ArticleOncology research and treatment2020
A Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Trial Accrual of Patients Presented in a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board at a Tertiary Health Care Center and Associated Barriers.
Article in Oncology research and treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Prompt-directed ambient artificial intelligence for automated multidisciplinary tumor board documentation.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2026Article
- Adherence to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.Cancers · 2025Article
- New strategies for enhancing enrollment of underrepresented minorities in lymphoma clinical trials.Blood advances · 2025Review
- Sharing is caring: a network collaborative approach to identify and address barriers in accessing clinical trials in adolescents and young adults with leukemia and lymphoma.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2024Review
- Strategies for increasing accrual in cancer clinical trials: What is the evidence?Cancer medicine · 2024Review
- Creation of a quality improvement collaborative to address adolescent and young adult cancer clinical trial enrollment: ATAQI (AYA trial access quality initiative).Current problems in cancer · 2023Article
- Guideline adherence and implementation of tumor board therapy recommendations for patients with gastrointestinal cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Shared barriers and facilitators to enrollment of adolescents and young adults on cancer clinical trials.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Use of Communication Technology to Improve Clinical Trial Participation in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: Consensus Statement From the Children's Oncology Group Adolescent and Young Adult Responsible Investigator Network.JCO oncology practice · 2022Article
- Barriers to Pediatric Oncologist Enrollment of Adolescents and Young Adults on a Cross-Network National Clinical Trials Network Supportive Care Cancer Clinical Trial.Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCancer clinical trial accruals have been historically low and are affected by several factors. Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Meetings (MTBM) are conducted regularly and immensely help to devise a comprehensive care plan including discussions about clinical trial availability and eligibility.
objectivesTo evaluate whether patient discussion at MTBM was associated with a higher consent rate for clinical trials at a single tertiary care center.
methodsInstitutional electronic medical records (EMR) and clinical trials management system (OnCore) were queried to identify all new patient visits in oncology clinics, consents to clinical trials, and MTBM notes between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2015. The association between MTBM discussion and subsequent clinical trial enrollment within 16 weeks of the new patient visit was evaluated using a χ2 test.
resultsBetween January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2015, 11,794 new patients were seen in oncology clinics, and 2,225 patients (18.9%) were discussed at MTBMs. MTBM discussion conferred a higher rate of subsequent clinical trial consent within 16 weeks following the patient's first consultation in an oncology clinic: 4.1% for those who were discussed at a MTBM compared to 2.8% for those not discussed (p < 0.01).
conclusionsThis study provides evidence that MTBMs may be effective in identifying patients eligible for available clinical trials by reviewing eligibility criteria during MTBM discussions. We recommend discussion of all new patients in MTBM to improve the quality of care provided to those with cancer and enhanced clinical trial accrual.
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.