Variation in guideline decision-making: a cross-sectional study of oncology compendium panels
Clicks: 3
ID: 325413
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #58 of 98 articles by views in Health Affairs Scholar
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Clinical practice guidelines influence coverage policy, utilization management, and health care spending. In oncology, some function as drug compendia that guide Medicare coverage of off-label therapies, yet little empirical work has examined their governance. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study using publicly available documentation to evaluate responses to 75 standardized external change requests submitted to 26 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) disease-site panels concerning pembrolizumab or nivolumab dosing. Requests concerning subcutaneous formulations served as a comparator. We characterized request disposition, review timing, transparency, scope interpretation, and financial conflict-of-interest (FCOI) context. Results By March 6, 2026, 10 of 75 dosing-related requests (13%) had been adopted, 51 (68%) rejected or determined to be outside panel scope, and 14 (19%) remained pending (median time to decision, 190 days). In contrast, requests concerning FDA-approved subcutaneous formulations were adopted in 52 of 53 cases (98%) and reviewed substantially more rapidly (median, 11 days). Public documentation incompletely described panel deliberations, voting, participation, and management of financial conflicts of interest. Conclusions Standardized requests revealed operational heterogeneity and limitations in publicly available documentation within a CMS-recognized compendium, identifying opportunities to strengthen transparency and governance in coverage-relevant decision making.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7203760154
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Garth W. Strohbehn, Samyukta Mullangi, Daniel A. Goldstein, Lalan S. Wilfong, Mark J. Ratain |
| Journal | Health Affairs Scholar |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/haschl/qxag215
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.