Maximising recruitment into randomised controlled trials: the role of multidisciplinary cancer teams

Tools and Strategies to Integrate Multi-Domain Information for Personalized Decision-Making in Oncological Care Pathways: A Scoping Review

Introduction

There is a growing interest in personalized decision-making in oncology. According to the Integrated Oncological Decision-Making Model (IODM), decisions should be based on information from three domains: (1) medical technical information, (2) patients' general health status and (3) patients' preferences and goals. Little is known about what kind of tool/strategy is used to collect the information, by whom this is collected (nurse, clinician) when this is collected (moment in the care pathway), and how this information should be collected and integrated within decision-making in oncological care pathways, and what its impact is.

Methods

We searched PUBMED, Embase and Web of Science in October 2023 for studies looking at tools to collect and integrate information from the three domains of the IODM. We extracted data on the content and implementation of these tools, and on decision and patient outcomes.

Results

The search yielded 2576 publications, of which only seven studies described collection of information from all three domains (inclusion criteria). In the seven included studies, information on the three domains was collected through dialogue, questionnaires, and assessments (what) by a nurse (2 out of 7 studies) or by other members of the Multi-Disciplinary Team (by whom) (5 out of 7 studies). Members of the Multi-Disciplinary Team subsequently integrated the information (5 out 7 studies) during their meeting (when), with patients and family attending this meeting in 2 studies (how). In terms of decision outcomes, 5 out of 7 studies compared the treatment recommendations before and after implementation of the tools, showing a modification of the treatment plan in 3% to 53% of cases. The limited data on patient outcomes suggest positive effects on well-being and fewer complications (3 out of 7 studies).

Conclusion

The seven studies identified that integrated information from the three IODM domains into treatment decision-making lacked comprehensive information regarding the strategies, process, timing and individuals involved in implementing the tools. Nevertheless, the few studies that looked at patient outcomes showed promising findings.

Integration of an online application to optimise multi-disciplinary meetings: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Multi-disciplinary Meetings (MDM) play a crucial role in complex patient care, involving input from various specialties to formulate evidence-based management plans. However, traditional unidirectional approaches and reliance on manual processes have led to inefficiencies in the MDM pathway.

AIMS

This study identified and aimed to improve four critical moments where Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) could enhance the MDM process. Initial referral, information synthesis, meeting presentation and the creation of actionable/auditable items.

METHODS

Microsoft Office Forms, a customisable survey platform, was implemented to streamline MDM processes. Forms were created to gather patient information, develop agendas, and track outcomes. Automation through Excel scripting further optimised data organisation and agenda creation.

RESULTS

Referrals using Forms takes an average of 7 min and 21 s. Over 15 months the submission time has reduced and is trending towards under 5 min for each referral. The system's scalability has allowed 1744 cases to be discussed over a 15-month period. Active departments using Forms is expanding to seven from two prior to the pilot.

CONCLUSION(S)

Microsoft Office Forms proved to be a valuable and adaptable tool for MDMs, offering benefits such as streamlined information gathering, real-time collaboration, and scalability. The study highlights the potential of existing tools within Microsoft licenses for healthcare process optimisation, providing a cost-effective and customisable solution for MDM agendas. While recognising some limitations, the study concludes that leveraging Microsoft Office Forms can significantly improve system efficiency in a multi-disciplinary setting.

Impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on the management of patients with breast cancer in a large private healthcare facility

AIMS

Multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) play a crucial role in decision-making in breast cancer patient care. This study aimed to firstly assess the impact of breast cancer MDMs in decision-making for breast cancer patients and secondly to determine the concordance between MDM recommendations and implementation of clinical practice.

METHODS

Patient cases to be presented at the weekly breast cancer MDMs were identified and prospectively enrolled. Management plans were predicted by the treating surgeon with the pre-MDM management plans then compared to MDM recommendations. Changes in decision-making were assessed in the following domains: further surgery, systemic therapy (endocrine, chemotherapy or targeted), radiotherapy, enrolment in a clinical trial, further investigations, and referral to other specialists or services. Patient records were subsequently reviewed at 3 months post-MDM to assess the rate of implementation of MDM recommendations and any reasons for discordance.

RESULTS

Out of 50 cases, 66% (CI 53-79%; p < .005) experienced a change in management plan as a result of MDM discussion, with a total of 66 episodes of recorded change per decision-making domain affecting the following: further surgery (7.6%), endocrine therapy (4.5%), chemotherapy (19.7%), targeted therapy (4.5%), radiotherapy (18.2%), enrolment for a clinical trial (12.1%), additional investigations (22.7%), and further referrals (10.6%). MDM recommendations were implemented in 83.7% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The breast cancer MDMs were found to substantially impact on the management plans for breast cancer patients, with 83.7% of MDM recommendations being implemented into clinical practice. This study reinforces the importance of MDMs in the management of these patients, as well as highlighting the need for further investigating and addressing the potential barriers to the implementation of MDM recommendations.

Exploring implementation outcomes in the clinical trial context: a qualitative study of physician trial stakeholders

INTRODUCTION

Cancer clinical trials can be considered evidence-based interventions with substantial benefits, but suffer from poor implementation leading to low enrollment and frequent failure. Applying implementation science approaches such as outcomes frameworks to the trial context could aid in contextualizing and evaluating trial improvement strategies. However, the acceptability and appropriateness of these adapted outcomes to trial stakeholders are unclear. For these reasons, we interviewed cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders to explore how they perceive and address clinical trial implementation outcomes.

METHODS

We purposively selected 15 cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders from our institution representing different specialties, trial roles, and trial sponsor types. We performed semi-structured interviews to explore a previous adaptation of Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework to the clinical trial context. Emergent themes from each outcome were developed.

