ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Current landscape and challenges of neuro-oncological molecular tumor boards in Germany: results of a nationwide follow-up survey.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2022, a nationwide survey revealed heterogeneity and limited standardization in the implementation of molecular tumor boards (MTBs) for neuro-oncology in Germany. This follow-up study aimed to assess recent developments, structural changes, and the integration of digital tools.
methodsAn anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to approximately 445 members of the German Neuro-Oncology Working Group (NOA). Items focused on MTB availability, frequency, tumor inclusion, recommendation pathways, implementation, digital infrastructure, and perceived barriers.
results35 responses were collected. Respondents were primarily experienced neurosurgeons and neurologists working in certified university centers. Most were based in Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine–Westphalia, and Berlin. The number of in-house MTBs increased, with most boards meeting weekly. A broader range of tumor entities—including lower-grade gliomas—and earlier therapy lines are increasingly discussed. Recommendations were issued in fewer than half of cases, and over 30% of proposed therapies were implemented, though often hindered by lack of reimbursement. Virtual tumor boards (50%) and structured databases (40%) are increasingly used, and around 5% of patients are enrolled into national studies. Follow-up strategies and feedback loops remain inconsistent across centers.
conclusionsMTBs have become more established in neuro-oncology care, reflecting a growing commitment to precision medicine. However, implementation of recommendations remains limited, often constrained by lack of actionable targets, challenges accessing studies or off-label treatments. To fully realize the potential of MTBs, standardized integration pathways, greater harmonization, broader study offerings, and structured evaluation systems are needed.
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.