Mismatch between evidence and related clinical recommendations about the treatment of advanced esophageal cancer patients with anticancer drugs: A critical historical review

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Xavier Bonfill Cosp , Olga Savall-Esteve , Javier Bracchiglione , Carolina Requeijo , Marilina Santero , Appropriateness of Systemic Oncological Treatments for Advanced Cancer (ASTAC-Study) Research Group
{"title":"Mismatch between evidence and related clinical recommendations about the treatment of advanced esophageal cancer patients with anticancer drugs: A critical historical review","authors":"Xavier Bonfill Cosp ,&nbsp;Olga Savall-Esteve ,&nbsp;Javier Bracchiglione ,&nbsp;Carolina Requeijo ,&nbsp;Marilina Santero ,&nbsp;Appropriateness of Systemic Oncological Treatments for Advanced Cancer (ASTAC-Study) Research Group","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>to analyze the most robust research and recommendations that have informed the potential superiority of treatments with anticancer drugs over any type of supportive care for advanced esophageal cancer (EC).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a critical historical review. First, we identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from a previous scoping review conducted by our research group, ASTAC, updating the search strategy. Second, we searched for the most important and recognized international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in advanced EC. Finally, we performed a systematic document analysis to compare whether the recommendations proposed in the CPGs were supported by the previously identified relevant evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified and assessed 15 RCTs and 11 CPGs from ESMO (eight), ASCO (two), and NICE (one) published over the last 40 years. There is a clear mismatch between these guidelines' recommendations and the available RCTs regarding the efficacy of anticancer drugs compared to best supportive care (BSC).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>There is a lack of consistent evidence to support the treatment of advanced EC patients with anticancer drugs, and a notable mismatch exists between the available evidence and the recommendations made by relevant CPGs. As a result, these guidelines may be biased in favoring the use of anticancer drugs over supportive care and in consequence it is advisable to be very prudent when proposing systemic treatments to patients with advanced EC. Further rigorous and independent research is needed to better evaluate the true benefits of anticancer treatments in advanced EC and to update the CPGs accordingly.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100580"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538325000244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

to analyze the most robust research and recommendations that have informed the potential superiority of treatments with anticancer drugs over any type of supportive care for advanced esophageal cancer (EC).

Methods

We conducted a critical historical review. First, we identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from a previous scoping review conducted by our research group, ASTAC, updating the search strategy. Second, we searched for the most important and recognized international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in advanced EC. Finally, we performed a systematic document analysis to compare whether the recommendations proposed in the CPGs were supported by the previously identified relevant evidence.

Results

We identified and assessed 15 RCTs and 11 CPGs from ESMO (eight), ASCO (two), and NICE (one) published over the last 40 years. There is a clear mismatch between these guidelines' recommendations and the available RCTs regarding the efficacy of anticancer drugs compared to best supportive care (BSC).

Conclusion

There is a lack of consistent evidence to support the treatment of advanced EC patients with anticancer drugs, and a notable mismatch exists between the available evidence and the recommendations made by relevant CPGs. As a result, these guidelines may be biased in favoring the use of anticancer drugs over supportive care and in consequence it is advisable to be very prudent when proposing systemic treatments to patients with advanced EC. Further rigorous and independent research is needed to better evaluate the true benefits of anticancer treatments in advanced EC and to update the CPGs accordingly.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer Policy
Journal of Cancer Policy Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
47
审稿时长
65 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信