RESULTS

The implementation outcomes were well understood and applicable (i.e., appropriate and acceptable) to clinical trial stakeholders. We describe cancer clinical trial physician stakeholder understanding of these outcomes and current application of these concepts. Trial feasibility and implementation cost were felt to be most critical to trial design and implementation. Trial penetration was most difficult to measure, primarily due to eligible patient identification. In general, we found that formal methods for trial improvement and trial implementation evaluation were poorly developed. Cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders referred to some design and implementation techniques used to improve trials, but these were infrequently formally evaluated or theory-based.

CONCLUSION

Implementation outcomes adapted to the trial context were acceptable and appropriate to cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders. Use of these outcomes could facilitate the evaluation and design of clinical trial improvement interventions. Additionally, these outcomes highlight potential areas for the development of new tools, for example informatics solutions, to improve the evaluation and implementation of clinical trials.

Factors influencing participation in randomised clinical trials among patients with early Barrett's neoplasia: a multicentre interview study

OBJECTIVES

Strong recruitment and retention into randomised controlled trials involving invasive therapies is a matter of priority to ensure better achievement of trial aims. The BRIDE (Barrett's Randomised Intervention for Dysplasia by Endoscopy) Study investigated the feasibility of undertaking a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing argon plasma coagulation and radiofrequency ablation, following endoscopic resection, for the management of early Barrett's neoplasia. This paper aims to identify factors influencing patients' participation in the BRIDE Study and determine their views regarding acceptability of a potential future trial comparing surgery with endotherapy.

DESIGN

A semistructured telephone interview study was performed, including both patients who accepted and declined to participate in the BRIDE trial. Interview data were analysed using the constant comparison approach to identify recurring themes.

SETTING

Interview participants were recruited from across six UK tertiary centres where the BRIDE trial was conducted.

PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed 18 participants, including 11 participants in the BRIDE trial and 7 who declined.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified centred around interviewees' decision to accept or decline participation in the BRIDE trial and a potential future trial comparing endotherapy with surgery: (1) influence of the recruitment process and participant-recruiter relationship; (2) participants' views of the design and aim of the study; (3) conditional altruism as a determining factor and (4) participants' perceptions of surgical risks versus less invasive treatments.

CONCLUSION

We identified four main influences to optimising recruitment and retention to a randomised controlled trial comparing endotherapies in patients with early Barrett's-related neoplasia. These findings highlight the importance of qualitative research to inform the design of larger randomised controlled trials.

Comparison of Patients With Head and Neck Cancer in Randomized Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review

Importance

When patient populations in randomized clinical trials deviate too much from the general population, it undermines the relevance for daily practice.

Objective

To investigate if patients with head and neck cancer in randomized clinical trials are representative of the clinically treated population.

Evidence Review

A systematic literature search was performed for randomized clinical trials on head and neck cancer evaluating an intervention to improve outcome with total sample size of 100 patients or greater and published between 2009 and 2019. Outcome measures were age, performance status, and recruitment rate. National cancer registries provided reference data. Databases that were searched included MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print; Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; and ClinicalTrials.gov. Abstracts of search results were retrieved to assess selection criteria by 2 reviewers independently. After the selection procedure was completed by both reviewers, the results were compared and reviewed once more to reach consensus. Full articles were downloaded to retrieve general study information and outcome data.

Findings

A total of 16 927 publications were identified, resulting in 87 compliant randomized clinical trials with a total of 34 241 patients. Half of the trials included all major head and neck sites, and one-third were exclusively for nasopharynx cancers. The experimental intervention was systemic treatment in 47 (54%) studies, radiotherapy in 23 (26%), and other in 17 (20%). Median sample size was 332, and median duration of accrual was 4.6 years. Median accrual per center per year for head and neck and nasopharynx trials was 5.4 and 39.7 patients, respectively. Median age of patients in head and neck trials was 57 years, which was 7 years younger than in cancer registries. More than 70% of patients had a World Health Organization performance score of 0 to 1 or a Karnofsky performance status of 90 to 100.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review, patients in head and neck randomized clinical trials had a very good performance status, and half of them were younger than 57 years, while half of the clinical population was older than 64 years. In more than 50% of the head and neck trials, the yearly accrual per center was less than 6 patients, suggesting overly restrictive recruitment. Critical appraisal of trial population characteristics is recommended before results are implemented in clinical guidelines and general practice.

The Importance of the Therapeutic Care Plan in Colorectal Surgery

Introduction A therapeutic plan is elaborated based on the health needs of each user, allowing a multidisciplinary team to assess diagnoses, treatment options, bonds, and optimal hospitalization time.

Objectives To identify risk management tools already used and implemented in a reference teaching hospital in the city of São Paulo and to analyze their application and risk factors in medium and large colorectal surgery.

Method Observational, longitudinal, and prospective study, with 30 patients with colorectal disease hospitalized in the surgical ward of the coloproctology service and in need of surgical treatment. In the first group, the protocol was applied with the knowledge of the researcher only, and, in the second group, with the knowledge of both the researcher and the attending physicians.

Results Sixty percent of the patients were female with a mean age of 60.93 years and body mass index (BMI) of 26.07 Kg/m2.

After surgery, patients in the first group who did not receive venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in the first 24 hours had an increased risk of having the event compared with those who returned to prophylaxis (p < 0.005), thus suggesting this prophylaxis was a protective factor against thromboembolic event (p = 0.006). This group also had a higher risk of hypoglycemia when no strict control was performed (p = 0.041).

Conclusion The compliance to hospital protocols with application monitoring, notedly in teaching places with annual admission of resident physicians, is a fundamental part of the adequate care of the patient combined with the implementation of therapeutic plans.

