ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2021
Refocusing cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom: comparing urology with other specialties.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Tumour boards and their quality of structures, processes, and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Experiences of cancer patients in receiving dietary advice from healthcare professionals and of healthcare professionals in providing this advice-a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Pooled it
- Factors influencing discussion duration in breast cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: insights for streamlining care.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Streamlining urology cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: Implementation and outcomes.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Operationalising MDT streamlining through standards of care: a framework for specification and implementation.Frontiers in health services · 2026Review
- Advancing Lung Cancer Care in Bulgaria: A Successful Implementation of Value-Based Healthcarе.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- AI-driven intelligent training enhances clinical competence in oncology residency: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A study of factors influencing access to MDT among patients with stage III to stage IV colorectal cancer: a national multicenter survey.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Mapping Current Organizational Structure and Improvement Points of Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings - An Interview Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Article
- The Impact of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Patient Management in Oncologic Thoracic Surgery: A Single-Center Experience.Cancers · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMultidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been the gold standard of cancer care in the UK since the 1990s. We aimed to identify the views of urology cancer MDT members in the UK on improving the functioning of meetings and compare them with those of other specialties to manage the increasing demand on healthcare resources and enhance the care of complex cancer cases.
methodsWe analysed data from 2 national surveys distributed by Cancer Research UK focusing on the views of 2,294 and 1,258 MDT members about cancer MDT meetings.
findingsMost breast, colorectal, lung and urology cancer MDT members felt meetings could be improved in the following areas: time for meeting preparation in job plans, streamlining of patients, auditing meeting decisions and prioritising complex cases. Most urology respondents (87%) agreed some patients could be managed outside a full MDT discussion, but this was lower for other specialties (lung 78%, breast 75%, colorectal 64%).
conclusionsTo facilitate decisions on which patients require discussion in an MDT meeting, factors adding to case complexity across all tumour types were identified, including rare tumour type, cognitive impairment and previous treatment failure. This study confirms that urology MDT members are supportive of changing from reviewing all new cancer diagnoses to discussing complex cases but managing others with a more protocolised pathway. The mechanisms for how to do this and how to ensure the safety of patients require further clarification.
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.