

AU - Ruby, Julia

AU - Lammers, Austin

AU - Mailankody, Sham

AU - Kaestner, Victoria

AU - Prasad, Vinay

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objective To determine the differences between recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCNN) guidelines and Food and Drug Administration approvals of anticancer drugs, and the evidence cited by the NCCN to justify recommendations where differences exist. Design Retrospective observational study. Setting National Comprehensive Cancer Network and FDA. Participants 47 new molecular entities approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015. Main outcome measures Comparison of all FDA approved indications (new and supplemental) with all NCCN recommendations as of 25 March 2016. When the NCCN made recommendations beyond the FDA's approvals, the recommendation was classified and the cited evidence noted. Results 47 drugs initially approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015 for adult hematologic or solid cancers were examined. These 47 drugs were authorized for 69 FDA approved indications, whereas the NCCN recommended these drugs for 113 indications, of which 69 (62%) overlapped with the 69 FDA approved indications and 44 (39%) were additional recommendations. The average number of recommendations beyond the FDA approved indications was 0.92. 23% (n=10) of the additional recommendations were based on evidence from randomized controlled trials, and 16% (n=7) were based on evidence from phase III studies. During 21 months of follow-up, the FDA granted approval to 14% (n=6) of the additional recommendations. Conclusion The NCCN frequently recommends beyond the FDA approved indications even for newer, branded drugs. The strength of the evidence cited by the NCCN supporting such recommendations is weak. Our findings raise concern that the NCCN justifies the coverage of costly, toxic cancer drugs based on weak evidence.

AB - Objective To determine the differences between recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCNN) guidelines and Food and Drug Administration approvals of anticancer drugs, and the evidence cited by the NCCN to justify recommendations where differences exist. Design Retrospective observational study. Setting National Comprehensive Cancer Network and FDA. Participants 47 new molecular entities approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015. Main outcome measures Comparison of all FDA approved indications (new and supplemental) with all NCCN recommendations as of 25 March 2016. When the NCCN made recommendations beyond the FDA's approvals, the recommendation was classified and the cited evidence noted. Results 47 drugs initially approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015 for adult hematologic or solid cancers were examined. These 47 drugs were authorized for 69 FDA approved indications, whereas the NCCN recommended these drugs for 113 indications, of which 69 (62%) overlapped with the 69 FDA approved indications and 44 (39%) were additional recommendations. The average number of recommendations beyond the FDA approved indications was 0.92. 23% (n=10) of the additional recommendations were based on evidence from randomized controlled trials, and 16% (n=7) were based on evidence from phase III studies. During 21 months of follow-up, the FDA granted approval to 14% (n=6) of the additional recommendations. Conclusion The NCCN frequently recommends beyond the FDA approved indications even for newer, branded drugs. The strength of the evidence cited by the NCCN supporting such recommendations is weak. Our findings raise concern that the NCCN justifies the coverage of costly, toxic cancer drugs based on weak evidence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043506578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043506578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.k668

DO - 10.1136/bmj.k668

M3 - Article

C2 - 29514787

AN - SCOPUS:85043506578

VL - 360

JO - BMJ (Online)

JF - BMJ (Online)

SN - 0267-0623

M1 - k668

ER -