ReviewThe oncologist2026
Multidisciplinary clinics in cancer-models, metrics, and meaning: a review.
Review in The oncologist, 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
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Few studies have been published on the existing models of cancer multidisciplinary clinics (MDCs) and no studies have conclusively compared the implications of different MDC models. We aimed to characterize MDC structural elements and reported quality measures through a narrative review of cancer MDCs in the United States. Forty-one unique MDCs were examined (8 breast, 13 gastrointestinal [GI], 8 genitourinary [GU], 4 head and neck [HN], 3 lung, 5 other cancers). MDCs were most commonly weekly (19/41) and evaluated new patients (9/41). All breast and most GU (5/8) and lung (2/3) MDCs were asynchronous whereas all HN MDCs were synchronous. Interdisciplinary discussions most frequently preceded provider visits, except for HN and other cancer MDCs. Medical, radiation, and surgical oncology were almost always included across all MDCs. The 41 unique institutional MDCs were reported across 54 studies (10 breast, 17 GI, 13 GU, 4 HN, 4 lung, 6 other cancers). Outcome measures were investigated by 38/54 (70%) studies, of which 13 reported overall survival and 6 (46%) noted a statistically significant improvement with MDCs. All lung and approximately half of GI (7/17), breast (5/10), and HN (2/4) MDCs examined a process measure. Structure and balance measures were not as widely reported. Current understanding of MDCs is based on disparate reports with significant heterogeneity in MDC structures and reported outcomes. Further investigation is needed to better elucidate the impact of MDCs in cancer care outcomes across different cancer diagnoses.
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.