Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33399076›Full record

ArticleESMO open2021

The impact of the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) on the management of pancreatic diseases in a tertiary referral center.

G Quero, L Salvatore, C Fiorillo, C Bagalà, R Menghi, B Maria, C Cina, V Laterza, B Di Stefano, M G Maratta and 17 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prompt-directed ambient artificial intelligence for automated multidisciplinary tumor board documentation.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

27 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G QueroDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Advanced Pancreatic Research Center), Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: giuseppe.quero@policlinicogemelli.it.
L SalvatoreUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
C FiorilloDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Advanced Pancreatic Research Center), Rome, Italy.
C BagalàUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
R MenghiDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Advanced Pancreatic Research Center), Rome, Italy.
B MariaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
C CinaDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Advanced Pancreatic Research Center), Rome, Italy.
V LaterzaDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Advanced Pancreatic Research Center), Rome, Italy.
B Di StefanoUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
M G MarattaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
M RibelliUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
F GaliandroDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Advanced Pancreatic Research Center), Rome, Italy.
G C MattiucciUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Radiation Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
M G BriziUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Radiology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
E GencoRadiology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
F D'AversaInternal Medicine, Gastroenterology and Hepatology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
L ZileriInternal Medicine, Gastroenterology and Hepatology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
F AttiliDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CERTT, Center for Endoscopic Research Therapeutics and Training, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy.
A LarghiDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CERTT, Center for Endoscopic Research Therapeutics and Training, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy.
V PerriDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CERTT, Center for Endoscopic Research Therapeutics and Training, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy.
F InzaniPathology Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy.
A GasbarriniUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology and Hepatology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
V ValentiniUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Radiation Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
G CostamagnaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CERTT, Center for Endoscopic Research Therapeutics and Training, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy.
R ManfrediUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Radiology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
G TortoraUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
S AlfieriDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Advanced Pancreatic Research Center), Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe implementation of multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) meetings significantly ameliorated the management of oncological diseases. However, few evidences are currently present on their impact on pancreatic cancer (PC) management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the MDTB on PC diagnosis, resectability and tumor response to oncological treatment compared with indications before discussion. PATIENTS AND

methodsAll patients with a suspected or proven diagnosis of PC presented at the MDTB from 2017 to 2019 were included in the study. Changes of diagnosis, resectability and tumor response to oncological/radiation treatment between pre- and post-MDTB discussion were analyzed.

resultsA total of 438 cases were included in the study: 249 (56.8%) were presented as new diagnoses, 148 (33.8%) for resectability assessment and 41 (9.4%) for tumor response evaluation to oncological treatment. MDTB discussion led to a change in diagnosis in 54/249 cases (21.7%), with a consequent treatment strategy variation in 36 cases (14.5%). Change in resectability was documented in 44/148 cases (29.7%), with the highest discrepancy for borderline lesions. The treatment strategy was thus modified in 27 patients (18.2%). The MDTB brought a modification in the tumor response assessment in 6/41 cases (14.6%), with a consequent protocol modification in four (9.8%) cases.

conclusionsMDTB discussion significantly impacts on PC management, especially in high-volume centers, with consistent variations in terms of diagnosis, resectability and tumor response assessment compared with indications before discussion.

Indexed as

Pancreatic DiseasesPancreatic NeoplasmsHumansInterdisciplinary StudiesTertiary Care Centersmultidisciplinary tumor boardpancreatic cancerpancreatic disease managementresectability assessmenttumor response

Identifiers

PMID33399076
PMCPMC7910721
OpenAlexW3119618702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.