Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 2, 2026
A Comprehensive Procedure to Evaluate the In Vivo Performance of Cancer Nanomedicines
Published on: March 4, 2017
Evidence Underlying Recommendations and Payments from Industry to Authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer
Xu Liu1, Ling-Long Tang1, Yan-Ping Mao1,2
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Background:
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are among the most widely used guidance in oncology. It is critical to understand the extent to which the recommendations in these guidelines are supported by evidence and to investigate whether these recommendations have been influenced by payments from industry to authors.
Materials And Methods:
We examined the quality and consistency of evidence, as scored by guidelines authors, for systemic treatment incorporated in the NCCN guidelines. Payments data in 2015 were manually abstracted using the Open Payments database, which discloses all payments between the industry and American physicians. Correlations between the percentage of authors who received payments and the proportion of recommendations developed from low-level evidence per guideline were calculated using Spearman rank correlation.
Results:
In total, 1,782 recommendations were identified in 29 guidelines, of which 1,282 (71.9%) were based on low-quality or low-consistency evidence (low-level evidence), including "case reports or clinical experience only" (18.9%). A substantial proportion (31/143, 21.7%) of category 1 (the highest level) recommendations were based on low-level evidence. The majority of authors (87.1%) received payments from industry. However, no association was found between the prevalence of payments among authors and the percentage of recommendations developed from low-level evidence per guideline.
Conclusion:
The majority of systemic treatment recommendations in the NCCN guidelines are based on low-level evidence, including more than one in five category 1 recommendations. Payments from industry were prevalent among authors. However, industrial payments among authors were not associated with inclusion of regimen/agent for which there is no conclusive evidence in the guidelines.
Implications For Practice:
The authors found that the majority (71.9%) of systemic treatment recommendations issued in the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were based on low-level evidence. Physicians should remain cautious when using current guidelines as the sole source guiding patient care decisions.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
02:20Milgram's Obedience to Authority
02:55The Evidence for Evolution
01:26National Nursing Organizations I
01:30National Nursing Organizations II
The AACN emphasizes a healthy work environment through six standards to achieve an optimal patient outcome. The standards are appropriate staffing, meaningful recognition, collaboration, authentic leadership, effective communication, and decision-making. In addition, AACN provides certification programs, webinars, journals, and...
02:26Protein Networks
These interactions can be represented through maps depicting protein-protein interaction networks, represented as nodes and edges. Nodes are circles that are representative of a protein,...
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...