Research Participant Recruitment Strategies Among Individuals with Acute Spinal Cord Injury and Their Caregivers: A Pre-Post Study

STUDY DESIGN

Pre-post study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficiency of a series of recruitment strategies in a longitudinal study of individuals with SCI and their informal caregivers. Primary strategies included (a) rapport building in advance, (b) warm handoffs from another healthcare provider who already had a relationship with the potential participant, (c) ensuring the potential participant had information about the study prior to the initial contact by the research coordinator (RC), (d) attempting informed consent only when both the patient and informal caregiver were present, and (e) ensuring the RC had at least 30 minutes to explain the study when attempting recruitment.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

While a fairly large body of research has been conducted on general recruitment strategies for clinical trials, very little has examined the efficacy of these strategies within neurological conditions and almost none within SCI.

METHODS

Individuals with an acute SCI and their informal caregivers were recruited from acute spinal cord rehabilitation units with a Veteran's Affairs medical center and an academic medical center in the same urban area. Of 49 eligible dyads, 41 were approached for consent, with 27 consenting to join the study (9 from the academic medical center; 18 from the VA).

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in enrollment rates after implementing the recruitment strategies, χ2(1) = 7.572, P = 0.006, with the per month participant enrollment rate nearly doubling after implementation.

CONCLUSION

Using a multiteam and multidisciplinary approach to recruitment may increase the likelihood that individuals with an acute SCI and their caregivers enroll in research.Level of Evidence: 3.

Conduct of neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team meetings and closing the "gaps" in the clinical management of childhood central nervous system tumors in a middle-income country

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are essential in the clinical management of pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Evaluations of the impact of MDTMs on childhood CNS tumors and clinicians' perspectives on their effectiveness are scarce.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of pediatric patients (aged <18 years) with CNS tumors diagnosed and treated in the Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Division at the University Malaya Medical Center from 2008 to 2019. We also conducted a web-based survey of the core members of the multidisciplinary team to evaluate the impact of the MDTMs.

RESULTS

During the pre-MDTM era (2008-2012), 29 CNS tumors were diagnosed and treated, and during the MDTM era (2014-2019), 49 CNS tumors were diagnosed and treated. The interval for histologic diagnosis was significantly shorter during the MDTM era (p=0.04), but the interval from diagnosis to chemotherapy or radiotherapy and the 5-year overall survival of the 78 patients did not improve (62.1% ± 9.0% vs. 68.8% ± 9.1%; p=0.184). However, the 5-year overall survival of patients with medulloblastoma or rare tumors significantly improved in the MDTM era (p=0.01). Key factors that contributed to delayed treatment and poor outcomes were postoperative complications, the facility's lack of infrastructure, poor parental education about early treatment, cultural beliefs in alternative medicine, and infection during chemotherapy. Eighteen clinicians responded to the survey; they felt that the MDTMs were beneficial in decision-making and enhanced the continuity of coordinated care.

CONCLUSION

MDTMs significantly reduced the diagnostic interval and improved the overall outcomes. However, delayed treatment remains a major challenge that requires further attention.

Retrospective evaluation of regional telemedicine team meetings for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients: Experience from the Caen MS expert center in Normandy, France

INTRODUCTION

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a demyelinating disease requiring multidisciplinary care coordination. Recent development of diagnosis criteria and disease modifying treatments have encouraged the setup of regional team meetings by MS expert centers, known as CRC Sep, to improve the quality of care provided to patients with complex cases. The CRC Sep in Caen initiated regional telemedicine meetings named Télé-SEP, operating since 2016. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Télé-SEP used by neurologists, on MS patient care management in Normandy.

METHODS

An internal ex-itinere evaluation was conducted with a retrospective descriptive observational study from July 2016 to June 2018. The Télé-SEP meetings were organized with 41 neurologists using a regional telemedicine platform (Therap-e). Data were collected from online records and a declarative voluntary survey. Twenty indicators were classified in the categories: volume of activity, clinical profile, quality and impact.

RESULTS

Fifteen meetings were organized with a median of 13 senior neurologists. One hundred forty MS cases were discussed and there was a 33% increase in the second year of Télé-SEP. Median patient age was 44 years with a 72-month median length of disease. Most patient cases required second-line treatment. Relapsing remitting MS was diagnosed in 51.4% of cases. Télé-SEP satisfaction rate was 4.5/5 and 96% of neurologists applied the medical decisions and recommendations given in the meetings.

CONCLUSION

Without Télé-SEP, 54.5% of patients would have been referred to a physical expert consultation in the CRC Sep. This study showed the feasibility and relevance of regional telemedicine team meetings for MS cases in the Normandy region.

Role of Molecular Profiling of Pancreatic Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy: Does it Change Practice?

INTRODUCTION

Tumor profiling can improve the selection of oncologic therapies in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). The impact of neoadjuvant therapy on tumor testing is unknown.

METHODS

Molecular profiling using commercially available 53-, 315-, or 472-gene next generation sequencing (NGS) panels was performed on surgical specimens following neoadjuvant therapy. All specimens with 472-gene sequencing also had immunohistochemical (IHC) testing. Treatment recommendations were based on somatic variants and IHC staining.

RESULTS

NGS was performed on 74 patient specimens: 42 (57%) with a 472-gene panel, 28 (38%) with a 315-gene panel, 3 (4%) had 472- and 315-gene panels, and 1 (1%) patient had 53- and 472-gene panels (78 total tests). Likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants were identified in 73 (94%) of the 78 tests. Of the 73 samples with variants identified, 13 (18%) variants were associated with an actionable treatment: ATM (n = 10), BRCA1 (n = 1), PIK3CA (n = 1), and BRCA2 (n = 1). No patient had more than one actionable variant. Based on NGS results, the most commonly recommended therapy was a platinum agent (n = 12/78, 15%). Of the 46 specimens that underwent IHC analysis, overlapping chemotherapeutic treatment recommendations were identified in 40 (87%) specimens.

