ReviewFrontiers in oncology2023
Multidisciplinary tumor board for head and neck cancer from the perspective of medical oncologists-optimizing its effectiveness.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal treatments for patients with locally advanced synchronous esophageal and head and neck cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- The initiation of the second-step intradisciplinary tumor board discussion and its impact on treatment decision. Retrospective data analysis of 12 years' experience in a tertiary oncology center.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Patient management with Head and Neck tumors-A nationwide data collection in oral and maxillofacial surgery.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Nutrition in HNSCC: is it a matter for oncologists? The role of multidisciplinary team-a narrative literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Multidisciplinary tumor boards in oral cavity cancer: survival effect due to balancing guideline adherence and treatment delays.Frontiers in oral health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary, and patient characteristics vary. Therefore, a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) is essential in clinical practice. This review provides insights into the benefits and tips for improving head and neck MTB from the perspective of medical oncologists. The MTB is a platform to discuss the optimal application of the standard of care to each case, reach a consensus, and establish a recommendation to support patients' decision-making. A productive and educational MTB also provides an opportunity to share information on ongoing clinical trials with physicians. Case presentations should be systematic to discuss all new and challenging cases before, during, and after the treatment. Human resource development, particularly of head and neck medical oncologists, is crucial. The type of multidisciplinary network between medical staff and the extent of patient intervention differs among MTB teams. Subsequently, a virtual MTB can establish a medical network between institutions that will contribute to the equalization and centralization of head and neck oncologic care.
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.