ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022
Preliminary experience with a new institutional tumor board dedicated to patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the decision patterns of a neuroendocrine neoplasm (NEN) tumor board (TB) and the factors behind those.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed all NEN-TB recommendations from 07/2018 to 12/2021 and recorded patient characteristics, TB outcomes and associations between them.
resultsA total of 652 patient entries were identified. Median age of participants was 61 years and an equal number of men and women were presented. Most patients (33.4%) had tumors originating in the small bowel with 16.8% of high grade and 25.9% of pancreatic origin. Imaging was reviewed 97.2% of the time, with most frequently reviewed modalities being PET (55.3%) and CT (44.3%). Imaging review determined that there was no disease progression 20.8% of the time and significant treatment changes were recommended in 36.1% of patients. Major pathology amendments occurred in 3.7% of cases and a clinical trial was identified in 2.6%. There was no association between patient or disease presentation with the tumor board outcomes. There was a slight decrease in number of patients discussed per session, from 10.0 to 8.2 (p < 0.001) when the TB transitioned to a virtual format during the COVID-19 pandemic but all other factors remained unchanged.
conclusionNEN-TB relies heavily on image review, can impact significant treatment changes in patients with rare tumors like NENs, and was not affected by the switch to a virtual format. Finally, none of the examined factors were predictive of the tumor board recommendations.
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.