Inter-Center Agreement in Sarcoma Treatment Recommendations
Author Information
Author(s): Roohani Siyer, Handtke Jolina, Hummedah Kamal, Albertsmeier Markus, Andreou Dimosthenis, Apostolidis Leonidas, Augustin Marinela, Bauer Sebastian, Billner Moritz, Bösch Florian, Deinzer Christoph K. W., Deventer Niklas, Duprée Anna, Eckert Franziska, Engel Lars, Fechner Katja, Fritzsche Hagen, Gaidzik Verena, Ghani Saeed, Grützmann Robert, Guder Wiebke K., Hamacher Rainer, Hecker Judith S., Hendricks Anne, Hillmann Axel, Houben Philipp, Hübner Georg, Ivanyi Philipp, Jentsch Christina, Jordan Maren, Kappl Peter, Kaths Moritz, Kessler Torsten, Kirchberg Johanna, Knebel Carolin, Krempien Robert, Lehner Burkhard, Lenze Ulrich, Lindner Lars H., Lörsch Alisa Martina, Maguire Nadia, Müller Sophie, Piso Pompiliu, Potkrajcic Vlatko, Reichardt Peter, Richter Stephan, Schewe Simone, Schiffmann Lars M., Scholten Felicitas, Striefler Jana Käthe, Schwarzbach Matthias, Seidensaal Katharina, Semrau Sabine, Szkandera Joanna, Szuszies Christoph J., Timmermann Beate, Tuscherer Armin, Wiegering Armin, Winkelmann Moritz T., Kaul David, Jakob Jens
Primary Institution: Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Hypothesis
How consistent are treatment recommendations for localized soft tissue sarcoma across different German-speaking sarcoma centers?
Conclusion
The study found low inter-center agreement in treatment recommendations for soft tissue sarcoma, indicating significant variability in treatment standards.
Supporting Evidence
- The study included nearly all tertiary sarcoma centers in German-speaking countries, affirming its strong external validity.
- High intra-center consensus was observed despite low inter-center agreement.
- Variability in treatment recommendations reflects the need for standardized care in sarcoma management.
Takeaway
Doctors in different hospitals sometimes suggest very different treatments for the same type of cancer, which can be confusing. This study shows that even though doctors agree a lot within their own teams, they don't always agree with other teams.
Methodology
A cross-sectional case-based survey study presenting 5 anonymized patient cases to multidisciplinary tumor boards at 21 centers.
Potential Biases
Participants were aware of the study, which may have influenced their decision-making.
Limitations
The study's small sample size of five cases limits the robustness of the findings, and the survey tool used was not validated.
Participant Demographics
The study included 21 tertiary sarcoma centers from Germany and Austria.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website