ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2024
Evidence-based cancer care: assessing guideline adherence of multidisciplinary tumor board recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer in a non-academic medical center.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Large language models for breast cancer treatment planning: a blinded real-world evaluation of DeepSeek, ChatGPT, and oncologist recommendations.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMultidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB) are associated with improved outcomes. Yet, most patients in Western countries receive cancer care at non-academic medical centers. Guideline adherence of MTB recommendations in non-academic medical centers as well as factors contributing to non-adherence remain largely unexplored.
methodsThis retrospective study followed the STROBE recommendations. All cases discussed at the MTB of the Landesklinikum Baden-Moedling, Austria, were eligible for inclusion. Guideline non-adherence was assessed by two reviewers independently using the AWMF S3 guidelines. Factors associated with guideline non-adherence were investigated using multivariable ordinal regression.
resultsIn total, 579 patients were included in the final analysis: 486 were female (83.9%) and 93 were male (16.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 60-80). Most had breast cancer (n = 451; 77.9%), while 128 had colorectal cancer (22.1%). Complete adherence to guidelines was observed in 453 patients (78.2%), major deviations in 60 (10.4%), and minor deviations in 66 (11.4%) patients. Non-adherence was primarily due to patient preferences (n = 24; 40.0%), lack of surgical treatment recommendation (n = 24; 40.0%), and comorbidities (n = 9; 15.0%). After adjusting for relevant variables, predictors of non-adherence included older age at diagnosis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04), colorectal cancer (OR 3.84, 95% CI 1.99-7.42), higher ECOG status (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.18-2.16), and a more recent MTB conference (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.41).
conclusionOverall, guideline adherence was high for colorectal and breast cancer and comparable to results from academic medical centers. However, results need to be confirmed in other tumor entities.
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.