ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team collaboration in focal pancreatic lesion management: a systematic review.
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe diagnosis and management of focal pancreatic lesions is complex with diagnostic uncertainty and inconsistent guidelines. While multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have emerged as the standard of care to navigate this challenge, a comprehensive synthesis of their impact is absent from literature. This systematic review aims to consolidate evidence on how formal MDT-led care influences diagnostic accuracy, treatment decisions and timelines, guideline compliance, and clinical outcomes for this diverse patient population.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL through 14 April 2025 to identify studies evaluating the impact of MDTs on the management of focal pancreatic lesions. Three independent reviewers performed screening and data extraction, with conflicts resolved by a fourth reviewer.
resultsOur systematic review included 20 studies encompassing 14,366 patients. MDT review led to a change in primary diagnosis in 17.6% to 37.9% of cases and altered clinical stage or resectability assessment in 18.7% to 31.5% of patients following expert re-evaluation of imaging and pathology. Consequently, the initial management plan was modified in 18% to 72% of cases. This consistently improved patient selection, with increased use of neoadjuvant therapy, higher rates of guideline-concordant care and clinical trial enrollment, and more frequent referral to palliative care, significantly reducing non-therapeutic laparotomies. While MDT management was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of achieving a complete (R0) surgical resection (OR 5.47), its impact on overall survival was inconsistent across the reviewed literature.
conclusionThis systematic review provides substantial evidence that MDT-led care fundamentally improves the management of focal pancreatic lesions. MDT implementation consistently enhanced diagnostic accuracy, optimized treatment planning, and increased guideline-concordant care, leading to improved surgical outcomes. While the evidence is largely retrospective, these benefits strongly support the MDT as an indispensable standard of care. Future research should focus on optimizing the MDT model's structure, quality, and cost-effectiveness to maximize patient benefit globally.
trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD420251142032).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42257900What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.