Specialty representation on national comprehensive cancer network guideline committees.

Abstract

11041 Background: Among the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, the existence of Category 1 evidence for cancer management decisions remains low, resulting in the reliance on multispecialty perspective to determine optimal treatment approach. Multiple studies suggest that the specialty composition of oncological teams is important in the trajectory of decision-making. Consequently, we sought to determine if there was adequate representation of radiation oncologists (ROs) on NCCN committees (NCMs). Methods: NCMs with Category 1 or 2A recommendations for radiotherapy use were identified. Committee members were documented including specialty, academic rank, and committee role. H-index and gender was assessed for each member. A minimum arbitrary threshold of < 10% was used to define underrepresentation of ROs. Univariate and multivariate (MVA) logistic regression identified factors predictive of underrepresentation. Results: Of 57 assessed guidelines, 38 (66.7%) NCMs recommended radiation as Category 1 or 2A from which a total of 1284 committee members were identified. Median committee size was 33 (range 29-38). Overall, 42.2% were Medical Oncologists (MOs), 23.9% were Surgical Oncologists (SOs), and 11.5% were ROs [22.4% were a mix of Radiologists, Pathologists, other specialty physicians, and non-physician members like Patient Advocates]. ROs constituted 4.4% of NCM Chairs (MOs: 68.9%, SOs: 13.3%, Other: 13.3%); 29% of Vice Chairs (MOs: 35.5%, SOs: 35.5%); and 5.9% of the discussion writing committee (MOs: 70.6%, SOs: 23.5%). The representation of ROs was highest for Head/ Neck Cancer NCM (38.8%) and Prostate Cancer NCM (25.8%). 42% of the NCMs recommending radiation had < 10% representation of ROs; 17% of guidelines recommending radiation had 1 or less RO including 4 NCMs which did not have a single RO committee member. On univariate analysis, factors predictive of RO underrepresentation were low SO representation (p = 0.038) and low median H-index of the NCM (p = 0.013); low proportion of full professors trended towards significance (p = 0.060). On MVA, median H-index had a negative association with RO underrepresentation (p = 0.038) —no association was found to rank, gender or specialty. Conclusions: Our study shows alarmingly low representation of ROs among NCCN committees which include radiation as a Category 1 or 2A recommendation. This can both limit the discussion during guideline development and negatively impact the diversity of perspectives in management recommendations. Efforts to ensure more proportional representation of ROs on NCCN guideline committees are warranted including exploring potential barriers to committee leadership.