Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30860865›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2019

Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Tumor Board Connecting Eight General Hospitals in Japan via a High-Security Communication Line.

Takayuki Takeda, Sorou Takeda, Kiyoaki Uryu, Yoshio Ichihashi, Hiromasa Harada, Akihiko Iwase, Yukihiro Tamura, Makoto Hibino, Shigeto Horiuchi, Hisanori Kani

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Medicolegal Considerations in Multidisciplinary Cancer Care.JTO clinical and research reports · 2020
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Interdisciplinary multimodality management of stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Takayuki TakedaUji-Tokushukai Medical Center, Kyoto, Japan.
Sorou TakedaUji-Tokushukai Medical Center, Kyoto, Japan.
Kiyoaki UryuYao-Tokushukai General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Yoshio IchihashiYao-Tokushukai General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Hiromasa HaradaYao-Tokushukai General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Akihiko IwaseChiba-Nishi General Hospital, Chiba, Japan.
Yukihiro TamuraOsumikanoya Hospital, Kagoshima, Japan.
Makoto HibinoShonan-Fujisawa Tokushukai Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan.
Shigeto HoriuchiShonan-Fujisawa Tokushukai Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan.
Hisanori KaniNagoya-Tokushukai General Hospital, Aichi, Japan.
Yao Tokushukai General Hospital · JPYokufukai Hospital · JPAzumi Hospital · JPChiba-Nishi General Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe complexity of lung cancer treatment is rapidly increasing, necessitating the use of multidisciplinary approaches for improving outcomes. Although it is common for institutions to have their own tumor boards, tumor boards connecting several general hospitals, and therefore allowing for more diverse opinions, are not prevalent. MATERIALS AND

methodsA tumor board connecting eight hospitals was formed to discuss patients for whom formulating a treatment strategy was difficult. Physicians and hospital staff accessed a high-security communication line via LiveOn ( Japan Media Systems Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), which is completely isolated from the Internet and password protected, that enables each hospital to share the electronic medical records and images of relevant patients at other hospitals on desktop computers in real time. The lung cancer tumor board began in April 2017 and has since been held every Tuesday evening for 1 hour. Preparatory records containing the age, sex, histology, TNM classification, background, and discussion points for each patient are created before each tumor board meeting. After the tumor board discussion, all conclusions and related articles used in the board are added to the minutes, which are finalized as Microsoft Word files, consolidated, and archived. These files can be retrieved later using key words.

resultsFrom April 2017 to June 2018, 202 patients were discussed. Although TNM classification was not changed for any patient, diverse opinions led to a change in the proposed strategy for 49 of 202 patients.

conclusionThe multidisciplinary tumor board was useful in obtaining various opinions from the perspectives of different experts. This should be evaluated in a prospective study.

Indexed as

Hospitals, GeneralInterdisciplinary CommunicationSpecialty BoardsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisease ManagementElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansJapanLung NeoplasmsMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasm Staging

Identifiers

PMID30860865
PMCPMC6873933
OpenAlexW2922489610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.