ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
The initiation of the second-step intradisciplinary tumor board discussion and its impact on treatment decision. Retrospective data analysis of 12 years' experience in a tertiary oncology center.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Could the administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors be discontinued after 2 years of application? Pros and cons for the development of a national guideline.]Magyar onkologia · 2026Review
- Metachronous triple primary malignancies: a case report of NGS-guided multidisciplinary management and literature review.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are generally accepted forums for the quality of cancer care, however, there is an ongoing discussion about the substantial role of MDTs in reaching optimal treatment decisions. In our tertiary oncology center, a second-step intradisciplinary seu oncotherapy tumor board (OTT) discussion system was introduced to increase the adherence of MDT's decision making with the knowledge of patients' preference and tolerance, and to partially relieve MDT's overwork in the purely adjuvant and the palliative treatment settings. Over the real-world tumor board data elaboration, the primary aim of this observational study was to present the impact of OTT meetings on treatment decisions. Methods: The data of 33,056 cases of 27,227 patients were retrospectively analyzed with using a regular expression-based word search algorithm. Subsequent modifications of OTT decisions were defined as "minor", when only some additional suggestions were introduced, "moderate" when the treatment items were significantly modified, and "major" when the direction of the treatment was fully transformed. Results: During the 12-year observation period (2007-2019) the number of patients and case discussions, average age of the patients, percentage of sophisticated treatment methods, and the number of treatment lines/decisions made for the same patient had been continuously increased. The average percentage of minor, moderate and major modifications were 2.28, 6.4 and 8.92%, respectively, implying a remarkably high modification rate of the primary recommendations. Conclusion: Considering the growing complexity and multiplicity of oncology care, regular OTT board meetings can increase the accuracy of MDT's work and treatment decisions without any overwork of the related disciplines and can also serve as an additive/alternative teamwork forum in the adjuvant, multiple line, and palliative care settings.
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.