ArticleThe oncologist2026
MyCODE: a prospective evaluation of lay-language molecular tumor board protocols in precision oncology.
Article in The oncologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- LLM-Generated Lay-Language Protocols for Molecular Tumor Board Patients: Evaluation of Quality and Clinical Usability.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMolecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) are a pillar of precision oncology, integrating results of extended molecular profiling into clinical care. Yet, their protocols are typically incomprehensible for patients. Systematic patient-facing communication has remained limited.
methodsIn the single-center study MyCODE, individually tailored lay-language MTB protocols were developed based on didactic and psychological principles and prospectively evaluated. Using questionnaires adapted and developed for this task, patients with cancer evaluated their individual protocols and overall experience. Treating physicians were surveyed separately.
resultsForty-three patients were enrolled, 33 (77%; 55% women; median age 65; patients with 10 different cancer entities) returned completed questionnaires. Of those, 82% shared the questionnaire with at least one additional person. Lay-language protocols were perceived as helpful (68% "very," 29% "rather"), well-structured (71% "very," 29% "rather"), and easily comprehensible (63% "very," 31% "rather") by most patients. 85% reported that the protocol improved their understanding of treatment decisions, and 94% perceived them as supportive even if the MTB failed to provide options for precision therapy. Additionally, 13 treating physicians received questionnaires, of which 9 were returned. Responding physicians rated the benefit for patients as high (44%) or very high (44%) and supportive (67%) or rather supportive (33%) for their personal work.
conclusionsProviding patients with lay-language MTB protocols is feasible, accepted, and valued even in the absence of therapeutic options. The MyCODE approach seems to enable patient empowerment and to support patients and physicians in shared decision-making in precision oncology.
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.