
==== Front
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer
1471-2407
BioMed Central London

39272048
12882
10.1186/s12885-024-12882-7
Research
Central nervous system pediatric multi-disciplinary tumor board: a single center experience
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1791-5085
Russo Rosellina rosellina.russo@policlinicogemelli.it

1
Verdolotti Tommaso 1
Perna Alessandro 1
Ruscelli Luigi 1
D’Abronzo Rosa 1
Romano Alberto 1
Ferrara Giuseppe 1
Parisi Davide 1
Infante Amato 1
Chiesa Silvia 1
Massimi Luca 25
Tamburrini Gianpiero 25
Ruggiero Antonio 35
Gessi Marco 45
Martucci Matia 1
Gaudino Simona 15
1 https://ror.org/00rg70c39 grid.411075.6 0000 0004 1760 4193 ARC Advanced Radiology Center (ARC), Department of Oncological Radiotherapy, and Hematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
2 https://ror.org/00rg70c39 grid.411075.6 0000 0004 1760 4193 Pediatric Neurosurgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
3 https://ror.org/00rg70c39 grid.411075.6 0000 0004 1760 4193 Pediatric Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
4 https://ror.org/00rg70c39 grid.411075.6 0000 0004 1760 4193 Neuropathology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
5 https://ror.org/03h7r5v07 grid.8142.f 0000 0001 0941 3192 Facoltà di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
13 9 2024
13 9 2024
2024
24 11462 5 2024
30 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

The Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB) is a collaborative platform involving specialists in oncology, surgery, radiology, pathology, and radiotherapy, and aims to optimize diagnostics and treatments. Despite MTB’s widespread benefits, limited literature addresses its application in pediatric neuro-oncology. After a literature revision on pediatric neuro-oncology MTB, our study describes our institute’s pediatric neuro-oncology MTB, focuses on evaluating its impact and the neuroradiologist’s role in patient-centric approaches, considering recent genetic insights into pediatric brain tumors.

Materials and methods

Literature Review concerning pediatric neuro-oncology MTB from January 2002 to June 2024. Clinical Data: retrospective study of all patient files presented in the pediatric neuro-oncology MTB (pnMTB) between 2019 and 2022. Statistical analysis was mainly carried out by directly comparing the absolute or relative values of the respective parameters examined; qualitative variables compared mainly with the chi-square test, quantitative variables mainly with the t-test.

Results

Literature Review: 7 papers encompass a multidisciplinary approach for the pediatric CNS tumors.

Clinical data

A total of 236 discussions were analyzed representing 107 patients. Median age was 14,3 years (range: 6 months – 17 years). The requests for case evaluations primarily came from the pediatric oncologists (83%) and neurosurgeons (14.8%), and they were mainly addressed to the neuroradiologists (70.3%). Proposals during pnMTB mainly involved imaging follow-up (47.8%) and management with chemotherapy (34.7%). Changes in patient treatment (CPT) occurred in 115 cases, and pediatric neuroradiologist intervention contributed to 72.4% of these changes.

Conclusion

Thanks to their multidisciplinarity, high number of cases discussed, and usual respect for their proposals, the pnMTB has made it possible to improve the coordination among specialties involved in patient management, to apply the recent protocols, and to exchange knowledge among teams managing pediatric CNS tumors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-024-12882-7.

Keywords

Multidisciplinary tumor board
Neuro-oncology
Neuroradiology
Pediatric, brain tumors
MRI
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcBackground

A Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB) is characterized as a collective of health-care professionals engaged in the discussion of the diagnosis and management of nearly all recent cancer cases, including updates on previous cases [1–5]. This assembly comprises physicians who are experts in different specialties as medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, radiology, and pathology. They convene with the primary objective of optimizing the patient’s diagnostic assessment, treatment strategy, and follow-up procedures, with a broader aim of enhancing the care provided to the community’s cancer patients through the exchange of insights [6–9].

