Systematic appraisal of guidelines for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

Complementary and alternative medicine mention and recommendations in pancreatic cancer clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review and quality assessment

Background

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States, which is attributed to limited treatment options. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies have been proposed to provide benefits in treating pancreatic cancer. Despite its importance in treatment, clinicians are not generally well equipped to counsel their patients about CAM therapies. This review identified the quantity and assessed the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) providing CAM recommendations for the treatment and/or management of pancreatic cancer.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify pancreatic cancer CPGs. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2011 to 2022. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) websites were also searched. Eligible CPGs published by non-profit agencies on treatment and/or management of pancreatic cancer for adults were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

Results

From 31 eligible search results, 7 CPGs mentioned CAM and 3 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The mean scaled domain percentages of the CPGs in this study (overall, CAM-specific) were as follows: scope and purpose (81.3%, 77.8%), stakeholder involvement (63.9%, 42.6%), rigor-of-development (51.0%, 40.3%), clarity-of-presentation (83.3%, 54.6%), applicability (42.3%, 30.5%), and editorial independence (58.3%, 58.3%).

Conclusions

Evaluation of the CPGs demonstrated that quality varied both within and between CPGs. CPGs that scored well could be used by patients and clinicians as the basis for discussion for the use of CAM therapies. Future research should identify other appropriate CAM therapies for further development of CPGs for pancreatic cancer.

Registration

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022334025).

Levels of Evidence Supporting United States Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Treatment

Simple Summary

The aim of our work is to describe the level of evidence supporting therapeutic recommendations in United States pancreatic adenocarcinoma guidelines, and its evolution over time. We recorded the level of evidence for each therapeutic recommendation extracted from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. In both United States guidelines, less than 9% of therapeutic recommendations are supported by a high level of evidence. In the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, there was no significant increase in high level of evidence recommendations over time. However, guidelines authors can only deal with the available evidence to develop recommendations while highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of included studies. There is a need for a more collaborative effort in pancreatic adenocarcinoma treatment to tackle important therapeutic questions and challenge the current framework of evidence.

Abstract

Cancer guidelines are ideally based on high levels of evidence (LOE). We aim to evaluate the LOE supporting recommendations in United States (US) guidelines on pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treatment and its evolution over time. We searched for current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and their prior publicly available versions on societies’ websites and/or MEDLINE. We recorded the LOE and class of recommendation (opinion of the writing panel) for each recommendation. We defined high LOE as: a “high” quality of evidence from the GRADE methodology (ASCO) and “Category 1” (NCCN). Our main outcome was the proportion of PDAC recommendations supported by high LOE. Proportions of high LOE recommendations were 5% (2/40) and 8% (12/153) in current ASCO and NCCN guidelines, respectively. Less than 10% of class I recommendations were based on high LOE. For NCCN guidelines, the proportion of high LOE recommendations did not improve over time and only three recommendations increased their LOE. We identified a small percentage of high LOE recommendations for PDAC treatment in US guidelines. However, guidelines authors can only deal with the available evidence. The current framework of evidence should be challenged with consideration of observational evidence.