ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Assessment of Professional Practices in the Care Pathway of Patients with Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancer in a University Hospital.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recurrence of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Did the COVID-19 Pandemic Have an Impact on Therapeutic Management?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Alignment Between Treatment Decision and Treatment Administration for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Upper Aerodigestive Tract Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe main objective of this study was to evaluate the alignment between treatment decisions made during multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) and the treatments received by patients with upper aerodigestive tract cancers. The secondary objective was to identify factors influencing potential discrepancies.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center study was conducted at a tertiary referral center and included 147 patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract. Patients were divided into two groups based on the match between MTM-decided and actual treatments. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess factors independently associated with discrepancies.
resultsOut of 147 patients, 28 (19%) received treatment that did not align with MTM decisions. Among these, eight died before treatment, one patient refused care, five received supportive care, five patients underwent surgery, three received radiotherapy alone, one patient underwent surgery and adjuvant radiochemotherapy, one patient underwent surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy alone, three patients received radiochemotherapy, and one patient received palliative chemotherapy. Independent significant factors associated with non-concordance included poor performance status (PS) and treatment not received at a tertiary reference center. Treatment shifts mainly involved downgrading from curative to palliative care.
conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of patient health status in determining deviations from MTM decisions. Further efforts should focus on improving the integration of patient comorbidities and health status into MTM decision-making to optimize care delivery.
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.