ArticleAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2019
Level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines beyond Food and Drug Administration approvals.
Article in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The lifecycle and evolution of new regimens on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.The oncologist · 2025Article
- How the addition of selinexor/bortezomib/dexamethasone as a Category 1 recommendation may erode outcomes.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Systematic analysis of off-label and off-guideline cancer therapy usage in a real-world cohort of 165,912 US patients.Cell reports. Medicine · 2024Article
- Use of suboptimal control arms in randomized clinical trials of investigational cancer drugs in China, 2016-2021: An observational study.PLoS medicine · 2023Observational
- Characterization of the Early Years of Bevacizumab Use for First-Line Treatment of Ovarian Cancer in the United States.JCO oncology practice · 2021Article
- Assessment of Drugs Approved by Public Knowledge-Based Applications (Kouchi-shinsei) During the Last Two Decades in Japan.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021Article
- Receptor tyrosine kinase targeting in glioblastoma: performance, limitations and future approaches.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2020Review
- When is off-label off-road?Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2019Article
- Utility of Precision Oncology Using Cancer Genomic Profiling for Head and Neck Malignancies.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA 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.
methodsIn 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®).
resultsOf 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.
conclusionOff-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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.