ArticleBMC cancer2026
The impact of multidisciplinary team on surgical procedure and complications in duodenal tumor patients.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLocal resection (LR) offers comparable prognosis to pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and low-grade malignant duodenal tumors (DT). However, the LR rate remains low due to the difficulty in determining appropriate indications. This study aims to assess the impact of multidisciplinary team (MDT) on surgical procedure (SP) and complications in DT.
methodsClinical data from Centers A and B between 2019 and 2023 were analyzed. Utilizing the unique setting of Center A which operated both MDT and single-discipline treatment (SDT) pathways in parallel, we compared three cohorts: A-MDT, A-SDT, and B-SDT (from Center B). Following this comparison, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed, collapsing the groups into MDT and SDT categories to isolate its effect on outcomes.
resultsA total of 66 patients were included in study, with 22 patients in each group. The proportion of patients undergoing LR was 91% in A-MDT, 68% in A-SDT, and 55% in B-SDT, showing a statistical difference (P = 0.027). Furthermore, statistical differences were observed in length of hospital stay, length of postoperative hospitalization, duration of surgery, hemorrhage, bowel obstruction, major adverse events, Clavien-Dindo classification, and comprehensive complication index (P < 0.05). These results indicate that the MDT was superior to SDT. However, overall survival did not differ (P > 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that MDT was an independent predictive factor for lower comprehensive complication index (P = 0.008, OR = 5.13, 95% CI [1.59–18.61]), and SDT was an independent risk factor for selecting LR (P = 0.047, OR = 0.2, 95% CI [0.03–0.83]). Further analysis showed significantly higher rates of low-tension magnetic resonance imaging (Lt-MRI), endoscopic procedures involving the surgeon, and endoscopic local excisional biopsies in A-MDT, compared with A-SDT and B-SDT.
conclusionThe MDT enhances the selection of LR for patients with DT, reduces the incidence and severity of complications and accelerates patient recovery, with no impact on overall survival.
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.