SynthesisLa Radiologia medica2026
Value addition by subspecialty trained radiologists in multidisciplinary tumor boards for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in La Radiologia medica, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a systematic review assessing the role of subspecialty radiologist in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) focused on pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and the impact on patient outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid), and Web of Science searched until August 31, 2023, for studies including radiology review in PDAC MDT. Data extraction, risk of bias, and applicability assessment were performed by two authors. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
resultsTen studies (four retrospective, six prospective, and four multi-center vs. six single center), including 2,067 patients, met inclusion criteria in a pool of 13,043 studies. Three studies including 977 patients demonstrated succinct changes in patient management (average estimate 0.53 (95% CI 0.50-0.56)) after a radiology review at the MDT. A random-effects meta-analysis of these studies show that approximately 44% of patients had their treatment plans changed after a meeting at the MDT that included a subspecialty trained radiologist, but there is a large range of uncertainty (18%-74%) due to differences in the studies' groups, what they considered a "change" and local practices. Two studies highlighted an important nuance: while MDT input is valuable, the interpretations can vary between teams or even within the same team over time, reflecting the complex nature of PDAC. None of the studies showed a statistically significant survival advantage solely from MDT involvement, likely because overall survival depends on many downstream factors.
conclusionsThe presence of radiology review in the setting of multidisciplinary team meetings provides crucial information, leading to management changes. Future studies could explore advanced imaging modalities such as PET-MRI and establish the impact of intra/interobserver variability within the multidisciplinary team. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/APPLICATION: This work highlights the ongoing involvement of subspecialty trained radiologists in the multidisciplinary team for PDAC, and it significantly influences clinical decisions. Applicability concerns exist due to a potential lack of resources for robust MDT initiatives outside of tertiary centers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41166033What 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.