CONCLUSION

Using current multigene NGS panels, actionable variants were identified in 13 (18%) of 74 surgical specimens and primarily involved genes of the DNA repair pathway. Anecdotal reproducibility of test concordance was low.

Development, acceptability, appropriateness and appeal of a cancer clinical trials implementation intervention for rural- and minority-serving urology practices

Background

Few community urologists offer cancer patients the opportunity to participate in cancer clinical trials, despite national guidelines that recommend it, depriving an estimated 260,000 urological cancer patients of guideline-concordant care each year. Existing strategies to increase urologists’ offer of clinical trials are designed for resource-rich environments and are not feasible for many community urologists. We sought to design an implementation intervention for dissemination in under-resourced community urology practices and to compare its acceptability, appropriateness and adoption appeal among trial-naïve and trial-experienced urologists.

Methods

We used a design-for-dissemination approach, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behavior Change Wheel, to match determinants of the clinical trial offer to theoretically informed implementation strategies. We described the implementation intervention in evaluation workshops offered at urology professional society meetings. We surveyed participants to assess the implementation intervention’s acceptability and appropriateness using validated instruments. We also measured adoption appeal, intention to adopt and previous trial offer.

Results

Our design process resulted in a multi-modal implementation intervention, comprised of multiple implementation strategies designed to address six domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework. Evaluation workshops delivered at four meetings, convened five separate professional societies. Sixty-one percent of those offered an opportunity to participate in the implementation intervention indicated intention to adopt. Average implementation intervention acceptability and appropriateness ratings were 4.4 and 4.4 (out of 5), respectively. Acceptability scores were statistically significantly higher among those offering trials compared to those not (p = 0.03). Appropriateness scores did not differ between those offering trials and those not (p = 0.24). After urologists ranked their top three innovation attributes, 43% of urologists included practice reputation in their top three reasons for offering clinical trials; 30% listed practice differentiation among their top three reasons. No statistically significant differences were found between those who offered trials and those who did not among any of the innovation attributes.

Conclusions

LEARN|INFORM|RECRUIT is a promising implementation intervention to address low accrual to clinical trials, poised for implementation and effectiveness testing. The implementation intervention is appealing to its target audience and may have equal uptake among trial-naïve and trial-experienced practices.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3658-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How multidisciplinary are multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care? An observational study in oncology departments in Flanders, Belgium

Background

In current cancer care, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) aim at uniting care professionals from different disciplines to decide upon the best possible treatment plan for the patients based on the available scientific evidence. In Belgium, the multidisciplinary approach is mandatory and formally regulated since 2003. Current research indicates that MDTMs are not always truly multidisciplinary, ie, with a mix of medical as well as paramedical disciplines, and that the medical profession (physicians and medical specialists) tends to dominate the interaction in MDTMs. To ensure that MDTMs can benefit from their diverse membership to achieve their full potential, significant attention should be devoted to the multidisciplinary character of these meetings. The aim of this study is to explore and describe the multidisciplinary character in MDTMs and how it is actually shaped in practice in different Flemish medical oncology departments.

Methods

For this study, we carried out an observational comparative case study. We studied 59 multidisciplinary team meetings at inpatient medical oncology departments in five different Belgian hospitals (academic as well as general) and explored multidisciplinarity and how it is actually shaped in practice.

Results

The study is unique in identifying and analyzing three distinct types of MDTMs. The analysis of the three types revealed an inconsistent and, at times, contradictory picture of multidisciplinary team meetings. The findings also align with previous studies arguing that MDTMs in oncology are typically driven by doctors, with limited input of nurses and other nonmedical staff in which decisions are argued on biomedical information and far less consideration of psychosocial aspects.

Conclusion

The concept of a MDTM should not merely be a group of care professionals who work essentially independently and occasionally liaise with one another. Yet, this study has shown a worryingly low awareness of the true character of multidisciplinarity, particularly among medical disciplines.

Patient perspectives on a national multidisciplinary team meeting for a rare cancer

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) provide a regular forum for cancer teams to convene and discuss the diagnostic and treatment aspects of patient care. For some rare cancers, MDTMs may also occur at national level to pool expertise and to ensure more consistent decision-making. One such national MDTM exists in the UK for patients with a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma of the bone-the National Ewing's MDT (NEMDT). This study explored the patient perspective of this rare cancer national MDTM using focus group and survey methodology. Study participants used their experience to provide several recommendations: that their views should always inform the decision-making process, these views should be presented by someone who has met them such as a specialist nurse, MDT recommendations should be provided to them in plain English, and tools to improve patient choice and enhance communication should be implemented. These patient-centred recommendations will be used to improve the NEMDT but may be valid to inform quality improvement processes for other similar national panels.

What is the role of a specialist regional mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting? A service evaluation of one tertiary referral centre in the UK

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings are standard care for cancer in the UK and Europe. Professional bodies recommend that mesothelioma cases should be discussed at specialist multidisciplinary team meetings. However, no evidence exists exploring the role of the specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical activity of 1 specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting and to determine how often a definitive diagnosis was made, whether the core requirements of the meeting were met and whether there was any associated benefit or detriment.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A service evaluation using routinely collected data from 1 specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting in a tertiary referral hospital in the South-West of England.

PARTICIPANTS

All cases discussed between 1/1/2014 and 31/12/2015.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was whether a definitive diagnosis was made. Secondary outcomes included whether treatment advice was offered, information on clinical trials provided or further investigations suggested. Additional benefits of the multidisciplinary team meeting and time taken from referral to outcome were also collected.

