SynthesisBMC health services research2020
The impact of tumor board on cancer care: evidence from an umbrella review.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
124 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 225 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrochemotherapy in the Locoregional Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Pooled it
- Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumour boards.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Pooled it
- Association between the Quantity of Nurse-Doctor Interprofessional Collaboration and in-Patient Mortality: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Pooled it
- The Impact of Tumor Boards on Breast Cancer Care: Evidence from a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Patterns and resectability of colorectal cancer recurrences: outcome study within the COLOFOL trial.BJS open · 2021Trial
- Cancer Survival at a Comprehensive Cancer Center Compared With Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Estimates.American journal of medicine open · 2026Article
- Development of a ChatGPT-based assistant in multidisciplinary team discussions in oncological urology: the UroMDT Advisor study.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Strategies to overcome barriers in access to cancer treatment in Latin America: a regional perspective.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
- ChatGPT-4o as a decision-support tool in a urological tumour board: a prospective evaluation.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Assessment of Radiation Oncology Participation in Interdisciplinary Education at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting and Pathways to Expand Involvement.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- User perceptions of machine learning models as decision support for colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team conferences (AID-SIM-2): a qualitative simulation study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of a bone metastasis cancer board for skeletal-related events of breast cancer.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- [Current Status of Multidisciplinary Team Consultation for Lung Cancer and Prospects under the Empowerment of Medical Large Models].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Review
- Optimizing Precision Oncology: Structural Frameworks for Local MTB Integration and Outcome Assessment.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Oncological outcomes and prognostic factors of pulmonary metastasectomy in pancreatic cancer.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Clinically Prioritized Colorectal Cancer Quality Indicators With a New South Wales Population-Based Linked Dataset.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence as a Decision-Support Tool in Urological Tumor Boards: A Study in Real Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Treatment Decision Model for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Based on Bayesian Networks.Cancers · 2026Article
- Practice, Policy, and Research Recommendations to Improve Decision-Making about Surgery for People Living with Dementia: A Delphi Panel Consensus.Annals of surgery · 2026Article
- Timing Matters: Optimizing Oncology Involvement in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Pathways in Saudi Arabia.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2026Article
64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTumor Boards (TBs) are Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings in which different specialists work together closely sharing clinical decisions in cancer care. The composition is variable, depending on the type of tumor discussed. As an organizational tool, MDTs are thought to optimize patient outcomes and to improve care performance. The aim of the study was to perform an umbrella review summarizing the available evidence on the impact of TBs on healthcare outcomes and processes.
methodsPubmed and Web of Science databases were investigated along with a search through citations. The only study design included was systematic review. Only reviews published after 1997 concerning TBs and performed in hospital settings were considered. Two researchers synthetized the studies and assessed their quality through the AMSTAR2 tool.
resultsFive systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2017 were retrieved. One review was focused on gastrointestinal cancers and included 16 studies; another one was centered on lung cancer and included 16 studies; the remaining three studies considered a wide range of tumors and included 27, 37 and 51 studies each. The main characteristics about format and members and the definition of TBs were collected. The decisions taken during TBs led to changes in diagnosis (probability to receive a more accurate assessment and staging), treatment (usually more appropriate) and survival (not unanimous improvement shown). Other outcomes less highlighted were quality of life, satisfaction and waiting times.
conclusionsThe study showed that the multidisciplinary approach is the best way to deliver the complex care needed by cancer patients; however, it is a challenge that requires organizational and cultural changes and must be led by competent health managers who can improve teamwork within their organizations. Further studies are needed to reinforce existing literature concerning health outcomes. Evidence on the impact of TBs on clinical practices is still lacking for many aspects of cancer care. Further studies should aim to evaluate the impact on survival rates, quality of life and patient satisfaction. Regular studies should be carried out and new process indicators should be defined to assess the impact and the performance of TBs more consistently.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.