Since 1987, when Gross initially outlined hospital tumor boards, the utilization of MTB meetings has progressively expanded in the management of both adult and pediatric cancer. These gatherings are now acknowledged as a fundamental component of oncology practice [1, 3, 4, 6, 10]. As scrutinized by various authors, the participation of radiologists in these sessions holds great significance. Given that all or most cases necessitate the assessment or re-evaluation of imaging within the context of known clinical history and treatment perspectives, direct dialogue between radiologists and clinicians facilitates the assignment of an appropriate level of suspicion for a given lesion. This method enhances comprehension of MR findings, improves communication and interpretation compared to written reports, and helps prevent potentially unnecessary and costly initiation of new therapies or procedures [2, 4, 6, 11]. Despite the numerous benefits associated with MTB meetings, there is limited literature on their application in neuro-oncology, particularly in pediatric cases [2, 3, 6], possibly due to the specific prerequisites in this field: neuroradiologists skilled in pediatric neuro-oncology imaging, pediatric oncologists, neurosurgeons experienced in pediatric tumors, and neuropathologists. However, it has been observed that the most successful survival outcomes in pediatric cancer patients result from multidisciplinary treatment approaches encompassing chemotherapy, surgery, radiation oncology, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. These approaches necessitate collaboration and communication among diverse specialists [3, 4]. This becomes particularly pertinent considering the revolutionary insights of the past two decades into the genetic drivers of pediatric brain tumors, driven by technological advances and innovative applications in molecular diagnostics [12]. Therefore, the interaction between highly specialized physicians focused on specific organs, aligned with current literature, and an individualized patient-centric approach, emerges as crucial. After a literature revision on pediatric neuro-oncology MTB (pnMTB), the objective of our study is to outline our pnMTB, assessing its impact on clinical management decisions and evaluating the role of the neuroradiologist.

Materials and methods

Literature review

Literature was searched from January 2002 to June 2024 in the medical database PubMed using the following MeSH terms: “ Pediatric brain tumor board”, “multidisciplinary approach pediatric brain tumor”, “multidisciplinary management pediatric brain tumor”, “multidisciplinary meeting on pediatric brain tumor”. More details on literatures review methods are available on Supplementary Materials.

Clinical data

A retrospective study was designed. We evaluated data from all the cases discussed at our pnMTB from September 2019 to January 2022. pnMTB takes place twice a month and are attended by neurosurgeons, neuroradiologists, neuropathologists, pediatric oncologists, and radiation oncologists specialized in pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors. From our records, we abstracted the following data: patient age and gender, final diagnosis, proposing physician, question(s) for MTB, specialist(s) to whom the question was addressed and if there was a change in patient treatment (CPT). A CPT was defined if the final decision after case discussion changed the management of the patient, in our case series the MTB decisions identifiable as CPT were: start chemotherapy, start radiotherapy, start chemotherapy + radiotherapy, stop treatment, surgery, neuroradiological follow-up. We assessed how many times a single patient was discussed. Lastly, from the radiology records of the pnMTB, we calculated the number Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) exams evaluated by the neuroradiologists, the time dedicated each case evaluation and how many exams were performed inside and outside our hospital. Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Statistical analysis

Patient characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. The normality of variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Quantitative variables (e.g., age, number of cases discussed, minutes per case) were presented as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range, based on distribution. Qualitative variables (e.g., sex, type of tumor, grade) underwent chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. Frequency distributions were expressed in absolute (n) and relative (percent) terms through summary tables. Graphical representations used pie charts. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 27.0, with significance set at p ≤ 0.05.

Results

Literature review

Regarding the Medline review, we identified 545 articles concerning pediatric brain tumor. Of these 109 were excluded due to duplication; in additional 229 were excluded because they did not align with the objectives of the review. Subsequently, 207 studies were initially selected, with further exclusion made for the presence of adult patients (n = 40), lack of full-text availability (n = 40) and insufficient information (120). Finally, only 7 papers encompass a multidisciplinary approach for the pediatric CNS tumors (see supplementary materials).

Clinical data

From September 2019 to January 2022 there were a total of 34 pediatric pnMTB meetings, with 236 cases discussed, representing 107 patients (56.1% female and 43.9% male). The mean patient age was 14.3 years (range: 6 months – 17 years). 54 patients were discussed only once, 20 twice, 12 three times, 7 four times, 9 five times, 3 six times, 1 seven times and 1 eight times, with an average number of discussions per patient of 2.2; the mean number of cases discussed per session was 7 (range: 4–11).

Brain tumors were classified according to WHO 2016 Central Nervous System classification [13]. Out of the 236 cases discussed, 53 were grouped as low grade gliomas (22.4%), 43 as high grade gliomas (18.2%), 30 as other high grade tumors (12.7%), 24 as germ cell tumors (10.1%), 19 as medulloblastomas (8%), 15 as other low grade tumors (6.3%), 9 as craniopharyngiomas (3.8%); finally, 35 cases discussed had other final diagnosis (14.8%) [Figure 1].