RESULTS

A definitive diagnosis was reached in 171 of 210 cases discussed (81%). Mesothelioma was diagnosed in 153/210 (73%). Treatment advice was provided for 127 of 171 diagnostic cases (74%) and further investigations suggested for all 35 non-diagnostic cases. 86/210 cases (41%) were invited to participate in a trial, of whom 43/86 (50%) subsequently enrolled. Additional benefits included the avoidance of postmortem examination if the coroner was satisfied with the multidisciplinary team decision. The overall process from referral to outcome dispatch was <2 weeks in 75% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting was effective at making diagnoses and providing recommendations for further investigations or treatment. The core requirements of a specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting were met. The process was timely, with most outcomes returned within 2 weeks of referral.

Multidisciplinary team decision-making in cancer and the absent patient: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To critically examine the process of multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision-making with a particular focus on patient involvement.

DESIGN

Ethnographic study using direct non-participant observation of 35 MDT meetings and 37 MDT clinics, informal interviews and formal, semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 9 MDT staff members.

SETTING

Three head and neck cancer centres in the north of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a diagnosis of new or recurrent head and neck cancer and staff members who attend the head and neck cancer MDT.

RESULTS

Individual members of the MDT often have a clear view of which treatment they consider to be 'best' in any clinical situation. When disagreement occurs, the MDT has to manage how it presents this difference of opinion to the patient. First, this is because the MDT members recognise that the clinician selected to present the treatment choice to the patient may 'frame' their description of the treatment options to fit their own view of best. Second, many MDT members feel that any disagreement and difference of opinion in the MDT meeting should be concealed from the patient. This leads to much of the work of decision-making occurring in the MDT meeting, thus excluding the patient. MDT members seek to counteract this by introducing increasing amounts of information about the patient into the MDT meeting, thus creating an 'evidential patient'. Often, only highly selected or very limited information of this type can be available or known and it can easily be selectively reported in order to steer the discussion in a particular direction.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of MDT decision-making presents significant barriers to effective patient involvement. If patients are to be effectively involved in cancer decision-making, the process of MDT decision-making needs substantial review.

'The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual': a qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology

Background

Challenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently.

Results

Twenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a ‘study team’, bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals’ willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner.

Conclusions

This study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791.

Clinical pathway for esophagectomy improves perioperative nutrition

BACKGROUND

Clinical pathways reduce hospitalization and costs in colorectal and pancreatic cancer. We describe creating an esophagectomy pathway and analyze its implementation and effects.

METHODS

We documented the process of developing an esophagectomy clinical pathway. We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 12 patients before pathway implementation and 12 patients after.

RESULTS

Pathway Implementation: more patients were presented at tumor board (9 pathway vs. 2 pre-pathway; p=0.012) and chose their postoperative care facility before surgery (8 vs. 0; p=0.0013) OUTCOMES: There were no changes in mortality (0 vs. 0), major complications (5 vs. 5), hospitalization (median 9.5 vs. 12 days; p=0.82), and total charges ($ 98,395 vs. $ 96,946; p=0.96). Pathway patients lost significantly less weight preoperatively (2.3% vs. 7.6%; p=0.01) and perioperatively (6.3% vs. 12%; p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to report the process of designing and implementing an esophagectomy pathway. While there was no significant decrease in mortality, complications, hospitalization, or charges, our pathway significantly decreased pre- and perioperative weight loss, which we attribute to coordinated patient education and care.

Creating a "culture of research" in a community hospital: Strategies and tools from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program

BACKGROUND

The value of community-based cancer research has long been recognized. In addition to the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical and Minority-Based Oncology Programs established in 1983, and 1991 respectively, the National Cancer Institute established the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program in 2007 with an aim of enhancing access to high-quality cancer care and clinical research in the community setting where most cancer patients receive their treatment. This article discusses strategies utilized by the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program to build research capacity and create a more entrenched culture of research at the community hospitals participating in the program over a 7-year period.

METHODS

To facilitate development of a research culture at the community hospitals, the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program required leadership or chief executive officer engagement; utilized a collaborative learning structure where best practices, successes, and challenges could be shared; promoted site-to-site mentoring to foster faster learning within and between sites; required research program assessments that spanned clinical trial portfolio, accrual barriers, and outreach; increased identification and use of metrics; and, finally, encouraged research team engagement across hospital departments (navigation, multidisciplinary care, pathology, and disparities) to replace the traditionally siloed approach to clinical trials.

LIMITATIONS

The health-care environment is rapidly changing while complexity in research increases. Successful research efforts are impacted by numerous factors (e.g. institutional review board reviews, physician interest, and trial availability). The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program sites, as program participants, had access to the required resources and support to develop and implement the strategies described. Metrics are an important component yet often challenging to identify and collect. The model requires a strong emphasis on outreach that challenges hospitals to improve and expand their reach, particularly into underrepresented populations and catchment areas. These efforts build on trust and a referral pipeline within the community which take time and significant commitment to establish.

CONCLUSION

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program experience provides a relevant model to broadly address creating a culture of research in community hospitals that are increasingly networked via systems and consortiums. The strategies used align well with the National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Accrual Symposium recommendations for patient-/community-, physician-/provider-, and site-/organizational-level approaches to clinical trials; they helped sites achieve organizational culture shifts that enhanced their cancer research programs. The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program hospitals reported that the strategies were challenging to implement yet proved valuable as they provided useful metrics for programmatic assessment, planning, reporting, and growth. While focused on oncology trials, these concepts may be useful within other disease-focused research as well.

A systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancer

AIM

This systematic review aimed to assess the use of patient preference in colorectal cancer treatment. Eliciting patient preference is important for shared decision-making in colorectal cancer treatment. The introduction of newer treatments, which balance quality of life and overall survival, makes this an important future focus.

METHOD

A systematic search strategy of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews was undertaken to obtain relevant articles. Information regarding the type of patients included, preference instruments, study settings, outcomes and limitations was extracted.

