Multidisciplinary meeting for breast cancer care: EUSOMA recommendations for optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In breast cancer care multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) are fundamental. Recently, the increasing number of patients, the complexity of cancer treatments, the shortages of specialists, and constrained hospital budgets have underscored the urgency of optimizing MDM processes to ensure that every patient benefits from thorough and timely multidisciplinary evaluation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) set up a multidisciplinary working group of international experts to develop consensus-based recommendations to optimize MDM management. To obtain insights into the current state of MDM organization and management within Europe and elsewhere, the experts designed and conducted an international survey. RESULTS: Briefly, the survey showed that most centres held a weekly MDM, either in person, online or combining the modalities, which lasted for 1-2 h. Discussion times for each case varied with its complexity. Some differences emerged between European and non- European breast cancer centres. The recommendations for improving MDM management focused on: i) timing, venue, logistics, administrative support; ii) technologies/equipment; iii) documentation; iv) planning and preparation; v) structure; vi) minutes/reporting; and viii) other issues. CONCLUSION: Optimizing MDM ensures that each patient receives the most appropriate, guideline-aligned treatment, tailored to individual needs. With the present recommendations, EUSOMA wishes to support breast centres in improving and standardizing MDM management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".