ArticleEcancermedicalscience2026
Profiling of tumour board characteristics and functioning for cancer care under hospitals registered under National Cancer Registry Programme in India.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) plays an important role in cancer care by collaborating specialist from various disciplines to discuss diagnosis, treatment plan and patient management. Despite its importance, a systematic evaluations of tumour board in hospital registered under hospital-based cancer registries (HBCRs) is limited. This study aims to assess the characteristics, composition and functioning of tumour board in these hospital to identify gaps and challenges to improve the tumour board operations. Methods: The study was conducted from October 1st to 31st 2024 using cross sectional design among hospital under HBCR. A set of structured questionnaires was administered using Google Form, which consists of both qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Descriptive statistics and chi-square test were used to analyze the quantitative data, while manual thematic analysis was carried out to analyze the qualitative responses. Result: Of 229 hospitals, only 172 (75%) responded. Among them, 137 (79.7%) reported having a functional tumour board. Most of the tumour boards were established in tertiary care centres (45.3%) and medical colleges (43.6%). In-person meeting (73.7%) was the most common with 24.8% following a hybrid model. Only 5.1% of hospitals engaged in cross-hospital case discussions; 16.8% maintained electronic medical record notes; and 48.2% lacked any follow-up mechanisms to track tumour board recommendations and outcomes. Involvement of palliative care specialists and other supportive paramedical health professionals was low. In addition to that, thematic analysis also identified that there was inadequate documentation, inconsistent follow-up and limited tumour board participation. Conclusion: Although MTBs are established widely in most of the HBCR-affiliated hospitals, variation exist in structure, composition and functionality. Strengthening MTBs through standardised protocol, participation of diverse specialities, increased cross-hospital collaboration, virtual tumour boards and proper documentation practices through electronic data recording systems could enhance the decision making and cancer care outcomes.
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.