ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
Actionable diagnostic delay in primary malignant bone tumors: a trigger-to-action framework for first-contact clinicians.
Review in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Primary malignant bone tumors may initially resemble common musculoskeletal conditions, creating uncertainty about when first-contact clinicians should escalate care. This narrative review integrates selected guidelines, diagnostic-pathway studies, and imaging and biopsy literature to translate established principles into practical decisions before specialist referral. We propose actionable diagnostic delay as a descriptive, unvalidated framework: the potentially avoidable interval between a documented clinical trigger for escalation and initiation of the corresponding action. It complements, rather than replaces, established patient, diagnostic, referral, and treatment intervals. Concerning symptom trajectories, examination findings, aggressive or indeterminate imaging, and clinical-imaging-pathology discordance guide reassessment, imaging, referral, or coordinated biopsy. Plain radiographs are the first imaging step; persistent clinical suspicion despite normal radiographs warrants MRI or specialist referral. Referral should not await MRI when access is limited. A 2-4-week reassessment window is proposed only for mild, stable, low-suspicion presentations with adequate radiographs showing no suspicious or indeterminate lesion and is not an evidence-validated waiting period. Suspected fracture or acute neurological compromise requires emergency assessment. Metastatic carcinoma and myeloma are considered in parallel in the appropriate clinical context, while solitary or atypical aggressive lesions require a sarcoma-safe diagnostic pathway. Contemporary biopsy evidence supports specialist planning and radiology-pathology correlation, but diagnostic accuracy varies with case mix and sampling. Associations between diagnostic intervals and survival remain inconsistent and vulnerable to confounding by tumor biology. The framework therefore prioritizes diagnostic and procedural safety rather than a presumed survival benefit. Its performance, referral burden, and applicability across healthcare systems require prospective evaluation.
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.