From Tumor Board Presence to Documented Review: A Coverage Cascade for Multidisciplinary Cancer Care in India
- 1Plus91 Technology Pvt LTD
Abstract
BackgroundMultidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are a standard part of cancer care, yet India has no national measure of how many cancer patients are discussed at one. A national survey of hospitals in the National Cancer Registry Programme (NCRP), published in 2026, gives the first structured look at board presence and functioning.
ObjectiveTo describe how far hospital-level tumor board presence translates into all-case review, documentation and follow-up, and to define the data needed to measure patient-level coverage.
MethodsSecondary analysis of published aggregate data: the ICMR-NCDIR survey of 229 hospitals in the NCRP hospital-based cancer registry (HBCR) network (October 2024), the HBCR 2021 report, national incidence estimates (ICMR-NCDIR 2022; GLOBOCAN 2024) and two published single-center MTB audits. We calculated proportions with Wilson 95% confidence intervals, non-response bounds across all 229 hospitals, and logical bounds for joint conditions. No individual-level data were used.
ResultsA total of 229 hospitals were invited and 172 responded (75.1%). Among the respondents, 137 (79.7%; 59.8% to 84.7% across all hospitals) reported a functional tumor board. Only 65 respondents (37.8%; 28.4% to 53.3%) reported boards that review all cases, 71 (41.3%) had a follow-up system, 50 (29.1%) used any electronic documentation and 7 (4.1%) always took part in cross-hospital reviews. The share of hospitals with both all-case review and a follow-up system could lie anywhere from 0% to 37.8% of respondents. Boards were reported more often in private (86.6%) than in public hospitals (72.5%). Two single-center audits reported about 800 case discussions (573 new patients) and 1,260 case discussions (about 917 patients) a year, but neither reported new registrations at the same hospital, so coverage could not be calculated.
ConclusionsTumor board presence is common in India, but evidence of all-case review, documentation and follow-up is much thinner, and the share of patients reviewed nationally is unknown. We propose six indicators that hospital-based registries could report to measure coverage directly.
Related
- How do relapses among recovering people affect the spread of drugs in the presence of media coverage
- Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder in Children and Adolescents: Nutritional Risk, Diagnostic Boundaries, and Multidisciplinary Care—A Narrative Review
- Pulmonary Epithelioid Trophoblastic Tumor Without Demonstrable Uterine Involvement: A Case Report and Literature Review Highlighting Diagnostic Challenges and Multidisciplinary Management
- Patient-Perceived and Record-Based Concordance of AI-Generated Perioperative Information After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Cross-Sectional Study with Multidisciplinary Review
- Maternal microbiota and fetal brain development: a multidisciplinary review of cognitive, neurological, and metabolic outcomes
BibTeX
@misc{bodetti2026from,
title = {{From Tumor Board Presence to Documented Review: A Coverage Cascade for Multidisciplinary Cancer Care in India}},
author = {V. Bodetti and N. Nihalani and R. Nivsarkar and A. Patkar},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.64898/2026.10.01.26364522},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.01.26364522v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - From Tumor Board Presence to Documented Review: A Coverage Cascade for Multidisciplinary Cancer Care in India
AU - V. Bodetti
AU - N. Nihalani
AU - R. Nivsarkar
AU - A. Patkar
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.10.01.26364522
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.01.26364522v1
AB - BackgroundMultidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are a standard part of cancer care, yet India has no national measure of how many cancer patients are discussed at one. A national survey of hospitals in the National Cancer Registry Programme (NCRP), published in 2026, gives the first structured look at board presence and functioning. ObjectiveTo describe how far hospital-level tumor board presence translates into all-case review, documentation and follow-up, and to define the data needed to measure patient-level coverage. MethodsSecondary analysis of published aggregate data: the ICMR-NCDIR survey of 229 hospitals in the NCRP hospital-based cancer registry (HBCR) network (October 2024), the HBCR 2021 report, national incidence estimates (ICMR-NCDIR 2022; GLOBOCAN 2024) and two published single-center MTB audits. We calculated proportions with Wilson 95% confidence intervals, non-response bounds across all 229 hospitals, and logical bounds for joint conditions. No individual-level data were used. ResultsA total of 229 hospitals were invited and 172 responded (75.1%). Among the respondents, 137 (79.7%; 59.8% to 84.7% across all hospitals) reported a functional tumor board. Only 65 respondents (37.8%; 28.4% to 53.3%) reported boards that review all cases, 71 (41.3%) had a follow-up system, 50 (29.1%) used any electronic documentation and 7 (4.1%) always took part in cross-hospital reviews. The share of hospitals with both all-case review and a follow-up system could lie anywhere from 0% to 37.8% of respondents. Boards were reported more often in private (86.6%) than in public hospitals (72.5%). Two single-center audits reported about 800 case discussions (573 new patients) and 1,260 case discussions (about 917 patients) a year, but neither reported new registrations at the same hospital, so coverage could not be calculated. ConclusionsTumor board presence is common in India, but evidence of all-case review, documentation and follow-up is much thinner, and the share of patients reviewed nationally is unknown. We propose six indicators that hospital-based registries could report to measure coverage directly.
ER -