ArticleBMC cancer2024
Impact of multidisciplinary team discrepancies on comparative lung cancer outcome analyses and treatment equality.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Large Reasoning Models Versus Human Multidisciplinary Teams in Lung Cancer Decision-Making: Real-World Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Resectability and Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy in Stage II-III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A European Case-Vignette Survey.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- [Current Status of Multidisciplinary Team Consultation for Lung Cancer and Prospects under the Empowerment of Medical Large Models].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Review
- Multidisciplinary team meetings for lung cancer in the Nordic countries: results from a Nordic survey.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Communication Processes and Priorities in Medical Aid in Dying Conversations: A Cross-Sectional Qualitative Study of Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinicians.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Association between treatment decisions and survival outcomes in lung cancer patients under a multidisciplinary team model: the impact of MDT-recommended treatment plans on treatment completion rates, survival time, and treatment conversion.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Prospective multi-centre evaluation of guideline-based artificial intelligence to streamline multidisciplinary tumour board.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The Impact of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on the Survival of Stage IV NSCLC Patients.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Discrepancies in regional lung cancer multidisciplinary team decisions can be reduced through national consensus meetings.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the consistency of lung cancer case assessments across multidisciplinary team (MDT) sites in Denmark. The goal was to appraise the comparability of outcomes between hospitals in a real-world context.
methodsWe prepared sixty comprehensive, fictitious lung cancer case stories, complete with images, and distributed them to the four primary lung cancer MDT conferences in Denmark. These cases were subsequently evaluated as had they been ordinary patients during regular MDT meetings. We compared the conclusions on assigned TNM stage and proposed treatment intent using Kappa statistics.
resultsThe consensus on assigned stage (Stages IA-B, IIA-B, IIIA-B, IV, and undetermined) corresponded to a Fleiss' Kappa-value of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52-0.71). The overall assessment of curability, categorized as Curable, Incurable, and Undetermined, corresponded to a Kappa-value of 0.72 (CI: 0.61-0.84). However, for cases unanimously judged by all MDT sites to be Stage III, the concordance on treatment intent was poor, with an agreement coefficient of only 0.32 (95% CI: -0.27-0.97).
conclusionIn detail, the level of agreement on assigned stages was less than desired. In consequence, comparative analyses of treatment results from different hospitals or centres may be prone to bias caused by systematic differences in stage assessment or intent of treatment. The least consensus was observed for cases in Stage III, indicating a need for quality improvement efforts to ensure a higher degree of consistency in MDT decisions.
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.