Fig. 1 The chart shows the frequency of the tumors discussed in our pnMTB, with gliomas representing the majority. However, the percentage slightly changes if considered relative to the total of patients (see Table 1)

Table 1 Summary table of the final diagnosis of the cases discussed at our pnMTB

Final diagnosis	Relative to total of discussions	Relative to total of patients	
n tot (236)	percentage	n tot (107)	percentage	
Low grade gliomas	53	22.4%	28	26%	
High grade gliomas	43	18.2%	13	12.1%	
Other high grade tumors	30	12.7%	7	6.5%	
Germ cell tumors	24	10.1%	9	8.4%	
Medulloblastoma	19	8%	11	10.2%	
Other low grade tumors	15	6.3%	8	7.4%	
Craniopharyngioma	9	3.8%	7	6.5%	
Ependymoma	8	3.3%	3	2.8%	
Other diagnosis	35	14.8%	19	17.7%	

The frequency and consequent percentage changed if considered in relation to the number of patients: specifically, 28 patients had low grade gliomas (26%), 13 high grade gliomas (12.1%), 11 medulloblastomas (10.2%), 8 other low grade tumors (7.4%), 9 germ cell tumors (8.4%), 3 ependymomas (2.8%), 7 other high grade tumors (6.5%), 7 craniopharyngiomas (6.5%) and 19 had other diagnosis (17.7%) [Table 1].

The requests for case evaluations came almost exclusively from the pediatric oncologists (83%) and neurosurgeons (14.8%), followed by radiotherapist (1.6%) and pathologist (0.4%); they were mainly addressed to the neuroradiologists (70.3%), followed by radiotherapist (9.3%), neurosurgeon (8%), pathologist (8%) and pediatric oncologist (4.2%). In 18.8% of cases the requests were addressed to at least two physicians [Table 2].

Table 2 Summary table of the role of physician in our pnMTB: shows instances of each physician acting as a requester (asking questions) and a respondent (answering questions)

Physician	Requester	Respondent	
n tot (236)	percentage	n tot (236)	percentage	
Pediatric oncologist	198	83.8%	10	4.2%	
Neurosurgeon	33	13.9%	19	8%	
Radiotherapist	4	1.6%	21	8.8%	
Pathologist	1	0.4%	19	8%	
Neuroradiologist	0	0%	167	70.7%	

The most submitted question was about the state of the disease, whose definition was based on the review of MRI images and on the discussion of clinical status, neurological examination and treatment regimen, according to the Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro Oncology (RAPNO) criteria [14, 15]; specifically, in 101 cases was requested if there was stability of the disease (42.7%), in 50 progression of the disease (21.1%), in 29 remission of the disease (12.2%). In the remaining, the request for case discussion was for diagnosis in 29 cases (12.2%), for the management with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in 19 cases (8%), for evaluation of surgical treatment in 8 (3.3%). In 2 cases there were other kinds of requests (0.8%) [Table 3].

Table 3 Summary table of the requests submitted at our pnMTB

Submitted questions	n tot (236)	percentage	
Stability of disease (SD)	101	42.7%	
Progression of disease (PD)	50	21.1%	
Remission of disease (RD)	29	12.2%	
Diagnosis	27	11.4%	
Chemotherapy and/or Radiotherapy	19	8%	
Biopsy/Surgery	8	3.3%	
Other	2	0.8%	

Consensus recommendations after pnMTB mainly included imaging follow-up (47.8%), followed by management with chemotherapy (34.7%), surgery (7.2%), combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy (5.9%), radiotherapy (4.6%), molecular study integration (2.9%), palliative care (1.2%), STUPP protocol (1.2%). In 2 cases no decision was made (0.8%) [Table 4].

Table 4 Summary table of the decisions made after pnMTB meeting

Consensus recommendation	n tot (236)	percentage	
Follow up	113	47.8%	
Chemotherapy	82	34.7%	
Surgery	17	7.2%	
Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy	14	5.9%	
Radiotherapy	11	4.6%	
Integration with other molecular studies	7	2.9%	
Palliative cure	3	1.2%	
STUPP protocol	3	1.2%	
No decision	2	0.8%	

There was a change in patient treatment (CPT) in 115 cases (48.7%); 72.4% of these was due to the neuroradiologist intervention. The rate of CPT was higher for ependymomas (75%), high grade glial tumors (65.1%), other high grade tumors (53.1%) and germinomas (58.3). Out of 236 MRI examined, only 11 exams (4.6%) were not performed in our institution. The time employed to review all MRI exams was 42.6 h overall, with an average of 10.7 min per case (range: 8–15 min). There was no correlation between tumor subtype and time to review.

Discussion

The Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB) is a multidisciplinary meeting that was born to maximize the customization of the clinical path of patients through the interaction of multiple hospital professionals, in response to increased possibilities in therapeutic and surgical management [1–4]. This approach has a significant impact both on the clinical management of the patient with a better therapeutic chance of response and on the educational activity: in fact, apart from participant physicians, also medical students, and house staff, if part of the institution, are a welcome addition to the meetings and enhance the educational qualities of the board [1, 6].

