ArticleCancers2025
Adherence to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tumour boards and their quality of structures, processes, and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundPatient management following a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) recommendation has become standard of care in oncology and aims to ensure optimization and personalization of patient care. To assess the impact of MTB recommendations in clinical practice, adherence to the recommended procedures needs to be evaluated. Within this retrospective case series, we examined adherence rates to recommendations formulated at multidisciplinary myeloma tumor boards (MMTB) held at our institution. Specifically, we analyzed how often recommendations involving diagnostic procedures, therapies, and enrollment into clinical trials recommended by the MMTB were implemented. In addition, factors leading to non-adherence were evaluated.
methodsWe reviewed all consecutive patient cases discussed at MMTBs held at the University Hospital of Bern, Switzerland, between 1 January and 31 December 2023. Adherence was assessed by systematically comparing all available clinical records with the recommendations formulated at the MMTBs.
resultsIn total, 218 patients were included in the study. Of all MMTB recommendations, 86% (n = 251) of all MMTB recommendations were followed. Of these, 84% (n = 244) were followed with complete adherence and 2% (n = 7) incompletely. All cases of non-implementation of MMTB recommendations concerning diagnostics or therapy were clinically justified. The main reason for non-adherence was patient decision. Other reasons included lack of cost coverage and relevant changes in the clinical scenario, including patient's death. In total, 36% (n = 104) of MMTB recommendations included clinical trial enrollment. However, study enrollment occurred only in 32% (n = 33) of the 104 cases. In 41% (n = 29) of the cases, justification for non-enrollment was documented in the clinical records. The most frequent reasons were patient decision, unmet inclusion criteria, delays in recruitment, lack of reimbursement, and changes in the clinical scenario.
conclusionsOur study showed an overall high level of adherence to MMTB recommendations for diagnostic procedures and therapy. However, only one third of recommendations for clinical trial enrollment were implemented, frequently due to patient decisions. Our results highlight the relevance of regular assessments of adherence rates to MTB recommendations and suggest that considering patient preferences in MTB discussions might minimize deviations.
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.