Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31373348›Full record

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.

R Kurzrock, L A Gurski, R W Carlson, D S Ettinger, S M Horwitz, S K Kumar, L Million, M von Mehren, A B Benson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. When is off-label off-road?Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

R KurzrockCenter for Personalized Cancer Therapy, University of California San Diego, Moores Cancer Center, San Diego, USA. Electronic address: rkurzrock@ucsd.edu.
L A GurskiNational Comprehensive Cancer Network, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, USA.
R W CarlsonNational Comprehensive Cancer Network, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, USA; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California, USA.
D S EttingerThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
S M HorwitzMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
S K KumarMayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
L MillionStanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California, USA.
M von MehrenFox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
A B BensonRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Fox Chase Cancer Center · USCancer Prevention Institute of California · USMayo Clinic · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USNational Comprehensive Cancer NetworkNorthwestern University · USSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

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

Drug ApprovalEvidence-Based MedicineAntineoplastic AgentsHumansNeoplasmsOff-Label UsePatient Care ManagementPractice Guidelines as TopicPrognosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAntineoplastic Agentsguidelinesoff-label drug useoncology

Identifiers

PMID31373348
PMCPMC6857604
OpenAlexW2966402573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.