Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34295672›Full record

ReviewTranslational lung cancer research2021

Consistency of recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

Zhe Zhang, Sen Yang, Yanfang Ma, Hanqiong Zhou, Xuan Wu, Jing Han, Jiabao Hou, Lidan Hao, Jonathan D Spicer, Young Wha Koh and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational lung cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06406608 (Patient-derived Organoid Drug Sensitivity Guided Treatment for Drug-resistant Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06406608 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Patient-derived Organoid Drug Sensitivity Guided Treatment for Drug-resistant Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorHenan Cancer HospitalRan2024 to 2026Enrolled20ConditionsNon-small Cell Lung CancerArmsChemotherapy and targeted-therapy guided by organoid drug sensitivity test
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cancers · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

14 authors.

Zhe ZhangDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Sen YangDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Yanfang MaSchool of Chinese Medicine of Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China.
Hanqiong ZhouDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Xuan WuDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Jing HanDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Jiabao HouDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Lidan HaoDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Jonathan D SpicerDivision of Thoracic and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Young Wha KohDepartment of Pathology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Mariano ProvencioMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
Noemi ReguartThoracic Oncology Unit, Department of Medical Oncology, IDIPAPS, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Villarroel, Spain.
Tetsuya MitsudomiDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Qiming WangDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo systematically assess the consistency of recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

methodsWe systematically searched relevant literature databases and websites to identify CPGs related to NSCLC. We extracted the general characteristics of the included guidelines and their recommendations and descriptively compared and analyzed the consistency of recommendations across the guidelines.

resultsA total of 28 NSCLC guidelines were retrieved. The recommendations covered mainly diagnosis and treatment. The recommendations in the guidelines differed substantially in various topics, such as the application of positron emission tomography (PET) and the classification of stage III. Fourteen guidelines divided stage III into two types: operable and inoperable; and the remaining 14 guidelines into three sub-stages IIIA, IIIB and IIIC. Recommendations regarding the treatment in stage III were relatively inconsistent. In driver gene (EGFR, ALK, ROS1) positive patients, targeted therapy was the most common recommendation for first-line treatment, but recommendations regarding second-line treatment varied according to the site of the mutation. In driver gene negative patients, immunotherapy was the most frequently recommended option as both first- and second-line treatment, followed by chemotherapy. DISCUSSION: A number of countries are devoting themselves to develop NSCLC guidelines and the process of updating guidelines is accelerating, yet recommendations between guidelines are not consistent. We adopted a systematic review method to systematically search and analyze the NSCLC guidelines worldwide. We objectively reviewed the differences in recommendations for NSCLC diagnosis and treatment between the guidelines. Inconsistency of recommendations across guidelines can result from multiple potential reasons. Such as, the guidelines developed time, different countries and regions and many more. Poor consistency across CPGs can confuse the guideline users, and we therefore advocate paying more attention to examining the controversies and updating guidelines timely to improve the consistency among CPGs. Our study had also several limitations, we limited the search to CPGs published in Chinese or English, the interpretation of recommendations is inherently subjective, we did not evaluate the details of the clinical content of the CPG recommendations. Our research presents the current status of NSCLC guidelines worldwide and give the opportunity to pay more attention to the existing gaps. Further investigations should determine the reasons for inconsistency, the implications for recommendation development, and the role of synthesis across recommendations for optimal guidance of clinical care treatment. With the continuous revision and update of the guidelines, we are confident that future guidelines will be formulated with higher quality to form clear, definite and consistent recommendations for NSCLC diagnosis and treatment.

Indexed as

clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)consistencyNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)recommendations

Identifiers

PMID34295672
PMCPMC8264323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.