RESULTS

The eight articles comprising this review each described an empirical study using a validated instrument to define patient preference for an aspect of colorectal cancer treatment. The evidence suggests that patients are prepared to trade significant reductions in life expectancy to avoid certain complications of colorectal surgery, particularly stoma formation. In the adjuvant setting, patients are prepared to risk significant treatment side effects to gain small potential increases in life expectancy and chance of survival. Where neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment risks worsening function, however, patients generally forgo any potential increase in survival to improve bowel function and therefore quality of life. The only predictors of preference were tertiary education and previous cancer treatment.

CONCLUSION

Most patients judge a moderate survival benefit to be sufficient to make adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer worthwhile, but they are willing to trade a potential reduction in life expectancy and survival to avoid certain unwanted surgical sequelae.

"No decision about me without me" in the context of cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: a qualitative interview study

Background

Cancer care is commonly managed by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) who meet to discuss and agree treatment for individual patients. Patients do not attend MDT meetings but recommendations for treatments made in the meetings directly influence the decision-making process between patients and their responsible clinician. No research to-date has considered patient perspectives (or understanding) regarding MDTs or MDT meetings, though research has shown that failure to consider patient-based information can lead to recommendations that are inappropriate or unacceptable, and can consequently delay treatment.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with current cancer patients from one cancer centre who had either upper gastrointestinal or gynaecological cancer (n = 9) and with MDT members (n = 12) from the teams managing their care. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using Framework approach. Key themes were identified and commonalities and discrepancies within and between individual transcripts and within and between patient and team member samples were identified and examined using the constant comparative method.

Results

Patients had limited opportunities to input to or influence the decision-making process in MDT meetings. Key explanatory factors included that patients were given limited and inconsistent information about MDTs and MDT meetings, and that MDT members had variable definitions of patient-centredness in the context of MDTs and MDT meetings. Patients that had knowledge of medicine (through current/previous employment themselves or that of a close family member) appeared to have greater understanding and access to the MDT. Reassurance emerged as a ‘benefit’ of informing patients about MDTs and MDT meetings.

Conclusions

There is a need to ensure MDT processes are both efficient and patient-centred. The operationalization of “No decision about me without me” in the context of MDT models of care – where patients are not present when recommendations for treatment are discussed - requires further consideration. Methods for ensuring that patients are actively integrated into the MDT processes are required to ensure patients have an informed choice regarding engagement, and to ensure recommendations are based on the best available patient-based and clinical evidence.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0488-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improving the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with chronic diseases: a prospective observational study

Background

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been endorsed by the Department of Health as the core model for managing chronic diseases. However, the evidence for their effectiveness is mixed and the degree to which they have been absorbed into clinical practice varies widely across conditions and settings. We aimed to identify the key characteristics of chronic disease MDT meetings that are associated with decision implementation, a measure of effectiveness, and to derive a set of feasible modifications to MDT meetings to improve decision-making.

Methods

We undertook a mixed-methods prospective observational study of 12 MDTs in the London and North Thames area, covering cancer, heart failure, mental health and memory clinic teams. Data were collected by observation of 370 MDT meetings, completion of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) by 161 MDT members, interviews with 53 MDT members and 20 patients, and review of 2654 patients’ medical records. We examined the influence of patient-related factors (disease, age, sex, deprivation indicator, whether or not their preferences and other clinical/health behaviours were mentioned) and MDT features (team climate and skill mix) on the implementation of MDT treatment plans. Interview and observation data were thematically analysed and integrated to explore possible explanations for the quantitative findings, and to identify areas of diverse beliefs and practice across MDT meetings. Based on these data, we used a modified formal consensus technique involving expert stakeholders to derive a set of indications of good practice for effective MDT meetings.

Results

The adjusted odds of implementation were reduced by 25% for each additional professional group represented [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.87], though there was some evidence of a differential effect by type of disease. Implementation was more likely in MDTs with clear goals and processes and a good team climate (adjusted odds of implementation increased by 7%; 95% CI 1% to 13% for a 0.1-unit increase in TCI score). Implementation varied by disease category (with the lowest adjusted odds of implementation in mental health teams) and by patient deprivation (adjusted odds of implementation for patients in the most compared with least deprived areas were 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). We ascertained 16 key themes within five domains where there was substantial diversity in beliefs and practices across MDT meetings. These related to the purpose, structure, processes and content of MDT meetings, as well as to the role of the patient. We identified 68 potential recommendations for improving the effectiveness of MDT meetings. Of these, 21 engendered both strong agreement (median ≥ 7) and low variation in the extent of agreement (mean absolute deviation from the median of < 1.11) among the expert consensus panel. These related to the purpose of the meetings (e.g. that agreeing treatment plans should take precedence over other objectives); meeting processes (e.g. that MDT decision implementation should be audited annually); content of the discussion (e.g. that information on comorbidities and past medical history should be routinely available); and the role of the patient (e.g. concerning the most appropriate time to discuss treatment options). Panellists from all specialties agreed that these recommendations were both desirable and feasible. We were unable to achieve consensus for 17 statements. In part, this was a result of disease-specific differences including the need to be prescriptive about MDT membership, with local flexibility deemed appropriate for heart failure and uniformity supported for cancer. In other cases, our data suggest that some processes (e.g. discussion of unrelated research topics) should be locally agreed, depending on the preferences of individual teams.

