Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Public health policy and health economics

1726 - Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines: Evaluation of ESMO, NICE and SIGN diversity

Date

09 Sep 2017

Session

Public health policy and health economics

Presenters

Elena Pallari

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2017) 28 (suppl_5): v511-v520. 10.1093/annonc/mdx385

Authors

E. Pallari1, A. Fox2, G. Lewison3

Author affiliations

  • 1 Health Service And Population Research, King's College London, SE5 8AF - London/GB
  • 2 Pharmaceutical Medicine, King's College London, SE5 9NH - London/GB
  • 3 Division Of Cancer Studies, King's College London, SE1 6RT - London/GB
More

Resources

Abstract 1726

Background

This research study is on the critical appraisal of the impact of cited research evidence underpinning the development of cancer clinical practice guidelines (CCPGs) by the professional bodies of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).

Methods

A total of 101 CCPGs were identified from ESMO, NICE and SIGN websites across 13 cancer sites. Their 9,486 cited references were downloaded from the Web of Science© Clarivate Group database and analysed on Excel© (2016) using VBA macros.

Results

ESMO CCPGs mostly cited research from Western Europe while the NICE and SIGN ones from the UK, Canada, Australia and Scandinavian countries. The ESMO CCPGs cited more recent and basic research (e.g. genetics), in comparison to NICE and SIGN CCPGs where older and more clinical research (e.g. drugs treatment) papers were referenced. This chronological difference in the evidence-base is also in line with that ESMO has a shorter gap between the publication of the research and its citation on the CCPGs. It was demonstrated that ESMO CCPGs report more chemotherapy research while the NICE and SIGN more surgery, with the results being statistically significant. Also, breast cancer research was explored individually across the analysed evidence-base, with a similar pattern to overall oncology CCPGs. Additionally, the volume of breast cancer research cited by ESMO was slightly higher than the fraction of the oncology population suffering from breast cancer in Europe; for the NICE and SIGN the citation percentage was twice as much as the UK disease burden, indicating a potential preference on breast cancer among other oncology types.

Conclusions

This study showed that ESMO, NICE & SIGN differ in their evidence-base. Healthcare professionals should be aware of this heterogeneity in effective decision-making of tailored-treatments to patients irrespective of geographic location across Europe. Considering the potential of the United Kingdom exiting the European Union, a closer collaboration between these professional bodies can lead to the use of more evidence-based, relevant and updated clinical practice guidelines.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Elena Pallari, King's College London

Funding

None

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings