ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2025
Discrepancies in regional lung cancer multidisciplinary team decisions can be reduced through national consensus meetings.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- User perceptions of machine learning models as decision support for colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team conferences (AID-SIM-2): a qualitative simulation study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 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
- EvoMDT: a self-evolving multi-agent system for structured clinical decision-making in multi-cancer.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Therapeutic potential and mechanisms of rehabilitation interventions in preventing cancer metastasis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are a gold standard in lung cancer care. A recent study identified discrepancies in staging and treatment recommendations among Danish lung cancer MDTs based on fictitious cases. This short report presents the results from a national lung cancer MDT meeting, which reevaluated these difficult cases.
methodFifteen difficult cases were reevaluated by 52 lung cancer specialists from across Denmark, representing oncology, pulmonology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and thoracic surgery. Participants were grouped together with their usual MDT colleagues. Cases were presented in a plenary session, and participants discussed cases staging, treatment intent, and treatment options as they would in a regular MDT with their colleagues. If disagreement between the individual MDT groups occurred, the case was further discussed in plenum. Descriptive statistics were used to assess agreement.
resultsComplete agreement on tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging, treatment intent, and recommended treatment was reached in three cases (20%). Agreement on stage was reached in 10 cases (67%). Discrepancies regarding stage arose from debates regarding multifocal versus synchronous lung cancers, degree of lymph node involvement and the malignancy status of pleural fluid. Differences in treatment recommendations were mainly due to insufficient information about performance status.
interpretationStaging and treatment intent discrepancies among Danish lung cancer MDTs were considerably reduced when complex cases were discussed in a national plenary session. However, for difficult lung cancer cases, MDTs recommend different treatment, highlighting the need for a national MDT meeting for a select group of lung cancer patients.
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.