ArticleBJS open2024
Inter-rater variability in multidisciplinary team meetings of oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer on staging, resectability and treatment recommendation: national retrospective multicentre study.
Article in BJS open, 2024. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are differences in oesophageal cancer care across Sweden. According to national guidelines, all patients should be offered equal care, planned and administrated by regional multidisciplinary team meetings. The aim of the study was to investigate differences between regional multidisciplinary team meetings in Sweden regarding clinical staging and treatment recommendations for oesophageal cancer patients.
methodsAll six Swedish regional multidisciplinary teams were each invited to retrospectively include ten consecutive oesophageal cancer cases. After anonymization, radiological investigations were presented, along with the original case-specific medical history, anew at the participating regional multidisciplinary team meetings. Estimation of clinical tumour node metastasis (TNM) classification and treatment recommendation (curative, palliative or best supportive care) were compared between multidisciplinary team meetings as well as with original assessments.
resultsFive multidisciplinary teams participated and contributed a total of 50 cases presented to each multidisciplinary team. In estimations of cT-stage, the multidisciplinary teams were in total agreement in only eight of 50 cases (16%). For cN-stage, total agreement was seen in 17 of 50 cases (34%) and for cM-stage there was agreement in 34 cases (68%). For cT-stage, the overall summarized κ value was 0.57. For N-stage and M-stage the κ values were 0.66 and 0.78 respectively. Differences in appraisal were not associated with usage of positron emission tomography-computed tomography. In 15 of 50 cases (30%) the multidisciplinary teams disagreed on curative or palliative treatment.
conclusionThe study shows differences in assessment of clinical TNM classification and treatment recommendations made at regional multidisciplinary team meetings. Increased interrater agreement on clinical TNM classification and management plans are essential to achieve more equal care for oesophageal cancer patients in Sweden.
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.