It is important to note, however, that our review of the literature, which focuses on the multidisciplinary approach to pediatric neuro-oncology patients, indicates limited literature on this topic. Nonetheless, all articles concur that a multidisciplinary approach has a significant impact on the therapeutic management of patients in both in high-income and developing countries. It has been observed that in high-income countries, the multidisciplinary approach is now integral to clinical practice in most hospital facilities.

For instance, in the United States Abdel-Baki MS et al. reported clinics treating pediatric brain tumors use a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and treatment, yielding excellent patient outcomes in early diagnosis, treatment, and patient/parent satisfaction (…). However, while evidence-based data on the benefits of multidisciplinary teams on patient outcomes is limited, it has to considered that satisfaction extends beyond early diagnosis and treatment to encompass parental knowledge of this approach [3].

Our center, thanks to a multidisciplinary approach to pediatric neuro-oncology patients, aligns with these positive outcomes, similar to other centers in high-income countries, such as Germany [16].

In particular, our center also communicates to all parents of pediatric neuro-oncology patients what emerges from multidisciplinary meetings and makes them participate in relation to the resulting multidisciplinary approach.

However, our experience differs from centers in low-middle income countries. In developing countries, late diagnosis and high treatment costs result in a high dropout rate among cancer patients. Nevertheless, in few areas where hospitals can ensure a multidisciplinary approach, improved patient management is observed, leading to better therapeutic outcomes, reduced treatment abandonment, and decreased patient loss to follow-up [17].

An important asset to tumor boards is the use of online platforms, facilitating the organization of tumor boards in hybrid mode. This approach to multidisciplinary meetings is beneficial in both low- and high-income countries. In low- and middle-income countries, such an approach (which may also include consultations with specialists from other countries) enables physicians to access real-time, high-level subspecialist expertise, providing a valuable platform for worldwide information exchange [18].

In high-income countries, including our center, online platforms for tumor boards were adopted as a solution during the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, our pnMTB continues to operate in a hybrid mode.

Our sessions involve the participation of neurosurgeons, neuropathologists, oncologists, radiotherapists, and two pediatric neuroradiologists, each with a decade of experience. Notably, pediatric neuroradiologists often engage in double readings, especially for difficult cases. Our analysis showed that 236 cases were discussed, corresponding to 107 patients; compared to adult MTB [2], a greater number of patients were discussed more than once (49%), due to a better prognosis of several pediatric brain cancers than those of adults [3, 4, 19, 20]. Notably, the average number of discussions per individual patient has been 2.2 times, with certain patients undergoing as many as 6–7 discussions. The frequencies of the histotypes discussed at our pnMTB are partially indicative of their prevalence in the general population. Notably, the histotypes most often brought into discussion include both low-grade and high-grade gliomas [19, 21].

A significant majority (95%) of the 236 pediatric MRI examinations were conducted within our institution. This high percentage is a result of the specialized requirements of pediatric MRI, frequently necessitate anesthesia —a service exclusively available in a few diagnostic centers, including ours. Consequently, the limited use of anesthesia in other hospitals contributes to a low number of reassessments, totaling 11 exams. This trend differs from the literature on adult patients, suggesting unique considerations for pediatric cases, particularly in the context of anesthesia requirements [2].

Regarding these 11 reassessments, it is noteworthy that there was a change in patient treatment (CPT) for all cases, either due to different diagnoses (7/11) or follow-up assessments (4/11) by the pnMTB neuroradiologist. Several authors have demonstrated the critical role of expert radiologist reviews in multidisciplinary team settings and their impact on patient management [2]. Our high figure is likely attributable to the fact that many exams were performed at other locations where the number of radiologists with expertise in neuro-oncology, especially pediatric neuro-oncology, is low. Additionally, external radiologists often lack the support of integrated clinical and therapeutic data. A practical example: a two-year-old girl who, following a seizure in a febrile episode, performs an MRI at another center documenting the presence of an area of altered signal in the periventricular deep white substance adjacent to the left frontal horn, hyperintense in FLAIR, without contrast enhancement, in which the suspicion of inflammatory injury was placed. The case was subsequently submitted to the pnMTB by our neurosurgeons with a request for characterization of the lesion, directed to neuroradiologists. The initial case review raised suspicion of glial infiltrative lesion without features of biological aggression. The pnMTB’s final decision was in favor of surgery intervention. During the subsequent MTB meeting, the case was re-discussed, and histological examination confirmed the suspicion of neuroradiologists, documenting it as a diffuse astrocytic glial neoplasm.