Conclusions

Substantial diversity exists in the purpose, structure, processes and content of MDT meetings. Greater multidisciplinarity is not necessarily associated with more effective decision-making and MDT decisions (as measured by decision implementation). Decisions were less likely to be implemented for patients living in more deprived areas. We identified 21 indications of good practice for improving the effectiveness of MDT meetings, which expert stakeholders from a range of chronic disease specialties agree are both desirable and feasible. These are important because MDT meetings are resource-intensive and they should deliver value to the NHS and patients. Priorities for future work include research to examine whether or not the 21 indications of good practice identified in this study will lead to better decision-making; for example, incorporating the indications into a modified MDT and experimentally evaluating its effectiveness in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Other areas for further research include exploring the value of multidisciplinarity in MDT meetings and the reasons for low implementation in community mental health teams. There is also scope to examine the underlying determinants of the inequalities demonstrated in this study, for example by exploring patient preferences in more depth. Finally, future work could examine the association between MDT decision implementation and improvements in patient outcomes.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are considered the gold standard of cancer care in many healthcare systems, but a clear definition of their format, scope of practice and operational criteria is still lacking. The aims of this review were to assess the impact of MDTs on patient outcomes in cancer care and identify their objectives, organisation and ability to engage patients in their care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature in the Medline database. Fifty-one peer-reviewed papers were selected from November 2005 to June 2012. MDTs resulted in better clinical and process outcomes for cancer patients, with evidence of improved survival among colorectal, head and neck, breast, oesophageal and lung cancer patients in the study period. Also, it was observed that MDTs have been associated with changes in clinical diagnostic and treatment decision-making with respect to urological, pancreatic, gastro-oesophageal, breast, melanoma, bladder, colorectal, prostate, head and neck and gynaecological cancer. Evidence is consistent in showing positive consequences for patients' management in multiple dimensions, which should encourage the development of structured multidisciplinary care, minimum standards and exchange of best practices.

Feasibility RCT of definitive chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell cancer

Background:

The optimal treatment for localised oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is uncertain. We assessed the feasibility of an RCT comparing neoadjuvant treatment and surgery with definitive chemoradiotherapy.

Methods:

A feasibility RCT in three centres examined incident patients and reasons for ineligibility using multi-disciplinary team meeting records. Eligible patients were offered participation in the RCT with integrated qualitative research involving audio-recorded recruitment appointments and interviews with patients to inform recruitment training for staff.

Results:

Of 375 patients with oesophageal SCC, 42 (11.2%) were eligible. Reasons for eligibility varied between centres, with significantly differing proportions of patients excluded because of total tumour length (P=0.002). Analyses of audio-recordings and patient interviews showed that recruiters had challenges articulating the trial design in simple terms, balancing treatment arms and explaining the need for randomisation. Before analyses of the qualitative data and recruiter training no patients were randomised. Following training in one centre 5 of 16 eligible patients were randomised.

Conclusions:

An RCT of surgical vs non-surgical treatment for SCC of the oesophagus is not feasible in the UK alone because of the low number of incident eligible patients. A trial comparing diverse treatment approaches may be possible with investment to support the recruitment process.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature.

RESULTS

Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

Benefits of multidisciplinary teamwork in the management of breast cancer

The widespread introduction of multidisciplinary team (MDT)-work for breast cancer management has in part evolved due to the increasing complexity of diagnostic and treatment decision-making. An MDT approach aims to bring together the range of specialists required to discuss and agree treatment recommendations and ongoing management for individual patients. MDTs are resource-intensive yet we lack strong (randomized controlled trial) evidence of their effectiveness. Clinical consensus is generally favorable on the benefits of effective specialist MDT-work. Many studies have shown the benefits of receiving treatment from a specialist center, and evidence continues to accrue from comparative studies of clinical benefits of an MDT approach, including improved survival. Patients’ views of the MDT model of decision-making (and in particular its impact on involvement in decisions about their care) have been under-researched. Barriers to effective teamwork and poor decision-making include excessive caseload, low attendance at meetings, lack of leadership, poor communication, role ambiguity, and failure to consider patients’ holistic needs. Breast cancer nurses have a key role in relation to assessing holistic needs, and their specialist contribution has also been associated with improved patient experience and quality of life. This paper examines the evidence for the benefits of MDT-work, in particular for breast cancer. Evidence is considered within a context of growing cancer incidence at a time of increased financial restraint, and it may now be important to reevaluate the structure and models of MDT-work to ensure that MDTs are an efficient use of resources.

Donating tissue for research: patient and provider perspectives

This article illustrates common patient and provider concerns about donating tissue for the purpose of research, discusses best practices, and provides answers to common patient questions.

What is a virtual multidisciplinary team (vMDT)?

Background:

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs), also known as tumour boards or multidisciplinary case conferences, are an integral component of contemporary cancer care. There are logistical problems with setting up and maintaining participation in these meetings. An ill-defined concept, the virtual MDT (vMDT), has arisen in response to these difficulties. We have, in order to provide clarity and to generate discussion, attempted to define the concept of the vMDT, outline its advantages and disadvantages, and consider some of the practical aspects involved in setting up a virtual MDT.

Methods:

This is an unstructured review of published evidence and personal experience relating to virtual teams in general, and to MDTs in particular.

Results:

We have devised a simple taxonomy for MDTs, discussed some of the practicalities involved in setting up a vMDT, and described some of the potential advantages and disadvantages associated with vMDTs.

Conclusion:

The vMDT may be useful for discussions concerning rare or unusual tumours, or for helping guide the assessment and management of patients with uncommon complications related to treatment. However, the vMDT is a niche concept and is currently unlikely to replace the more traditional face-to-face MDT in the management of common tumours at specific sites.

Are multidisciplinary teams in secondary care cost-effective? A systematic review of the literature

Objective

To investigate the cost effectiveness of management of patients within the context of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting in cancer and non-cancer teams in secondary care.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS EED, CINAHL, EconLit, Cochrane Library, and NHS HMIC.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort, case–control, before and after and cross-sectional study designs including an economic evaluation of management decisions made in any disease in secondary care within the context of an MDT meeting.

