Abstract 507P
Background
Oncology practice guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), incorporate biomarker-related guidance. Guidelines inform clinical decision-making and influence reimbursement policies. Given the evolution of molecular science in diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic biomarkers, this study aims to systematically characterize biomarker recommendations within gastrointestinal (GI) tumor guidelines over the past 5 years.
Methods
Using systematic review methods, this study applied structured search, data extraction, pre-specified analysis, and quality assessment according to a protocol published on the Open Science Framework website. The review focused on variability and evolution of biomarker guidance across GI cancers.
Results
Biomarker guidance varies across GI tumors, with recommendations changing over time. Variability was noted in language used, patient care stage at which recommendations are made, technologies or approaches recommended, context of use, and specific biomarkers mentioned. Recommendations often lack consistent wording or detailed descriptions across both guidelines and tumors, and over time. Particularly in the NCCN Guidelines, specificity and detail have generally improved over time. Guidelines do not uniformly provide statements or evidence on clinical utility. The pace of new evidence appears to outstrip the frequency of some guideline updates.
Conclusions
The observed variability in biomarker recommendations across GI cancer guidelines may affect the uniformity and quality of care as well as patient access to recommended biomarker testing. As guideline recommendations impact reimbursement, patients may lack access to biomarker testing when language or context is vague. There is a pressing need for standardized, evidence-based approaches in biomarker recommendations to ensure they keep pace with rapid advancements in molecular science. Future directions should focus on enhancing the clarity and consistency of biomarker recommendations to optimize patient care outcomes.
Legal entity responsible for the study
J. Hinkel.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.