Odei Bismarck C, Agabalogun Temitope, Bello-Pardo Erika, Huang Christina, Vanderbilt Daniel, Omeh Seyi, Sterling Benjamin, Chino Fumiko
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2025 Apr 2;10(6):101773. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2025.101773. eCollection 2025 Jun.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline committees (GCs) play a vital role in defining the standard of care for cancer management. Equitable specialty representation is crucial for unbiased recommendations and perspectives. This study examines the specialty and leadership representation on NCCN GCs, with a focus on radiation oncologists (ROs).
This cross-sectional observational study evaluated committee member characteristics on NCCN treatment GCs available in 2020 and subset of committees with guidelines containing category 1 or 2A radiation therapy recommendations. Collected data included member characteristics and committee roles. Interspecialty variance was evaluated via χ tests.
A total of 1768 NCCN committee members were identified, representing 54 NCCN GCs with a median committee size of 33 (range, 22-38). Among all members: 47.6% were medical oncologists (MOs), 20.9% were surgical oncologists (SOs), and 8.9% were RO; 22.6% were other specialists. Women accounted for 37.6% (316/841) of MO, 34.2%(54/158) of RO and 22.8% (84/369) of SO members ( < .001). RO representation varied based on disease site (2.4%-29.9%; 15 individual committees had no RO representation) and in leadership roles (3% chairs, 23% vice chairs). On 38 committees with guidelines containing category 1 or 2A radiation therapy recommendations, the pattern of low representation persisted (8.4%). Although 39% of individuals on all committees were women, only 23% of committee chairs were women ( = .048).
There is low representation of ROs on NCCN GCs and in leadership roles, which may limit the discussion during guideline development and negatively impact the diversity of perspectives in management recommendations.
美国国立综合癌症网络(NCCN)指南委员会(GCs)在确定癌症管理的护理标准方面发挥着至关重要的作用。公平的专业代表性对于无偏见的建议和观点至关重要。本研究调查了NCCN指南委员会中的专业和领导代表性,重点关注放射肿瘤学家(ROs)。
这项横断面观察性研究评估了2020年NCCN治疗指南委员会成员的特征,以及包含1类或2A类放射治疗建议的指南委员会子集。收集的数据包括成员特征和委员会角色。通过χ检验评估专业间差异。
共确定了1768名NCCN委员会成员,代表54个NCCN指南委员会,委员会规模中位数为33人(范围为22 - 38人)。在所有成员中:47.6%是医学肿瘤学家(MOs),20.9%是外科肿瘤学家(SOs),8.9%是放射肿瘤学家;22.6%是其他专科医生。女性在MO成员中占37.6%(316/841),在RO成员中占34.2%(54/158),在SO成员中占22.8%(84/369)(P <.001)。RO的代表性因疾病部位而异(2.4% - 29.9%;15个委员会没有RO代表),在领导角色方面也有所不同(3%担任主席,23%担任副主席)。在38个包含1类或2A类放射治疗建议的指南委员会中,低代表性模式持续存在(8.4%)。尽管所有委员会中39%的成员是女性,但只有23%的委员会主席是女性(P = 0.048)。
NCCN指南委员会中RO的代表性较低,在领导角色中也是如此,这可能会限制指南制定过程中的讨论,并对管理建议中的观点多样性产生负面影响。