Observational studyJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2025
Adherence to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations and Its Association with Survival: A Retrospective Observational Study of Colorectal Cancer Patients.
Observational study in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers 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
- 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
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 (MTBs) intend to increase the quality of cancer care. Research on the association of adherence to MTB recommendations with survival is limited. This study aims to determine the impact of adherence to MTB recommendations on survival in colorectal cancer patients.
methodsThis is a retrospective, observational study including patients diagnosed between 01.01.2014 and 31.12.2018. Electronic health records were reviewed to determine the adherence. Study endpoints were adherence rate, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Follow-up was performed until 12.12.2023.
resultsThere was a significant difference in DFS (median DFS: 79 months [95% CI, 73-89] vs 22 months [95% CI, 17-87]) and OS (median OS: 78 months [95% CI, 75-86] vs 65 months [95% CI, 28-NR]) between the adherent group (n=406) versus the non-adherent group (n=52) (log-rank test, p<0.05). Performance status, stage and non-adherence were independent predictors of survival in the multivariate analysis (p<0.05 for all). The most common reason for non-adherence was patient preference (n=23).
conclusionWhile MTBs have become an indispensable part of clinical practice, adherence to MTB recommendations was crucial to achieve survival benefit in this study. Patient preference should be prospectively analyzed from a patient and caregiver perspective in future studies.
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.