In our department, MRI reporting of the pediatric central nervous system cases is performed by a team of neuroradiologists. Therefore, it is rare that the pre-pnMTB diagnosis is changed by the neuroradiologist during the pnMTB. However, assessing tumor response to treatment in pediatric neuro-oncology remains highly challenging, especially with the advent of new therapies (such as antiangiogenic agents) and the necessity to use Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) criteria. This expertise is held by pediatric neuroradiologists, who are too few to assess all pediatric MRIs. Consequently, the impact of pediatric neuroradiologists during pnMTB is mainly related to CPT, where it was decisive in 72 of the 115 cases in which there was a change in therapeutic management (especially in the case of ependymomas 75%) this figure is not to be related to an initial misdiagnosis but rather to modification in tumor response assessments.

As reported by several authors also in our study it was observed that cases are more frequently presented by oncologists (88.3%) and to a lesser extent neurosurgeons (13.9%) with questions targeted at the disease status (76%) and radiological diagnosis (11%); these questions are mainly addressed to neuroradiologists (70%).

Data analysis showed that the most frequently shared pnMTB decisions were follow-up (47%) and chemotherapy treatment (34%), while less frequently surgical treatment (7%); it has also been observed that based on similar diagnostic questions similar clinical-therapeutic paths have been undertaken, thus denoting a substantial decision homogeneity of pnMTB.

Our study showed that the time devoted to the discussion of the individual case during pnMTB is 9–12 min and this data is not affected by the clinical question or by the tumor subtype.

However, it should be considered how the neuroradiologist, in the preparation of each patient before the pnMTB, must re-evaluate every single examination of the patient integrating the clinical-anamnestic data and sometimes re-elaboration of diffusion and/or perfusion sequences.

Based on the findings of the Snyder et al. study [22], the preparation of a case takes on average 9 min, and with an average number of 7 cases, it can be estimated that the preparatory effort for each neuroradiologist is about 60 min with an additional of 60 to 80 min per pnMTB session. The pediatric neuroradiologist has a central role in pnMTB since he must re-evaluate the examinations of all patients, regardless of the clinical question posed, in a large percentage of cases resulting in a change in CPT. It is therefore necessary that the figure of the dedicated neuroradiologist is an expert with a wide knowledge of the therapies used and the modifications that these determine on the MRI findings, knowing how to use advanced imaging techniques necessary for the differential diagnosis between progression and post-treatment modifications to be able to correctly determine the disease status and consequently to direct the best therapeutic path for the patient. In supplementary materials, Table 5 summarizes and compares the multidisciplinary approach between different countries [23–25].

This study has several limitations. First, our study conducted retrospectively at a single tertiary care academic medical center, may not offer a representative sample of cases for generalization to other nMTBs. Secondly, the absence of comprehensive clinical information about patient outcomes makes it difficult to establish a clear association between MTB discussions and improved prognosis for the patients discussed.

Conclusion

From our study emerges the importance of the role of Multidisciplinary Tumor Board in the management of the treatment path of the cancer patient, particularly of the pediatric one, which is turning on a personalized approach based on the interaction of many specialists. It is evident the impact that the expert radiologist has in the pediatric neuro-oncology MTB, having to re-evaluate these images to better determine the disease response and consequently indicate the best therapeutic management for the patient, although this has a cost in terms of the time and effort spent preparing for it.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, R.R. and S.G.; methodology, R.R and T.V.; software, A.I.; validation, S.G., A.R. and G.T.; formal analysis, M.M.,D.P.; resources, G.F. and M.G.; data curation, A.R. and R.DA; writing—original draft preparation, RR.; writing—review and editing, S.G., L.R.; visualization, S.C. and L.M.; supervision, S.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No funding to declare.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Data supporting Fig. 2; Table 5 are not publicly available in order to protect patient privacy. These datasets can be accessed on request from the corresponding author R. Russo.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS (03/2023 no 5608). Informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians for all participants under the age of 18. All patients involved in this study were minors.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Abbreviations

