ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2024
Trends in enforcement of National Comprehensive Cancer Network financial conflict of interest policy.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Variation in guideline decision-making: a cross-sectional study of oncology compendium panels.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) financial conflict of interest (FCOI) policy sets dollar maximums for panelists, but violations may occur.
methodsWe studied NCCN Guidelines panelists for the 20 most prevalent cancers, 2013-2022. We included panelists with at least 1 full calendar year of service ("current panelists") and those who began service during the study period ("new panelists"); NCCN FCOI policy limits ($20 000 from any single company or $50 000 across all companies) apply to both groups. Industry payments were obtained from Open Payments and mapped manually via National Provider Identifier. We calculated industry payments received, excluding the same payment categories as does NCCN (research, meals, travel and lodging). We estimated whether panelists received payments exceeding NCCN limits ("violation"). As a proxy for whether panelists were subsequently disqualified as stipulated, we measured continued service for at least 1 full calendar year ("retention") subsequent to an estimated violation. We analyzed retention before and after 2016, due to increased scrutiny on NCCN FCOI in 2016.
resultsThe annual proportion of current panelists with estimated violations ranged between 0.5% (2020) and 5.8% (2016). Among panelists who did vs did not have violations, retention was 83.6% vs 88.5% during 2014-2015 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.26 to 1.31) and 46.6% vs 89.4% during 2017-2020 (OR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.17). Among new panelists, 2.7% (5/185) had prior-year violations during 2014-2015, as did 5.5% (18/330) during 2017-2021.
conclusionsEach year, a small portion of panelists receive industry payments exceeding NCCN limits. Since 2016, the likelihood that such panelists will continue to serve has decreased substantially.
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.