ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2024
Impact of National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines Inclusion of Level 1 Evidence on Insurance Denial for Randomized Controlled Trial Patients with Metastatic Spine Disease.
Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 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.
- Socioeconomic status and outcomes following spine stereotactic body radiation therapy.Journal of neuro-oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The primary treatment of metastatic spine disease is radiation therapy (RT), traditionally conventional external beam RT (EBRT) or stereotactic body RT (SBRT). Until recently, there had been no Level 1 evidence supporting SBRT over EBRT, which has led to difficulties obtaining insurance approval. Publication of the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing SBRT to EBRT for spine metastases [Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG)] helped change this. The results showed superiority of SBRT in pain response; however, the results were not cited by The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) until March 24, 2023. We present results from an ongoing RCT to assess the impact of this NCCN inclusion on insurance denials for trial-eligible patients. Materials and methods: The ongoing SPORTSMEN RCT randomizes metastatic spine cancer patients to SBRT versus EBRT. Trial-eligible patients during the first six months were examined to assess if SBRT was denied by insurance before March 24, 2023, versus afterwards. Fisher's exact test was used to assess for statistical significance. Results: Prior to CCTG NCCN inclusion, 25% of 12 trial-eligible patients experienced SBRT insurance denial. Following NCCN inclusion, of 8 patients, one (12.5%) has undergone insurance denial of SBRT. These differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The inclusion of Level 1 evidence in the NCCN guidelines has resulted in a numerical halving of spine SBRT insurance denials on a RCT, with the small sample size likely the largest culprit of not meeting statistical significance. These findings illustrate the importance of generating high-quality evidence, followed by timely inclusion into the NCCN guidelines.
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.