ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Heterogeneity of treatment preferences in the absence of guideline recommendations - a case vignette study in colorectal cancer tumor boards in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor the treatment of colorectal cancer, the S3-Guideline of the German Guideline Program in Oncology supports clinical decision-making. Centers certified by the German Cancer Society are required to implement the guideline recommendations as comprehensively as possible. When guidelines provide insufficient or ambiguous evidence, heterogeneity of treatment preferences is likely to emerge across individual centers. The aim of this study is to describe the preferences of the centers' tumor boards for treatment decisions when clear, evidence-based guideline recommendations are lacking.
methodsTo investigate the tumor boards' preferences for different treatment options, an anonymous online survey was conducted among 314 certified colorectal cancer centers. The survey included seven visceral oncological and nine visceral surgical case vignettes. Centers were asked to discuss the vignettes in the tumor board or, alternatively, delegate them to an appropriate physician representatively speaking for the tumor board. The responses were analyzed descriptively and normalized entropy estimates (NE) were calculated for each vignette.
resultsA total of 123 centers (39%) responded to the survey. For oncological cases without clear guideline recommendations, substantial heterogeneity (NE: 0.39-0.71) in treatment preferences was observed. For instance, opinions varied widely for UICC II pT4a colon cancer. In this situation, 28% of centers would prefer fluoropyrimidine monotherapy, 39% oxaliplatin-based combination therapy and 33% no adjuvant chemotherapy at all. Surgical vignettes showed a preference for laparoscopic and robotic approaches, with variations based on tumor location (NE: 0.46-0.67). Importantly, in case of a clear evidence-based guideline recommendation, treatment preferences did not differ considerably between hospital sites.
conclusionsIn prototypical case vignettes without evidence-based guideline recommendations, pronounced heterogeneity of treatment preferences between centers was found. Reconstructing these treatment preferences can contribute to enhancing the quality of evidence derived from observational studies. This seems especially important in the context of clinical questions that cannot be assessed in randomized trials; clinical routine data represent an adequate resource for evidence generation in these scenarios.
trial registrationAfter conducting this study, the main study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) on October 4, 2024 under study No. DRKS00034650.
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.