The impact of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines on the cost of care: Comparing 2003 and 2011 endometrial cancer guidelines

2012 ◽  
Vol 125 ◽  
pp. S73-S74
Author(s):  
B. Tierney ◽  
A. Clements ◽  
J. Straughn ◽  
D. Cohn
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Cancer Guidelines ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cancer Network ◽  
The Impact

Compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for antiemesis in cisplatin regimens.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 280-280
Author(s):  
Terri P. Wolf ◽  
Dana Ann Little
Keyword(s):  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Adherence Rate ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Guideline Compliance ◽  
Cancer Network ◽  
The Impact

280 Background: The members of a network of community cancer centers affiliated with an academic medical center report following National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. To determine guideline compliance, cisplatin regimens were audited. Cisplatin was selected because of its wide use, high emetic potential, and the impact on QOL for patients with unmanaged nausea and vomiting.The community cancer centers affiliated with an academic medical center report following National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for treatment plans. To determine guideline compliance rates, cisplatin regimens were audited. Cisplatin was selected because of its wide use, high emetic potential, and the impact on QOL for patients with unmanaged nausea and vomiting. Methods: Prior to a chart audit, medical oncologists were surveyed on their knowledge of NCCN antiemesis guidelines, frequency of prescribing based on guidelines, and reasons for not using guidelines. Auditors identified patient charts through billing records and reviewed cycle 1 day 1 orders of cisplatin regimens. Secondary data was collected on hydration orders and home medications for antiemesis. Results: Guideline adherence varied from 0% to 76% with overall adherence at 28%. Dexamethasone doses ranged from 2-20 mg (guideline 12 mg) as did serotonin antagonists (5HT3) ordered at higher IV doses of 24-32 mg (guideline 8-16 mg). Conclusions: Although cancer centers report following the guidelines, this study did not find consistent adherence. The cancer center with the highest adherence rate works closely with a pharmacist and has built order sets with the guidelines. One cancer center had wide variances among practitioners. The variances increase the potential for error. The cancer center with lowest adherence rate used 10 mg doses of dexamethasone because the drug is delivered in 10 mg vials. This study identified multiple systems issues impacting guideline compliance. Managing nausea and vomiting is important for patient QOL and to manage costs by decreasing hospitalizations, treatment delays, and nutritional deficits. Understanding prescribing habits relative to guidelines provides an opportunity to change practice and reduce variability.

Level of Scientific Evidence Underlying Recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hematologic Malignancies: Are We Moving Forward?

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-32
Author(s):  
Aakash Desai ◽  
Harry E Fuentes ◽  
Sri Harsha Tella ◽  
Caleb J Scheckel ◽  
Thejaswi Poonacha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Therapeutic Recommendations ◽  
Cancer Network

Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care in malignant hematology by clinicians and payers in the US. The level of scientific evidence in NCCN guidelines for malignant hematological conditions has not been recently investigated. We describe the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common hematologic malignancies with regard to recommendations for staging, initial and salvage therapy, and surveillance. Methods: NCCN uses a system of guideline development distinct from other major professional organizations. The NCCN definitions for EC are: category I, high level of evidence such as randomized controlled trials with uniform consensus; category IIA, lower level of evidence with uniform consensus; category IIB, lower level of evidence without a uniform consensus but with no major disagreement; and category III, any level of evidence but with major disagreement. We compared our results with previously published results from 2011 guidelines. Results: Total recommendations increased by 16.6% from 1160 (2011) to 1353 (2020). Of the 1353 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 5%, 91%, 4%, 1% while in 2011 they were 3%, 93%, 4% and 0% respectively. Recommendations with category 1 EC were found in all guidelines, except for Burkitt's Lymphoma. 6.3% of therapeutic recommendations were category 1 EC with the majority (56.4%) pertaining to initial therapy. Guidelines with highest proportions of therapeutic recommendations with category 1 EC were Multiple Myeloma (12.4%), CLL/SLL (6.9%) and AML (5.6%). Between 2011 and 2020, the proportion of category I recommendations increased significantly only in Follicular lymphoma and CLL/SLL. No category 1 EC recommendations existed in staging or surveillance. Conclusion: Recommendations issued in the 2020 NCCN guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence but with uniform expert opinion. Despite the major advances in hematology in the past decade, this is largely unchanged. Our study underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand the current evidence base in malignant hematological disorders which forms the platform for clinical practice guidelines. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

The Costs of Drugs Used to Treat Myelodysplastic Syndromes Following National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines

2008 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 942-953 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter L. Greenberg ◽  
Leon E. Cosler ◽  
Salvatore A. Ferro ◽  
Gary H. Lyman
Keyword(s):  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Myelodysplastic Syndromes ◽  
Iron Chelation ◽  
International Prognostic Scoring System ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Recombinant Erythropoietin ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Transfusion Requirements ◽  
Average Annual Cost ◽  
Cancer Network