MTB Multidisciplinary Tumor Board

pnMTB Pediatric neuro-oncology MTB

CPT Changes in patient treatment

MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging

RAPNO Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro Oncology

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Mano MS Çitaku FT Barach P Implementing multidisciplinary tumor boards in oncology: a narrative review Future Oncol 2022 18 3 375 84 10.2217/fon-2021-0471 34787482
Mano MS, Çitaku FT, Barach P. Implementing multidisciplinary tumor boards in oncology: a narrative review. Future Oncol. 2022;18(3):375–84. 10.2217/fon-2021-047134787482 10.2217/fon-2021-0471
2. Gaudino S Giordano C Magnani F Cottonaro S Infante A Sabatino G La Rocca G Della Pepa GM D’Alessandris QG Pallini R Olivi A Balducci M Chiesa S Gessi M Guadalupi P Russo R Schiarelli C Ausili Cefaro L Di Lella GM Colosimo C Neuro-oncology Multidisciplinary Tumor Board: the point of View of the neuroradiologist J Pers Med 2022 12 2 135 10.3390/jpm12020135 35207625
Gaudino S, Giordano C, Magnani F, Cottonaro S, Infante A, Sabatino G, La Rocca G, Della Pepa GM, D’Alessandris QG, Pallini R, Olivi A, Balducci M, Chiesa S, Gessi M, Guadalupi P, Russo R, Schiarelli C, Ausili Cefaro L, Di Lella GM, Colosimo C. Neuro-oncology Multidisciplinary Tumor Board: the point of View of the neuroradiologist. J Pers Med. 2022;12(2):135. 10.3390/jpm12020135 35207625 10.3390/jpm12020135
3. Abdel-Baki MS Hanzlik E Kieran MW Multidisciplinary pediatric brain tumor clinics: the key to successful treatment? CNS Oncol 2015 4 3 147 55 10.2217/cns.15.1 25923018
Abdel-Baki MS, Hanzlik E, Kieran MW. Multidisciplinary pediatric brain tumor clinics: the key to successful treatment? CNS Oncol. 2015;4(3):147–55. 10.2217/cns.15.125923018 10.2217/cns.15.1
4. Hutchinson R Yanik G Rabah RM Heider A Stoll T Newman EA Review at a multidisciplinary tumor board impacts critical management decisions of pediatric patients with cancer Pediatr Blood Cancer 2017 64 2 254 8 10.1002/pbc.26201 27578484
Hutchinson R, Yanik G, Rabah RM, Heider A, Stoll T, Newman EA. Review at a multidisciplinary tumor board impacts critical management decisions of pediatric patients with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64(2):254–8. 10.1002/pbc.2620127578484 10.1002/pbc.26201
5. Berardi R Morgese F Rinaldi S Torniai M Mentrasti G Scortichini L Giampieri R Benefits and limitations of a Multidisciplinary Approach in Cancer Patient Management Cancer Manag Res 2020 12 9363 74 10.2147/CMAR.S220976 33061625
Berardi R, Morgese F, Rinaldi S, Torniai M, Mentrasti G, Scortichini L, Giampieri R. Benefits and limitations of a Multidisciplinary Approach in Cancer Patient Management. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:9363–74. 10.2147/CMAR.S22097633061625 10.2147/CMAR.S220976
6. Gross GE. The Role of the Tumor Board In a Community Hospital. Perm J. 2005 Fall;9(4):15 – 9. 10.3322/canjclin.37.2.88
7. Freytag M Herrlinger U Hauser S Bauernfeind FG Gonzalez-Carmona MA Landsberg J Buermann J Vatter H Holderried T Send T Schumacher M Koscielny A Feldmann G Heine M Skowasch D Schäfer N Funke B Neumann M Schmidt-Wolf IGH Higher number of multidisciplinary tumor board meetings per case leads to improved clinical outcome BMC Cancer 2020 20 1 355 10.1186/s12885-020-06809-1 32345242
Freytag M, Herrlinger U, Hauser S, Bauernfeind FG, Gonzalez-Carmona MA, Landsberg J, Buermann J, Vatter H, Holderried T, Send T, Schumacher M, Koscielny A, Feldmann G, Heine M, Skowasch D, Schäfer N, Funke B, Neumann M, Schmidt-Wolf IGH. Higher number of multidisciplinary tumor board meetings per case leads to improved clinical outcome. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):355. 10.1186/s12885-020-06809-132345242 10.1186/s12885-020-06809-1
8. Benoit C Orbach D Cyrille S Belhous K Minard-Colin V Kadlub N Kolb F Reguerre Y Carton M Bolle S Helfre S Van Den Abbeele T Luscan R Hartl DM Galmiche L Petit A Maiz M Couloigner V Elmaleh M Bernard S Head and neck tumors in children and adolescents: impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board Oral Oncol 2021 114 105145 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.105145 33482589
Benoit C, Orbach D, Cyrille S, Belhous K, Minard-Colin V, Kadlub N, Kolb F, Reguerre Y, Carton M, Bolle S, Helfre S, Van Den Abbeele T, Luscan R, Hartl DM, Galmiche L, Petit A, Maiz M, Couloigner V, Elmaleh M, Bernard S. Head and neck tumors in children and adolescents: impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board. Oral Oncol. 2021;114:105145. 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.10514533482589 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.105145
