ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2026
A survey among geriatricians on geriatric oncology and geriatric surgical oncology models in Europe.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide an up-to-date overview of geriatricians' involvement in oncological and onco-surgical care for older adults across Europe.
methodsAn anonymous 35-item online survey was distributed via (inter)national societies between 10 April and 23 May 2025. The responses were summarized, and associations between comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) outputs, participation in oncological multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, and involvement in treatment decision-making were explored.
resultsA total of 2160 responses were received from 37 countries. Further analysis included 395 geriatrician/internal medicine respondents with > 25% survey completion from 34 countries. Of them, 19% reported no formal geriatric oncology model; the most common approaches were referral based on clinical judgment (43%) and a two-step pathway (42%). Frailty screening-guided referral occurred in 63%, with the G8 (50%) and Clinical Frailty Scale (32%) being the most commonly used. Among respondents, 30% reported routine MDT attendance, and 20% reported involvement in treatment decisions. In exploratory analyses, routine MDT participation was associated with active treatment decision-making (aOR 6.01, 95% CI 3.08-11.7), CGA-based recommendations addressing both geriatric domains and oncological treatment (aOR 5.81, 95% CI 3.16-10.7), and positive feedback from oncology/surgery teams (aOR 3.75, 95% CI 1.96-7.14; all p < 0.001). Only 39% of respondents were involved in inpatient surgical oncology care, with liaison models predominating (37%).
conclusionGeriatric oncology and geriatric surgical oncology remain unevenly implemented across Europe. Standardized pathways, training, and MDT integration may improve equity of care for older adults with cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42663808What 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.