Guidelines for management of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) have been generated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Myelodysplastic Syndromes Panel. Because MDS is a heterogeneous spectrum of disorders, these patients have been categorized into prognostic subgroups, predominantly using the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS). Several drugs have been used to treat these patients, and their selection and sequential recommended use by the panel depend on disease characteristics and responses to treatment. Recombinant erythropoietin alfa and darbepoetin alfa have been the mainstay of therapy for treating anemia associated with MDS. The FDA has recently approved several other drugs for treating MDS, including azacytidine and decitabine for all stages of disease, lenalidomide for low-risk anemic patients with del(5q) chromosomal abnormality, and deferasirox for treating iron overload. For iron chelation, deferoxamine is also used occasionally. Treatment with immunosuppressive therapy (antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporin) has been therapeutically beneficial for a subset of younger patients with MDS. Because the financial cost of these therapies are substantial and have received only limited attention, this article evaluates the costs of specific drugs and their sequential use in the lower-risk IPSS (low and intermediate-1) subgroups based on the NCCN guidelines. Results estimate an average annual cost for potentially anemia-altering drugs of $63,577 per patient, ranging from $26,000 to $95,000, depending on the specific therapies. In patients for whom the therapies fail, annual costs for iron chelation plus red blood cell transfusions are estimated to average $41,412. The economic impact of drug therapy should be weighed against the patient's potential for improvement in clinical outcomes, quality of life, and transfusion requirements.

Measuring the impact of chemotherapy cost discussions between patients and providers at the time of prescribing.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 257-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronan Joseph Kelly ◽  
Patrick M. Forde ◽  
Ashley Bagheri ◽  
Jenny Ahn ◽  
Arlene A. Forastiere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Physician Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cost Information ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Negative Feelings ◽  
The Impact

257 Background: In 2007, the ASCO Cost of Care Task Force was established to deal with the soaring costs of cancer treatment in the United States. One of the key recommendations was that the cost of chemotherapy should be introduced into the patient-physician discussion from the outset. It is unknown if these discussions are occurring in academic Institutions and what if any is the impact on the doctor/patient relationship. Methods: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines and the Eviti advisor platform were jointly used in an academic oncology center during the patient/doctor consultation to demonstrate treatment options to patients and display the costs at the time of prescribing to providers and patients alike. Questionnaires measured oncology providers attitudes to cost discussions and assessed physician satisfaction with the shared decision making process when costs are introduced into the patient/doctor relationship. Patients were interviewed before and after their doctor consultation to measure their satisfaction with the process using modifications of the shared decision making scale, satisfaction with decision scale and decisional conflict scale. Basic descriptive statistics were applied. Results: Only 5/18 oncologists (28%) reported feeling comfortable discussing costs with patients and just one (6%) admitted to regularly asking patients about financial difficulties. The majority (83%) of doctors reported that the NCCN guidelines should contain cost information. Seventy-one patients (42 females, 29 males) with metastatic breast (27%), lung (49%), and colorectal cancer (24%) have been interviewed. Interestingly, 70% of patients responded that no health care professional has ever discussed costs with them despite 57/71 (80%) rating this as very important information. The majority of patients (75%) had no negative feelings to hearing cost information. Only 4% admitted to developing significant negative feelings. Conclusions: In an era of rising co-pays, patients want cost of treatment discussions and these do not lead to negative feelings in the majority of patients. Additional training to prepare clinicians for how to discuss costs with their patients is needed.

Elevating the standard of care: Impact of a regimen-level prior authorization tool on provider adherence to clinical guidelines.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19235-e19235
Author(s):  
Rogelio Alberto Brito ◽  
Geri Kuklinski ◽  
Patricia Angelica ◽  
Anne Claussen ◽  
Diana Fischer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Prior Authorization ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
The Impact

e19235 Background: New developments in oncology therapy continue to grow in complexity, fueling a dramatically rising cost of care. Traditional care models present opportunities to streamline plan sponsor management efforts, expedite therapy, and improve health outcomes. Studies suggest adherence to evidence-based standards results in higher quality care. Current plan sponsor management platforms match medical policy to individual drugs, not to combination therapy regimens and lack real-time access to standard treatment guidelines. 70% of precertification requests are submitted via antiquated, cumbersome methods such as paper and fax. Methods: CVS Health/Aetna developed a comprehensive oncology solution featuring an enterprise web-based clinical decision support prior authorization tool (Novologix) at the regimen level to reduce administrative burden and support quality care. Novologix regimens were updated via collaboration with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) evidence-based guidelines. Groups also entered a value-based payment (VBP) model to help support quality of care by promoting adherence to NCCN guidelines when clinically appropriate and tool utilization. Eligible members were Commercial, fully-insured members newly diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. Providers were offered dedicated, individual training sessions to provide education on the Novologix tool. NCCN-aligned regimens requested through the platform were automatically certified. Any non-NCCN aligned regimens received accelerated medical review by a board-certified medical oncologist with the option for an external peer-to-peer review upon denial. Providers received ongoing quality and cost of care reporting. Results: Primary in progress. N of precertification requests submitted via Novologix ( 28 requests as of 1/23/2020) - (will include graph displaying N of requests by month). N of regimens submitted via Novologix that were automatically certified (46% as of 1/23). Avg turnaround times for modified regimen requests requiring clinical review (TBD). Avg % adherence to NCCN guidelines (100% as of 1/23/20) Secondary: Total cost of care (preliminary/other leading indicator). Conclusions: By engaging oncology practices through an enhanced payer-provider collaboration and implementing an automated regimen-level precertification process we can facilitate higher-quality oncology care. Future studies will be needed to measure the impact of this program on total cost of care.