9. Hong NJ Wright FC Gagliardi AR Paszat LF Examining the potential relationship between multidisciplinary cancer care and patient survival: an international literature review J Surg Oncol 2010 102 2 125 34 10.1002/jso.21589 20648582
Hong NJ, Wright FC, Gagliardi AR, Paszat LF. Examining the potential relationship between multidisciplinary cancer care and patient survival: an international literature review. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(2):125–34. 10.1002/jso.2158920648582 10.1002/jso.21589
10. Engelhardt M Ihorst G Schumacher M Rassner M Gengenbach L Möller M Shoumariyeh K Neubauer J Farthmann J Herget G Wäsch R Multidisciplinary tumor boards and their analyses: the Yin and Yang of outcome measures BMC Cancer 2021 21 1 173 10.1186/s12885-021-07878-6 33596881
Engelhardt M, Ihorst G, Schumacher M, Rassner M, Gengenbach L, Möller M, Shoumariyeh K, Neubauer J, Farthmann J, Herget G, Wäsch R. Multidisciplinary tumor boards and their analyses: the Yin and Yang of outcome measures. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):173. 10.1186/s12885-021-07878-633596881 10.1186/s12885-021-07878-6
11. The Royal College of Radiologist. (2014) Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings – standards for clinical radiologists. The Royal College of Radiologist, United Kingdom. Available via https://www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/cancer-multidisciplinary-team-meetings---standards-clinical-radiologists
12. Bale TA Rosenblum MK The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the Central Nervous System: an update on pediatric low-grade gliomas and glioneuronal tumors Brain Pathol 2022 32 4 e13060 10.1111/bpa.13060 35218102
Bale TA, Rosenblum MK. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the Central Nervous System: an update on pediatric low-grade gliomas and glioneuronal tumors. Brain Pathol. 2022;32(4):e13060. 10.1111/bpa.1306035218102 10.1111/bpa.13060
13. Louis DN Perry A Reifenberger G von Deimling A Figarella-Branger D Cavenee WK Ohgaki H Wiestler OD Kleihues P Ellison DW The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary Acta Neuropathol 2016 131 6 803 20 10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 27157931
Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Kleihues P, Ellison DW. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(6):803–20. 10.1007/s00401-016-1545-127157931 10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1
14. Fangusaro, J., Witt, O., Hernáiz Driever, P., Bag, A. K., de Blank, P., Kadom, N.,… Warren, K. E. (2020). Response assessment in paediatric low-grade glioma: recommendations from the Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) working group. The Lancet Oncology, 21(6), e305–e316. 10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30064-4
15. Lindsay HB Massimino M Avula S Stivaros S Grundy R Metrock K Response assessment in paediatric intracranial ependymoma: recommendations from the Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) working group Lancet Oncol 2022 23 8 e393 401 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00222-4 35901835
Lindsay HB, Massimino M, Avula S, Stivaros S, Grundy R, Metrock K, et al. Response assessment in paediatric intracranial ependymoma: recommendations from the Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) working group. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(8):e393–401. 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00222-435901835 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00222-4
16. Schaumann A Hammar C Alsleben S Schulz M Grün A Lankes E Tietze A Koch A Hernáiz Driever P Thomale UW Neurosurgical treatment of pediatric brain tumors - results from a single center multidisciplinary setup Childs Nerv Syst 2024 40 2 381 93 10.1007/s00381-023-06123-8 37730915
Schaumann A, Hammar C, Alsleben S, Schulz M, Grün A, Lankes E, Tietze A, Koch A, Hernáiz Driever P, Thomale UW. Neurosurgical treatment of pediatric brain tumors - results from a single center multidisciplinary setup. Childs Nerv Syst. 2024;40(2):381–93. 10.1007/s00381-023-06123-8. Epub 2023 Sep 21. PMID: 37730915; PMCID: PMC10837233.37730915 10.1007/s00381-023-06123-8
17. Nyeko R Kambugu JB Angom R Senyonjo H Kibudde S Geriga F van Heerden J The clinicopathological profile and value of multidisciplinary management of pediatric brain tumors in a low-income setting Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2023 40 3 267 80 10.1080/08880018.2022.2140861 36314611
