ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2026
Impacts of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Meeting Presentation in a Clinical Quality Registry.
Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 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
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer is a heterogeneous and complex disease requiring multidisciplinary input for optimal management planning, with guidelines recommending that all patients be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting. Multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) discussion aims to enhance evidence-based management, improve treatment access, and optimize complex management plans. Methods: We aimed to assess the extent and impacts of MDM discussion in patients with lung cancer described by the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry from 2011 to 2023 in Victoria, Australia. We identified MDM-presented and nonpresented patients and assessed the impacts of MDM presentation. OR and survival hazard ratios were assessed using Cox proportional regression analysis. Survival analysis was determined using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using landmark analysis and propensity score matching methods. Results: A total of 18,597 patients were included, of whom 67% had evidence of presentation to a lung cancer MDM, with MDM presentation increasing from 59.1% to 80.6% during the study period. MDM presentation was associated with higher levels of provision of guideline-concordant treatment in NSCLC (56.2% versus 44.5%, Conclusion: During the period of activity of the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry, MDM presentation increased from 59.1% to 80.6%. Management outcomes in MDM-presented patients identified multiple underserved cohorts and revealed considerable increases in treatment modalities and guideline-concordant treatment in NSCLC in this observational study, with an associated 12% improvement in survival advantage overall.
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.