scholarly journals Impact of GI Tumor Board on Patient Management and Adherence to Guidelines

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haneen A. AlFarhan ◽  
Ghada F. Algwaiz ◽  
Hajer A. Alzahrani ◽  
Roaa S. Alsuhaibani ◽  
Ashwaq Alolayan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Patient Management ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Adherence To Guidelines ◽  
New Findings ◽  
Common Diagnosis ◽  
Cancer Network ◽  
The Impact

Purpose As the burden of cancer on the population and the health care system continues to increase with more complicated treatment options, the need for multidisciplinary teams to be as efficient as possible becomes more vital. Our study aimed to evaluate the consistency of GI Tumor Board (GI TB) recommendations with international guidelines, the adherence of physicians involved in patient care to TB recommendations, and the impact on the management of patients. Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted from January to June 2016 at our institution, which is a major tertiary hospital that provides comprehensive cancer care. All cases presented at the GI TB during this period were included. Data regarding adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, adherence to TB recommendations, and changes made to the management of patients were collected weekly from the GI TB in a data collection form. Results Of the 104 patients included, 57 (55%) were males and the median age was 58 (16 to 85) years. Colorectal cancer was the most common diagnosis, in 65 patients (63%). Nearly one-half of cases (45%) were stage IV cancers. Starting new treatment was recommended for 72 patients (69%). Further investigations were requested for 15 patients (14%). For imaging, 24 recommendations (23%) were made. Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was observed in 97% of total recommendations. New findings were found in pathology (11%), radiology (13%), and staging (4%). Management plans were changed in 37 cases (36%). Over a 3-month period after presentation to the GI TB, most of the recommendations (87%) were performed. Conclusion A multidisciplinary tumor board enhances the adherence to guidelines and has an impact on patient management in approximately one-third of patients. Among physicians, adherence to recommendations of the TB was high.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network petitions: Submissions and outcomes.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 248-248
Author(s):  
Laura Bobolts ◽  
Dinah Faith Huff ◽  
William J. Hrushesky ◽  
Charles Lee Bennett ◽  
Kevin Knopf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Liposomal Doxorubicin ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Fda Approval ◽  
Her 2 ◽  
Ret Rearrangement ◽  
Cancer Network ◽  
Japanese Ancestry

248 Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) invites petitions to its scientific panels. Most ( > 95%) are from the pharmaceutical industry lobbying to include their products in the NCCN Guidelines. Rarely, physicians request scientific scrutiny of the guidelines. We report the experience of Oncology Analytics (OA) with petition submissions and the possible impact on guidelines. Methods: From 2011-2015, OA made 7 petitions to NCCN. The content of each was tracked into subsequent NCCN Guidelines to ascertain whether any changes resulted. Results: 1) The Survivorship Panel was petitioned to add liposomal doxorubicin to the list of cardiotoxic anthracyclines: No changes were made. 2-3) The NSCLC Panel was asked in 2014 to remove the category 2A listing for trastuzumab and afatinib as HER-2 targeted drugs, and cabozantinib as a RET rearrangement target based on absence of phase I-III full text scientific literature. This was done, however, cabozantinib was reverted to 2A status late 2015 based on abstract-only data. 4) Per FDA approval, the NSCLC Panel was asked to recommend bevacizumab only in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel for 1st line non-squamous NSCLC based on a survival advantage in ECOG 4599: No changes were made. 5) Given the FDA-approval, the Ovarian Cancer Panel was requested to add doxorubicin: This was done. 6) A 2012 Supportive Care Panel petition pointed out the absence of data supporting palonosetron as the preferred 5-HT3 antagonist with aprepitant for moderate or high emetic risk chemotherapy: No change was made upon request; however, preferred status was removed in 2015 from high emetic risk. 7) Based on a preponderance of evidence, a Supportive Care Panel petition requested re-categorization of the febrile neutropenia risk for carboplatin/paclitaxel from intermediate to low except in patients of Japanese ancestry and/or carboplatin AUC > 6: This was done. Conclusions: Majority of NCCN physician petitions came from OA, yet constituted less than 5% of all petitions submitted. NCCN does not provide direct petitioner feedback, so we cannot say for certain that our petitions led to changes in subsequent guidelines. Not all requests resulted in NCCN changes, despite level one supportive data or accentuating an absence of data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document