Systematic evaluation of Merkel cell carcinoma clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II instrument

Deepak Lakshmipathy1, Christian Fritz1, Jacob Harris2

  • 1Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, 800 Walnut Street, 18th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.

Insights

This study evaluated Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the AGREE II tool. Two CPGs were high quality, but most lacked stakeholder input and development rigor.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Dermatology
  • Clinical Guideline Development

Background:

  • Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer requiring multidisciplinary care.
  • Standardized management algorithms are crucial for optimal patient outcomes.
  • Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to standardize MCC treatment approaches.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically appraise existing Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).
  • To assess the quality and developmental rigor of MCC CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic literature search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria identified eight MCC CPGs.
  • Four trained appraisers evaluated CPGs using the AGREE II instrument.
  • Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) assessed reviewer consistency.

Main Results:

  • Two of eight MCC CPGs were rated as high quality; five were moderate, and one was low quality.
  • The European Dermatology Forum/European Association of Dermato-Oncology/European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EDF/EADO/EORTC) CPG scored highest.
  • Most CPGs lacked detail on stakeholder involvement, applicability, and development rigor.

Conclusions:

  • While some MCC CPGs demonstrate good developmental quality, many require improvement.
  • Future MCC CPG development should incorporate public perspectives, external expert review, and implementation considerations.
  • The AGREE II instrument evaluates guideline development quality, not recommendation validity.