Explore the vast range of titles available.

Non-Technical SummaryThis article takes stock of the 2030 Agenda and focuses on five governance areas. In a nutshell, we see a quite patchy and often primarily symbolic uptake of the global goals. Although some studies highlight individual success stories of actors and institutions to implement the goals, it remains unclear how such cases can be upscaled and develop a broader political impact to accelerate the global endeavor to achieve sustainable development. We hence raise concerns about the overall effectiveness of governance by goal-setting and raise the question of how we can make this mode of governance more effective.Technical SummaryA recent meta-analysis on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has shown that these global goals are moving political processes forward only incrementally, with much variation across countries, sectors, and governance levels. Consequently, the realization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development remains uncertain. Against this backdrop, this article explores where and how incremental political changes are taking place due to the SDGs, and under what conditions these developments can bolster sustainability transformations up to 2030 and beyond. Our scoping review builds upon an online expert survey directed at the scholarly community of the ‘Earth System Governance Project’ and structured dialogues within the ‘Taskforce on the SDGs’ under this project. We identified five governance areas where some effects of the SDGs have been observable: (1) global governance, (2) national policy integration, (3) subnational initiatives, (4) private governance, and (5) education and learning for sustainable development. This article delves deeper into these governance areas and draws lessons to guide empirical research on the promises and pitfalls of accelerating SDG implementation.Social Media SummaryAs SDG implementation lags behind, this article explores 5 governance areas asking how to strengthen the global goals.

Purpose The management of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) at reference centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB) improves patient survival. The German Cancer Society (DKG) certifies sarcoma centers in German-speaking countries, promoting high standards of care. This study investigated the variability in treatment recommendations for localized STS across different German-speaking tertiary sarcoma centers. Methods In this cross-sectional case-based survey study, 5 anonymized patient cases with imaging data of localized STS were presented to MTBs of 21 German-speaking tertiary referral hospitals. Centers provided recommendations on treatment sequence and modalities, along with the consensus level within their MTB. Agreement percentages were calculated, and consensus levels were rated on a scale of 1 to 10. Results Five patient cases were discussed resulting in 105 recommendations. Agreement percentages for case 1 to 5 were 14.3%, 61.9%, 33.3%, 52.4% and 9.3%, with a median agreement percentage of 33.3%. Grouping pre- and postoperative therapies as \"perioperative\" and including recommendations with and without regional hyperthermia raised the median agreement to 47.6%. The mean consensus level within each center across all 5 cases was 9.5. Conclusion This first case-based analysis of inter-center agreement for STS management in German-speaking countries reveals low inter-center agreement but high intra-center consensus. Our study includes nearly all tertiary sarcoma centers in German-speaking countries, affirming its strong external validity. These findings suggest potential and clinically very relevant differences in treatment standards among sarcoma centers. Enhanced case-based exchanges and collaborative efforts are needed to reduce discrepancies and standardize the management of STS patients.