Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Ensuring completeness and timeliness of cancer treatment guidelines

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology volume 19, pages 563–564 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Timely and comprehensive updating of treatment guidelines remains a challenge and necessity in medical oncology. Herein we discuss our assessment of how trial results with four off-patent drugs have been considered for integration into major guidelines in the absence of a commercial sponsor, in which we found reasons for concern.

Patients with cancer are gaining access to an expanding number of new therapeutic options, as reflected by new drug approvals. To help clinicians to navigate this rapidly evolving landscape, treatment guidelines are becoming increasingly essential. Updating these guidelines in a timely manner remains both a challenge and a necessity1. Reviewing the literature for evidence-based guidelines is labour intensive and time consuming. For example, many European countries that are developing their own country-specific cancer guidelines are not able to update them — or have abandoned them because they are already outdated at the time of publication.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Elliott, J. et al. Decision makers need constantly updated evidence synthesis. Nature 600, 383–385 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ismaila, N., Salako, O., Mutiu, J. & Adebayo, O. Oncology guidelines usage in a low- and middle-income country. J. Glob. Oncol. 4, 1–6 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Edwards, P. et al. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat. Med. 21, 1635–1640 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Haddaway, N. R. et al. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1582–1589 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Harris, M. et al. Explicit bias toward high-income-country research: a randomized, blinded, crossover experiment of English clinicians. Health Aff. 36, 1997–2004 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rauh, S. et al. Old drug, new clinical use, no man’s land for the indication: an awareness call from European experts. ESMO Open 5, e000615 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burchert, A. et al. Sorafenib maintenance after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia with FLT3-internal tandem duplication Mutation (SORMAIN). J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 2993–3002 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Xuan, L. et al. Sorafenib maintenance in patients with FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 21, 1201–1212 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kluetz, P. G. et al. FDA Oncology Center of Excellence project renewal: engaging the oncology community to update product labeling for older oncology drugs. Clin. Cancer Res. 27, 916–921 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Asker-Hagelberg, C. et al. Repurposing of medicines in the EU: launch of a pilot framework. Front. Med. 8, 817663 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank P. Pantziarka (Anticancer Fund) for discussions and assistance in preparing this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Anticancer Fund, Brussels, Belgium

    Gauthier Bouche & Lydie Meheus

Authors
  1. Gauthier Bouche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lydie Meheus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gauthier Bouche.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Related links

ASCO Guidelines Evidence Submission Form: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/guidelineevidence

ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual: https://www.asco.org/sites/new-www.asco.org/files/content-files/advocacy-and-policy/documents/2022-Guidelines-Methodology-Manual-with-links.pdf

ESMO eUpdate standard operating procedures: https://www.esmo.org/content/download/121792/2307979/1/ESMO-eUpdate-SOP.pdf

NCCN Submission Request History: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/submissions-request-to-the-guidelines-panels/submission-request-history

Transparency of the NCCN Guidelines Development Process: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-process/transparency-process-and-recommendations

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bouche, G., Meheus, L. Ensuring completeness and timeliness of cancer treatment guidelines. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 19, 563–564 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00646-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00646-w

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer