Do Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) processes influence survival in patients with colorectal cancer? A population-based experience

The multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer

Rectal cancer treatment has evolved during the past 40 years with the use of a standardized surgical technique for tumour resection: total mesorectal excision. A dramatic reduction in local recurrence rates and improved survival outcomes have been achieved as consequences of a better understanding of the surgical oncology of rectal cancer, and the advent of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments to compliment surgery have paved the way for a multidisciplinary approach to disease management. Further improvements in imaging techniques and the ability to identify prognostic factors such as tumour regression, extramural venous invasion and threatened margins have introduced the concept of decision-making based on preoperative staging information. Modern treatment strategies are underpinned by accurate high-resolution imaging guiding both neoadjuvant therapy and precision surgery, followed by meticulous pathological scrutiny identifying the important prognostic factors for adjuvant chemotherapy. Included in these strategies are organ-sparing approaches and watch-and-wait strategies in selected patients. These pathways rely on the close working of interlinked disciplines within a multidisciplinary team. Such multidisciplinary forums are becoming standard in the treatment of rectal cancer across the UK, Europe and, more recently, the USA. This Review examines the essential components of modern-day management of rectal cancer through a multidisciplinary team approach, providing information that is essential for any practising colorectal surgeon to guide the best patient care.

Quality Assurance, Metrics, and Improving Standards in Rectal Cancer Surgery in the United States

Rectal cancer surgery has seen significant improvement in recent years. This has been possible in part due to focus on surgeon education and training, specific surgical quality metrics, and longitudinal tracking of data through the use of registries. In countries that have implemented such efforts, data has shown significant improvement in outcomes. However, there continues to be significant variation in rectal cancer outcomes and practices worldwide. Just within the United States, county level mortality rates from rectal cancer range from 8-15 per 100,000 to 38-59 per 100,000. In order to continue to improve rectal cancer patient outcomes, there needs to be evidence based guidelines and standards centered around the framework of structure, process, and outcomes. In addition, there must be a feedback system by which programs can continually assess their performance. Obtaining evidence for specific standards and measures can be challenging and requires analyzing available data and literature, some of which may be conflicting. This article evaluates the evolution of metrics and standards used for quality improvement in rectal cancer and ongoing efforts to further improve patient outcomes.

Evidence for the urogynaecology multidisciplinary team meeting: evaluation from a secondary care perspective

INTRODUCTION

Urogynaecology multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to discuss management plans prior to invasive treatments for urinary incontinence have been recommended by guidelines in the UK since 2013. Evidence for MDT discussion in urogynaecology is lacking, with only two published studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cases discussed at a secondary care urogynaecology MDT meeting, to establish types of clinical problems discussed, assess the outcomes of the MDT meeting and compare this with existing evidence for MDT meetings in urogynaecology.

METHODS

A retrospective review of meeting minutes and all case notes for patients discussed at 12 MDT meetings over 13 months was carried out. Data collected included attendance from different staff groups, reasons for referral, outcome of discussions, and changes to management plans.

RESULTS

A total of 123 cases were discussed over 12 meetings, 7 members of staff attended each meeting on average. 63% of cases were referred for discussion of a primary problem. The majority of patients were referred for discussion of management of urinary incontinence prior to invasive procedures (57%). The agreed MDT plan corresponded with proposed management in 67% of cases, with changes to management plan in 31% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Refinements to management plans in this study highlight the importance of MDT input in urogynaecology care and mirror the findings of two previous studies. Evidence for improved outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of MDTs is lacking and is an area for future research. Expanded national guidance for urogynaecology MDTs is likely to require local and regional restructuring of these in the UK.

State-wide outcomes in elective rectal cancer resection: is there a case for centralization in Victoria?

BACKGROUND

The role of service centralization in rectal cancer surgery is controversial. Recent studies suggest centralization to high-volume centres may improve postoperative mortality. We used a state-wide administrative data set to determine the inpatient mortality for patients undergoing elective rectal cancer surgery and to compare individual hospital volumes.

METHODS

The Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset was explored using the Dr Foster Quality Investigator tool. The inpatient mortality rate, 30-day readmission rate and the proportion of patients with increased length of stay were measured for all elective admissions for rectal cancer resections between 2012 and 2016. A peer group of 14 hospitals were studied using funnel plots to determine inter-hospital variation in mortality. Procedure types were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

There were 2241 elective resections performed for rectal cancer in Victoria over 4 years. The crude inpatient mortality rate was 1.1%. There were no significant differences in mortality among 14 hospitals within the peer group. The number of elective resections over 4 years ranged from 14 to 136 (median 65) within these institutions. Ultralow anterior resection was the commonest procedure performed.

CONCLUSION

Inpatient mortality after elective rectal cancer surgery in Victoria is rare and compares favourably internationally. Based on inpatient mortality alone, there is no compelling evidence to further centralize elective rectal cancer surgery in Victoria. More work is needed to develop data sets with oncological information capable of providing accurate complete state-wide data which will be essential for future service planning, training and innovation.

Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Staging Rectal Cancer with Multidisciplinary Team: A Single-Center Experience

Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in preoperative staging diagnosis for rectal cancer with multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion. Methods: The retrospective study included 377 patients of rectal cancer with preoperative MRI staging from February 2015 to April 2018, in which 137 patients (36 received MDT discussion) received neoadjuvant therapy, 240 did not (97 received MDT discussion) and direct surgery was given. With postoperative pathological stage as the standard, the accuracy of MRI in preoperative staging for rectal cancer with MDT discussion was compared with non-MDT. Results: For direct surgery group, 21 out 97 (21.6%) patients changed their therapy strategy due to the change of the stage assessment after MDT. The accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of preoperative N stage with MDT was significantly higher than those without MDT (56.2% vs. 42.1%, P=0.021). And for those without lymph node metastasis, the accuracy of MRI was higher after MDT (61.2% vs. 37.8%, P=0.009). For neoadjuvant therapy group, 7 out of 36 (19.4%) patients altered their therapy after MDT because of the changed stage. MDT improved the accuracy of restaging N stage with MRI (70.0% vs. 33.3%, P=0.003). The accuracy of MRI in staging T stage seemed not improved after MDT in both groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, MDT discussion increased the accuracy of MRI in preoperative staging diagnosis for rectal cancer. This mode could give a more accurate clinical stage of patients, which was in favor of choosing a preferable therapy strategy.

Much Ado About Fried Chicken: Abetting Aspiration or Respecting Autonomy?

Purpose Palliative care is a philosophy of care that encompasses holistic, patient-centric care involving patients and their family members and loved ones. Palliative care patients often have complex needs. A common challenge in managing patients near their end of life is the complexity of navigating clinical decisions and finding achievable and realistic goals of care that are in line with the values and wishes of patients. This often results in differing opinions and conflicts within the multidisciplinary team. Conclusion This article describes a tool derived from the biopsychosocial model and the 4-quadrant ethical model. The authors describe the use of this tool in managing a patient who wishes to have fried chicken despite aspiration risk and how this tool was used to encourage discussions and reduce conflict and distress within the multidisciplinary team.

Treatment modalities and relative survival in patients with brain metastasis from colorectal cancer

Standard treatment options for brain metastases (BM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) are controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of multidisciplinary treatment modalities and provide optimal therapeutic strategies for selected patients with different clinical characteristics. All eligible patients diagnosed with BM from CRC during the past two decades (1997-2016) were identified in our center. Clinical characteristics, treatment modalities and relative survival were retrospectively analyzed. Median overall survival after the identification of BM was 6 months. The 1- and 2- year survival rates were 29.40% and 5.70%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, the number of BMs, Karnofsky performance score and the treatment modalities were found to be independent prognostic factors (the p-value was 0.006, 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively). In conclusion, multidisciplinary treatment is supported to be the optimal treatment for patients with BM from CRC. For patients with single brain metastases and KPS > 70, neurosurgery combined with chemotherapy could provide an additional survival benefit. For patients with multiple brain metastases or KPS ≤ 70, radiotherapy plus chemotherapy may be appropriate.

The Management of Resistant Hypercalcaemia Secondary to Cancer of Unknown Primary and Presenting with Pancreatitis

We present a 31-year-old female who presented to the general surgical take with epigastric pain associated with a raised amylase and corrected calcium on admission. Computed tomography confirmed acute pancreatitis and also demonstrated a 15 cm liver tumour. She was subsequently diagnosed with cancer of unknown primary with liver metastases. The patient’s pancreatitis symptoms improved with conservative management, but her calcium proved quite resistant to basic measures. Further input was sought from the medical on-call endocrinology and oncology teams to help manage this patient’s hypercalcaemia, which included pamidronate, zolendronate, and denusomab, but ultimately it only improved significantly following chemotherapy. This case to our knowledge is the only one of its kind and highlights the importance of early multidisciplinary team involvement across specialties to help manage complex patients.

Revision knee complexity classification-RKCC: a common-sense guide for surgeons to support regional clinical networking in revision knee surgery

PURPOSE

There is considerable variation in practice throughout Europe in both the services provided and in the outcomes of Revision Knee Surgery. In the UK, a recent report published called get it right first time (GIRFT) aims to improve patient outcomes through providing high quality, cost-effective care, and reducing complications. This has led to the development of a classification system that attempts to classify the complexity of revision knee surgery, aiming to encourage and support regional clinical networking.

METHODS

The revision knee classification system (RKCC) incorporates not only complexity, but also patient factors, the presence of infection, the integrity of the extensor mechanism, and the soft tissues. It then provides guidance for clinical network discussion. Reliability and reproducibility testing have been performed to establish the inter- and intra-observer variabilities using this classification.

RESULTS

Good correlation between first attempt non-expert and experts, good intra-observer variability of non-expert, and an excellent correlation between second attempt non-expert and experts has been achieved. This supports the use of RKCC by both inexperienced and experienced surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

The revision knee complexity classification has been proposed that offers a common-sense approach to recognize the increasing complexity in revision TKR cases. It provides a methodological assessment of revision knee cases and support regional clinical networking and triage of appropriate cases to revision units or specialist centres.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Expert opinion, Level V.

With widespread adoption of MIS colectomy for colon cancer, does hospital type matter?

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that hospital type impacts patient outcomes, but no studies have examined hospital differences in outcomes for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for segmental colectomies.

METHODS

The 2010-2014 National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients undergoing segmental colectomy for non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma. Descriptive statistics characterized MIS utilization by hospital type. Multivariable models were used to examine the effect of hospital type on outcomes after MIS. Survival probability was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

80,922 patients underwent MIS segmental colectomy for colon cancer from 2010 to 2014. From 2010 to 2014, the number of MIS segmental colectomies increased by 157% at academic hospitals, 151% at comprehensive hospitals, and 153% at community hospitals. Compared to academic hospitals, community and comprehensive hospitals had greater adjusted odds of positive margins (Community OR 1.525, 95% Confidence Interval 1.233-1.885; Comprehensive OR 1.216, 95% CI 1.041-1.42), incomplete number of lymph nodes analyzed (< 12 LNs) from surgery (Community OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.98-2.32; Comprehensive OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.34-1.51), and greater 30-day mortality (Community OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14-1.78; Comprehensive OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17-1.59). Patient survival probability was higher at academic hospitals at 5 years (Academic 69% vs. Comprehensive 66% vs. Community 63%, p < 0.001). Community hospitals and comprehensive hospitals had significantly higher risk of adjusted long-term mortality (Community HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.19-1.37; p < 0.001; Comprehensive HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.09-1.20; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread use of laparoscopic oncologic surgery, short- and long-term outcomes from MIS for segmental colectomy are superior at academic hospitals. This difference may be due to superior perioperative oncologic technique and surgical outcomes at academic hospitals. Our data provide important information for patients, referring physicians, and surgeons about the significance of hospital type in management of colon cancer.

Multidisciplinary Approach to the Management and Treatment of Anal Dysplasia

The incidence of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) has been increasing over the years. AIN acts as a precursor lesion for anal squamous cell cancer. Factors leading to progression of AIN into malignancy are complex and involve grade of the lesion, human papillomavirus and HIV coinfection, as well as patient-related risk factors such as immunocompromised state and men who have sex with men. The multifaced aspects of this disease make its management challenging, as it involves several disciplines including pathology, primary care, infectious disease, and colorectal specialties. Each of these fields brings its own expertize to the management of AIN, and their collaborative, coordinated work culminates into best practice and optimized outcomes in the care of the AIN patient.

Patients with pancreatic cystic neoplasms can benefit from management of multidisciplinary team: Experience from a Chinese academic center

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are a spectrum of neoplasms that can be benign or malignant. The accuracy of diagnosis is critical for this disease since different types of PCNs are treated differently using various modalities. The use of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) has been shown to improve the management and outcomes of various diseases. We aimed to determine the performance of MDT in the management of PCNs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 167 pathologically-proven PCN patients and divided them among three groups according to their surgical data and treatment modalities: 1) historical control group (HC group); 2) concurrent control group (CC group); and 3) MDT group. The composition of subtypes of PCNs, preoperative diagnostic accuracy, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay were compared among the three groups.

RESULTS

The incidence of SCN reduced in the MDT group, while the incidence of IPMN was much higher (P < 0.05). MDT management significantly improved the accuracy of preoperative diagnosis (71.7%) and also increased the individual diagnostic accuracies of ultrasound, CT, and MRI/MRCP. Postoperative pancreatic fistula was significantly reduced in the MDT group (28.3%; P < 0.001). Furthermore, the mean hospital stay after surgery in the MDT group (10.37 days) was shorter than those of the other two groups (27.35 days in HC group, and 19.28 days in CC group; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with PCN, MDT management was associated with an improvement in the overall accuracy of preoperative diagnosis, a lower incidence postoperative morbidity, and decreased length of hospital stay.

Extraordinary virtual multidisciplinary team meetings - a novel forum for the coordinated care of patients with -complex conditions within a secondary care setting

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are increasingly regarded as best practice for the successful management of chronic disease. However, for patients with undiagnosed illnesses, multiple interacting comorbidities or other complex needs that fall outside the remit of disease-specific MDTs or the scope of expertise of individual clinicians, there is often no suitable forum at which to discuss their care to develop a coordinated plan for management. We developed and piloted a new forum for interspecialty discussion and collaboration, an extraordinary virtual MDT, to enable clinicians to arrange an urgent meeting of all involved parties in response to challenging clinical scenarios. Here, we share our experience of implementing this innovation and suggest how this novel forum for coordinated care could be further developed to improve the integration, timeliness and quality of healthcare delivery for patients with complex needs.

Impact of a Multidisciplinary Team Approach for Managing Advanced and Recurrent Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The wide variety of treatment strategies makes clinical decision-making difficult in advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer cases. Many hospitals have started multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings comprising a team of dedicated specialists for discussing cases. MDTs for selected cases that are difficult to diagnose and treat are alternatives to regular MDTs. This study's aim was to determine the impact of a MDT for colorectal cancer on clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Cases were discussed when clinical specialists had difficulty making decisions alone. All processes done by the MDT were then recorded in prospectively designed medical case forms.

RESULTS

From Jan 2011 to Dec 2014, 1383 cases were discussed. A total of 549 (39.8%) case forms were completed for patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer, whereas 833 (60.2%) were completed for those with recurrent diseases. The MDT altered the proposed treatment of the referring physician in 179 (13%) cases. In 85 of the 179 (47.5%) altered cases, the radiologist's review of clinical information affected the diagnosis and decision. Furthermore, 152 of the 1383 MDT decisions were not implemented. Treatment intent, therapeutic plan, and alteration of decision were important reasons for not following the MDT's recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Case discussions in MDT meetings resulted in altered clinical decisions in >10% cases. Implementation rates after MDT discussions might be affected by the treatment decision-making process. Imperfect decisions made by individual physicians can be decreased by the multidisciplinary decision-making process.

Multidisciplinary team intervention associated with improved survival for patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma with liver or lung metastasis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether multidisciplinary team (MDT) intervention is associated with improved survival for patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma with liver or lung metastasis (CRA-LLM).

METHODS

We enrolled 161 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed CRA-LLM at Taipei Medical University-Wan Fang Hospital between January 2007 and December 2017. In total, 75 patients with CRA-LLM received MDT intervention, and 86 patients did not receive MDT intervention. To evaluate prognostic factors for overall death, we performed univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of the overall death rate in all patients. Overall survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared using the log-rank test (P < .001).

RESULTS

A multivariate Cox regression analysis of the overall death rate in patients with CRA-LLM showed that age ≤ 65 years, systemic chemotherapy, curative-intent treatments, and MDT intervention are strong prognostic factors. The adjusted hazard ratio of death risk for age ≤ 65 years, systemic chemotherapy, curative-intent treatments, and MDT intervention were 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.92; P = .019), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.12-0.32; P = .001), 0.25 (95% CI, 0.13-0.50; P = .001), and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.25-0.65; P = .001), respectively. The 3-year overall survival rates in patients with CRA-LLM receiving MDT intervention and not receiving MDT intervention were 48.75% and 24.21%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

MDT intervention is associated with improved survival for patients with CRA-LLM.

Improved perioperative care is associated with improved long-term survival in colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative colorectal cancer care and survival in patient cohorts operated in 2005 and in 2010 in Lithuania.

METHODS

Comparative observational cohort study was performed. The study was conducted in the three Lithuanian cancer hospitals. Patients, who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer in 2005 and 2010, were included. Demographic characteristics, distribution of the tumors, preoperative diagnostics and staging, surgical treatment, the quality of pathological examination, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. One- and 5-year overall survival data were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer diagnostics and treatment improved from 2005 to 2010 significantly. The disease was identified as stage III-IV for 45 vs. 48% of the patients; however, computed tomography staging scan was performed only for 5.9 vs. 17.8% in 2005 and 2010, respectively. Laparoscopic operations were performed 1.5 vs. 10.5% and abdominoperineal resections-42.7 vs. 31.7% in 2005 and 2010, respectively. The number of harvested lymph nodes was mentioned in 55.8 vs. 97.7% of the cases, whereas more than 12 lymph nodes were examined in 18 vs. 66.6% of cases after histological examination. The overall 5-year survival was 52.1 vs. 63.1% (p < 0.0001), while the 5-year survival of the patients with stage IV of disease was 4.2 vs. 17.8% in 2005 and 2010, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative investigation, surgical treatment, pathological examination, and postoperative course are associated with improved overall survival in colorectal cancer patients, undergoing curative surgery in the resource-limited settings.

Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care

BACKGROUND

Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation.

RESULTS

The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Health professionals' report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.

Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care

BACKGROUND

Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation.

RESULTS

The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Health professionals' report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.

The value of contrast-enhanced laparoscopic ultrasound during robotic-assisted surgery for primary colorectal cancer

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the potential clinical value of contrast enhanced laparoscopic ultrasonography (CE-LUS) as a screening modality for liver metastases during robotic assisted surgery for primary colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

A prospective, descriptive (feasibility) study including 50 consecutive patients scheduled for robotic assisted surgery for primary CRC. CE-LUS was performed by 2 experienced specialists. Only patients without metastatic disease were included. Follow-up was obtained with contrast-enhanced CT imaging at 3 and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included; 45 patients were available for final analysis. The patients were equally distributed between stage I, II, and III according to the TNM classification system. No liver metastasis was detected during LUS and CE-LUS. CE-LUS was easy to perform and there was no complication. Follow-up revealed no liver metastasis in any of the patients.

CONCLUSION

CE-LUS did not increase the detection rate of occult liver metastasis during robotic assisted primary CRC surgery. The use of CE-LUS as a screening modality for detection of liver metastasis cannot be recommended based on this study, but larger controlled studies on high-risk patients seem relevant.

Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in practice: Results from a multi-institutional quantitative survey and implications for policy change

AIM

Multidisciplinary care is advocated as best practice in cancer care. Relatively little is documented about multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting functioning, decision making and the use of evidence to support decision making in Australia. This descriptive study aimed to examine team functioning, the role of team meetings and evidence use in MDTs whose institutions are members of Sydney Catalyst Translational Cancer Research Centre.

