Association of the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) Scores with Guideline Recommendations in Breast Cancer.
Simple Summary: Cancer treatment guidelines are widely used to support clinical decision-making, but they differ in how they evaluate and recommend therapies. Some systems focus on the strength and certainty of evidence, while others aim to quantify how much benefit a treatment provides to patients,...
| Publicado en: | Current Oncology Vol. 33; no. 4; pp. 227 - 246 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
MDPI
Apr2026
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=193441220&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 193441220 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 11980052 5EKK jtl: Current Oncology issn: 11980052 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Apr2026 vid: 33 iid: 4 pid: 97109 pub: MDPI artinfo: ui: 193441220 10.3390/curroncol33040227 193441220 ppf: 227 ppct: 19 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Association of the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) Scores with Guideline Recommendations in Breast Cancer. aug: au: Salman, Bushra Yehia, Intissar Al Sharqi, Hadil Al Shidi, Roula Al Dhahri, Miaad A. Al Ghefeili, Saba Makhloufi, Meriem Al Ajmi, Adil Al Farsi, Suhaila Al Kiyumi, Zayana Al Ishaq, Zaid Riyadh Raouf Ayaad, Omar Abdelhakim Al Baimani, Khalid affil: Pharmacy Department, National Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplant Center, University Medical City, Muscat 123, Oman sug: ab: Simple Summary: Cancer treatment guidelines are widely used to support clinical decision-making, but they differ in how they evaluate and recommend therapies. Some systems focus on the strength and certainty of evidence, while others aim to quantify how much benefit a treatment provides to patients, for example, in terms of survival duration or quality of life. In this study, we compared these approaches in breast cancer by examining how treatment recommendations align with the magnitude of clinical benefit and with each other. We found that agreement between systems is only partial, particularly for treatments with modest benefits, reflecting differences in how value is defined. Importantly, tools that measure the size of benefit can complement, rather than replace, guideline recommendations by providing additional context for decision-making. These findings may help clinicians, policymakers, and healthcare systems better interpret treatment recommendations, prioritize therapies, and support more transparent and value-based care. Objectives: To evaluate the association between European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores and treatment recommendations from European Society for Medical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in curative and metastatic breast cancer (BC), and to assess inter-guideline concordance. Methods: We conducted a comparative review of 47 systemic BC therapies with published ESMO-MCBS scores (accessed 30 June 2025). Guideline recommendations from ESMO, NCCN, and ASCO were extracted from the most recent versions and harmonized into ordinal tiers. Associations between MCBS scores and recommendation categories were evaluated using Fisher's exact test and Spearman's rank correlation in the palliative setting. Curative therapies were analyzed descriptively due to limited variability. Results: Among 38 palliative therapies, 40% achieved high clinical benefit (MCBS 4–5). A significant association was observed between MCBS scores and NCCN recommendations (p = 0.003; ρ = 0.48), with 62% of NCCN Category 1 therapies demonstrating high benefit versus 13% in other categories. No significant associations were observed with ASCO (p = 0.101; ρ = 0.18) or ESMO guideline recommendations (p = 0.073; ρ = 0.19). Inter-guideline concordance was strongest between ASCO and ESMO (p = 0.033; ρ = 0.48). In the curative setting (n = 9), most therapies received an MCBS grade A and top-tier guideline endorsement. Conclusions: Alignment between ESMO-MCBS and guideline recommendations is moderate and framework-dependent, strongest with NCCN in metastatic BC. Discordance primarily reflects differences between magnitude-of-benefit thresholds and evidence-certainty frameworks. ESMO-MCBS may serve as a complementary tool to enhance value-based clinical and policy decision-making. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|