Nyeko R, Kambugu JB, Angom R, Senyonjo H, Kibudde S, Geriga F, van Heerden J. The clinicopathological profile and value of multidisciplinary management of pediatric brain tumors in a low-income setting. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2023;40(3):267–80. Epub 2022 Oct 31. PMID: 36314611.).36314611 10.1080/08880018.2022.2140861
18. Rosabal-Obando M Osorio DS Lassaletta A La Madrid AM Bartels U Finlay JL Qaddoumi I Rutkowski S Mynarek M Follow-up evaluation of a web-based pediatric brain tumor board in Latin America Pediatr Blood Cancer 2021 68 9 e29073 10.1002/pbc.29073 34003601
Rosabal-Obando M, Osorio DS, Lassaletta A, La Madrid AM, Bartels U, Finlay JL, Qaddoumi I, Rutkowski S, Mynarek M. Follow-up evaluation of a web-based pediatric brain tumor board in Latin America. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2021;68(9):e29073. 10.1002/pbc.29073. Epub 2021 May 18. PMID: 34003601.).34003601 10.1002/pbc.29073
19. Pollack IF Agnihotri S Broniscer A Childhood brain tumors: current management, biological insights, and future directions J Neurosurg Pediatr 2019 23 3 261 73 10.3171/2018.10.peds18377 30835699
Pollack IF, Agnihotri S, Broniscer A. Childhood brain tumors: current management, biological insights, and future directions. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2019;23(3):261–73. 10.3171/2018.10.peds1837730835699 10.3171/2018.10.peds18377
20. Thakkar JP Dolecek TA Horbinski C Ostrom QT Lightner DD Barnholtz-Sloan JS Villano JL Epidemiologic and molecular Prognostic Review of Glioblastoma Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014 23 10 1985 96 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-0275 25053711
Thakkar JP, Dolecek TA, Horbinski C, Ostrom QT, Lightner DD, Barnholtz-Sloan JS, Villano JL. Epidemiologic and molecular Prognostic Review of Glioblastoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(10):1985–96. 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-027525053711 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-0275
21. AlRayahi J, Zapotocky M, Ramaswamy V, Hanagandi P, Branson H, Mubarak W, Raybaud C, Laughlin S. Pediatric Brain Tumor Genetics: What Radiologists Need to Know. Radiographics. 2018 Nov-Dec;38(7):2102–2122. 10.1148/rg.2018180109
22. Snyder J Schultz L Walbert T The role of tumor board conferences in neuro-oncology: a nationwide provider survey Neurooncol Pract 2019 6 1 1 10 10.1007/s11060-017-2416-x 31386056
Snyder J, Schultz L, Walbert T. The role of tumor board conferences in neuro-oncology: a nationwide provider survey. Neurooncol Pract. 2019;6(1):1–10. 10.1007/s11060-017-2416-x31386056 10.1007/s11060-017-2416-x
23. Suresh SG, Srinivasan A, Scott JX, Rao SM, Chidambaram B, Chandrasekar S. Profile and Outcome of Pediatric Brain tumors - experience from a Tertiary Care Pediatric Oncology Unit in South India. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2017 Jul-Sep;12(3):237–44. 10.4103/jpn.JPN_31_17. PMID: 29204198; PMCID: PMC5696660.
24. Del Baldo G Vennarini S Cacchione A Amelio D De Ioris MA Fabozzi F Colafati GS Mastronuzzi A Carai A Multidisciplinary Management of Craniopharyngiomas in children: a single Center experience Diagnostics (Basel) 2022 12 11 2745 10.3390/diagnostics12112745 36359587
Del Baldo G, Vennarini S, Cacchione A, Amelio D, De Ioris MA, Fabozzi F, Colafati GS, Mastronuzzi A, Carai A. Multidisciplinary Management of Craniopharyngiomas in children: a single Center experience. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(11):2745. 10.3390/diagnostics12112745. PMID: 36359587; PMCID: PMC9689811.36359587 10.3390/diagnostics12112745
25. Capozza MA Triarico S Attinà G Romano A Mastrangelo S Maurizi P Frassanito P Bianchi F Verdolotti T Gessi M Balducci M Massimi L Tamburrini G Ruggiero A Gemelli Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Tumor Board Managing children with brain tumors during the COVID-19 era: don’t stop the care! Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2021 19 705 9 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.01.005 33505640
Capozza MA, Triarico S, Attinà G, Romano A, Mastrangelo S, Maurizi P, Frassanito P, Bianchi F, Verdolotti T, Gessi M, Balducci M, Massimi L, Tamburrini G, Ruggiero A, Gemelli Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Tumor Board. Managing children with brain tumors during the COVID-19 era: don’t stop the care! Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2021;19:705–9. 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.01.005. PMID: 33505640; PMCID: PMC7817528.33505640 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.01.005
