Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33537872›Full record

ArticleAdvances in therapy2021

Clinical Impact of Adherence to NCCN Guidelines for Biomarker Testing and First-Line Treatment in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (aNSCLC) Using Real-World Electronic Health Record Data.

Ani John, Baiyu Yang, Roma Shah

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ani JohnRoche Diagnostics, Santa Clara, CA, USA. ani.john@roche.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9309-7128
Baiyu YangRoche Diagnostics, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Roma ShahRoche Diagnostics, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Roche (United States) · USRoche (Switzerland) · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough clinical guidelines are broadly available, the relationship between adherence and outcomes is not well studied. This study aimed to assess the association between adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and clinical outcomes for adult patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with aNSCLC (stages IIIB, IIIC, and IV) from a de-identified real-world database. The objective was accomplished in a two-step analysis process. We first assessed adherence to NCCN recommendations for biomarker testing and overall survival (OS). Next, we assessed adherence to NCCN-recommended first-line therapy and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD). Multivariable Cox regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between guideline adherence and patient outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess median OS and TTD.

resultsA total of 28,784 patients with a diagnosis for aNSCLC between January 1, 2011 and July 31, 2019 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of NCCN-recommended biomarker testing adherence. Two-thirds of these patients (n = 19,787) had evidence of biomarker testing (adherent). Multivariable Cox models found that testing-adherent patients had a significantly lower risk of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86, 0.92; p < 0.01]. Median OS was modestly longer in the testing-adherent group compared to the testing-non-adherent group (15.4 vs. 14.2 months; p < 0.01). For the first-line therapy analysis, 15,898 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 69.9% had evidence of appropriate first-line therapy (first-line-adherent). The multivariable Cox model found that adherent patients had significantly lower risk of treatment discontinuation versus non-adherent patients (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.57, 0.62; p < 0.01). First-line-adherent patients had a modest, yet significantly longer median TTD compared to first-line-non-adherent patients (3.45 vs. 2.40 months; p < 0.01).

conclusionsImproved clinical outcomes were observed in patients who were adherent to NCCN-recommended biomarker testing and first-line therapy. This study demonstrated the value of following NCCN guideline recommendations and the need to prioritize timely access to biomarker testing and individualized treatment.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsAdultBiomarkersElectronic Health RecordsGuideline AdherenceHumansRetrospective StudiesBiomarkersAdherenceBiomarkerFirst-line treatmentGuidelinesNon-small cell lung cancerPrecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID33537872
PMCPMC7932942
OpenAlexW3127753794

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.