Multidisciplinary tumor boards in Germany: Structures, processes, and implications for equity and public health governance
Clicks: 3
ID: 319963
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
0.6
/100
3 views
1 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #82 of 93 articles by views in turkish journal of public health
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are an important part of good cancer care. They facilitate interdisciplinary discourse regarding diagnostic results and therapeutic alternatives, thereby fostering personalized and evidence-based decision-making. In Germany, MTBs are required in certified cancer centers, but there is limited knowledge regarding their structures and processes in various settings, especially outside accredited institutions. A nationwide anonymous online survey was conducted among physicians involved in the care of patients with hematological and/or oncological diseases between September 2021 and January 2022. The questionnaire, developed through expert review and pilot testing, captured structural and procedural characteristics of MTBs, participation patterns, and quality-related aspects. Descriptive analyses were performed. A total of 612 responses were included in the analysis. Most of the MTBs were organized by hospitals, with 49% conducted in a hybrid or fully virtual format. Considerable heterogeneity was observed regarding frequency, duration, and participant composition compared to noncertified centers. In MTBs in noncertified centers, it was more frequently reported that certain specialties were often or permanently not represented in the MTBs. Ambulatory oncologists were frequently involved, indicating growing cross-sector collaboration. The study highlights substantial structural diversity among MTBs in Germany and underscores differences between certified and noncertified settings. In addition to their clinical role, MTBs—especially newer molecular tumor boards—are an important link between precision oncology and public health governance. Making sure that everyone has equal access to molecular diagnostics and adding MTB data to population-based cancer registries could improve public health monitoring and cancer policy based on evidence.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7167744046
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Kerstin Hermes-Moll, Anna Kühne, Jochen Heymanns, Mathias Bertram, Ulrike Mönnighoff, Vitali Heidt, Holger Gothe |
| Journal | turkish journal of public health |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1007/s10389-026-02807-y
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.