METHODS

We designed a structured 40-item survey instrument about topics that included meeting purpose, organization, resources and documentation; caseload estimates; use of evidence and quality assurance; patient involvement and supportive care needs; and open-ended items about the MDTs strengths and weaknesses. Participants were invited to participate via email and the survey was administered online. Data were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven MDTs from seven hospitals participated (100% response) and represented common (70%) and rare tumor groups (30%). MDT meeting purpose was reported as treatment (100%) or diagnostic decision making (88%), or for education purposes (70%). Most MDTs based treatment decisions on group consensus (92%), adherence to clinical practice guidelines (57%) or other evidence-based medicine sources (33%). The majority of MDTs discussed only a proportion of new patients at each meeting emphasizing the importance of educational aspects for other cases. Barriers exist in the availability of data to enable audit and reflection on evidence-based practice. MDT strengths included collaboration and quality discussion about patients.

CONCLUSIONS

MDT meetings focus on treatment decision making, with group consensus playing a significant role in translating research evidence from guidelines into clinical decision making. With a varying proportion of patients discussed in each MDT meeting, a wider audit of multidisciplinary care would enable more accurate assessments of whether treatment recommendations are in accordance with best-practice evidence.

Comparison of outcomes for cancer patients discussed and not discussed at a multidisciplinary meeting

OBJECTIVES

Comparison of outcomes for cancer patients discussed and not discussed at a multidisciplinary meeting (MDM).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of the association of MDM discussion with survival.

METHODS

All newly diagnosed cancer patients from 2009 to 2012, presenting to a large regional cancer service in South West Victoria, Australia (620 colorectal, 657 breast, 593 lung and 511 haematological) were recorded and followed up to 5 years after diagnosis. Treatment patterns and survival of patients whose treatment was discussed at an MDM compared to those who were not, were explored.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients presented to an MDM within 60 days after diagnosis was 56% (n = 366) for breast cancer, 59% (n = 363) for colorectal cancer, 27% (n = 137) for haematological malignancies and 60% (n = 355) for lung cancer. Seventy-three percent (n = 886) of patients discussed at an MDM had their tumour stage recorded in their medical records while only 52% (n = 604) of patients not discussed had their tumour stage recorded (P < 0.01). We found for haematological and lung cancer patients that those presented to an MDM prior to treatment had a significant reduction in mortality (lung cancer hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.76, P < 0.01) (haematological cancer HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.96, P = 0.03) compared to patients whose cases were not discussed at an MDM after adjusting for the potential cofounders of age, stage, comorbidities and treatment. This was not the case for colorectal and breast cancer patients where there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

MDM discussion has been recommended as best practice in the management of cancer patients, however, from a public health perspective this creates potential issues around access and resources. It is likely that MDM presentation patterns and outcomes across tumour streams are linked in complex ways. We believe that our data would demonstrate that these patterns differ across tumour streams and that more detailed work is required to better allocate relatively scarce and potentially costly MDM resources to tumour streams and patient groups that may get the most benefit.

Effect of Multidisciplinary Case Conferences on Physician Decision Making: Breast Diagnostic Rounds

Purpose: To evaluate the utility of multidisciplinary case conferences (MCCs) on physician decision making in benign and malignant breast disease management.

Methods:  Patients with interesting or challenging diagnostic or management issues were discussed at biweekly diagnostic breast MCCs. Prior to discussion, a clinical summary and intended management plan prior to the MCC was presented. For each case, diagnostic images/histopathology were centrally reviewed after which group discussion achieved a management consensus which was documented prospectively. Initial management plans were compared to the post-MCC consensus. A change in a management plan was defined as a consensus plan different from the pre-MCC plan or no definite plan prior to the MCC.

Results:  From November 2014 to December 2015, 76 patients (43 malignant and 33 benign diagnoses) were discussed in 19 MCCs. All cases presented resulted in a consensus management recommendation. Thirty-one case discussions (41%) resulted in a changed management plan (20 malignant and 11 benign diagnoses). Management changes included avoidance of immediate surgery (9% of cases), change in the type of surgery (5%), non-invasive investigation to invasive/surgical intervention (7%), and detection of a new suspicious lesion (1%).

Conclusion: MCCs had a substantial impact on physician decision making. Management plans changed in 41% of cases presented, the majority due to new/clarified diagnostic information. Presentation of cases at MCCs should be encouraged, especially for challenging diagnostic or management issues regarding malignant or benign breast diagnoses.