NCCN Guidelines downloaded more than 10 million times in 2018

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) announced Tuesday, Jan. 15, that the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology were downloaded more than 10 million times in 2018. This is a 26 percent increase compared to 2017.

These guidelines, called the NCCN Guidelines for short, help healthcare providers provide the best care possible when treating cancer patients. The final decisions are determined by multidisciplinary panels of experts from 28 academic cancer centers.

“Having your cancer treated according to NCCN Guidelines is like getting a second opinion from approximately 30 of the world’s top experts on your particular cancer type,” Timothy J. Eberlein, MD, chair of the NCCN Board of Directors and a professor at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, said in a prepared statement. “This remarkable, and growing number of downloads means more patients everywhere are getting the optimal treatment for their cancer, regardless of where they’re treated. The use of the guidelines also serves the important function of providing critical education for cancer health care providers”

“The NCCN Guidelines are an essential tool in cancer care around the globe, in large part because of how frequently they are updated,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in the same statement. “Whenever there’s important new research data or treatment approvals, the relevant NCCN panel(s) of experts will review the evidence and make their recommendations.”

Michael Walter
Michael Walter, Managing Editor

Michael has more than 18 years of experience as a professional writer and editor. He has written at length about cardiology, radiology, artificial intelligence and other key healthcare topics.

Around the web

The ACR hopes these changes, including the addition of diagnostic performance feedback, will help reduce the number of patients with incidental nodules lost to follow-up each year.

And it can do so with almost 100% accuracy as a first reader, according to a new large-scale analysis.

The patient, who was being cared for in the ICU, was not accompanied or monitored by nursing staff during his exam, despite being sedated.