Data extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC-list). MDTs were defined by evidence of two characteristics: decision making requiring a minimum of two disciplines; and regular meetings to discuss diagnosis, treatment and/or patient management, occurring at a physical location or by teleconferencing. Studies that reported on the costs of administering, preparing for, and attending MDT meetings and/or the subsequent direct medical costs of care, non-medical costs, or indirect costs, and any health outcomes that were relevant to the disease being investigated were included and classified as cancer or non-cancer MDTs.

Results

Fifteen studies (11 RCTs in non-cancer care, 2 cohort studies in cancer and non-cancer care, and 2 before and after studies in cancer and non cancer care) were identified, all with a high risk of bias. Twelve papers reported the frequency of meetings which varied from daily to three monthly and all reported the number of disciplines included (mean 5, range 2 to 9). The results from all studies showed mixed effects; a high degree of heterogeneity prevented a meta-analysis of findings; and none of the studies reported how the potential savings of MDT working may offset the costs of administering, preparing for, and attending MDT meetings.

Conclusions

Current evidence is insufficient to determine whether MDT working is cost-effective or not in secondary care. Further studies aimed at understanding the key aspects of MDT working that lead to cost-effective cancer and non-cancer care are required.

The role of multi-disciplinary teams in decision-making for patients with recurrent malignant disease

BACKGROUND

It is mandatory in many countries for decisions for all new patients with cancer to be made within multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs). Whether patients with disease recurrence should also routinely be discussed by the MDT is unknown.

AIM

This study investigated the role of an upper gastro intestinal (UGI) MDT in decision-making for patients with disease recurrence.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of prospectively kept MDT records (2010 to 2011) was performed identifying patients discussed with recurrence of oesophagogastric cancer. Information was recorded about: i) why an MDT referral was made, ii) who made the referral and iii) the final MDT recommendation. Implementation of the MDT recommendation was also examined.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients discussed with recurrence of cancer at a central UGI cancer MDT were included.

RESULTS

During the study 54 MDT meetings included discussions regarding 304 new patients and 29 with disease recurrence. Referrals to the MDT for patients with recurrence came from outpatient clinics (n=19, 65.5%) or following emergency admission (n=10). Most referrals were made by the surgical team (n=25, 86.2%). MDT recommendations were best supportive care (n=11, 37.9%), palliative chemotherapy (n=9, 31.0%), stent (n=5, 17.2%), palliative radiotherapy (n=3, 10.3%) and further surgery (n=1, 3.4%), with 25 (86.2%) of these implemented.

CONCLUSION

UGI MDTs focus on new referrals and only a small proportion of patients with recurrent disease are re-discussed. Many patients go on to receive further treatments. Whether such patients are optimally managed within the standard MDT is uncertain, however, and warrants further consideration.

The oncosurgery approach to managing liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a multidisciplinary international consensus

An international panel of multidisciplinary experts convened to develop recommendations for the management of patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim was to address the main issues facing the CRC hepatobiliary multidisciplinary team (MDT) when managing such patients and to standardize the treatment patients receive in different centers. Based on current evidence, the group agreed on a number of issues including the following: (a) the primary aim of treatment is achieving a long disease-free survival (DFS) interval following resection; (b) assessment of resectability should be performed with high-quality cross-sectional imaging, staging the liver with magnetic resonance imaging and/or abdominal computed tomography (CT), depending on local expertise, staging extrahepatic disease with thoracic and pelvic CT, and, in selected cases, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with ultrasound (preferably contrast-enhanced ultrasound) for intraoperative staging; (c) optimal first-line chemotherapy-doublet or triplet chemotherapy regimens combined with targeted therapy-is advisable in potentially resectable patients; (d) in this situation, at least four courses of first-line chemotherapy should be given, with assessment of tumor response every 2 months; (e) response assessed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (conventional chemotherapy) or nonsize-based morphological changes (antiangiogenic agents) is clearly correlated with outcome; no imaging technique is currently able to accurately diagnose complete pathological response but high-quality imaging is crucial for patient management; (f) the duration of chemotherapy should be as short as possible and resection achieved as soon as technically possible in the absence of tumor progression; (g) the number of metastases or patient age should not be an absolute contraindication to surgery combined with chemotherapy; (h) for synchronous metastases, it is not advisable to undertake major hepatic surgery during surgery for removal of the primary CRC; the reverse surgical approach (liver first) produces as good an outcome as the conventional approach in selected cases; (i) for patients with resectable liver metastases from CRC, perioperative chemotherapy may be associated with a modestly better DFS outcome; and (j) whether initially resectable or unresectable, cure or at least a long survival duration is possible after complete resection of the metastases, and MDT treatment is essential for improving clinical and survival outcomes. The group proposed a new system to classify initial unresectability based on technical and oncological contraindications.

Multidisciplinary reference centers: the care of neuroendocrine tumors

The purpose of this study was to review the need for and benefits of multidisciplinary care in patients with cancer, to describe our experience setting up a multidisciplinary reference center (MRC) dedicated to the treatment of the uncommon cancer neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), and to present the perspective of a patient seeking treatment at our center.The literature was searched to review the outcomes of patients with cancer treated by a multidisciplinary team.Multidisciplinary care for patients with more common cancers has been associated with improvements in diagnosis, treatment planning, survival, patient satisfaction, and clinician satisfaction. Similar benefits have been seen in patients with NETs receiving treatment at a specialty center. The establishment of our NETs MRC allows us to offer integrated care, providing surgical oncology and medical oncology disciplines; nurses well experienced in the treatment of NETs; and the expertise of endocrinology, diagnostic radiology, and interventional radiology specialists. Since our clinic was established, we have increased our availability to see patients and have received positive feedback from those attending.MRCs have been associated with improved patient outcomes. As providers at a dedicated NETs MRC, we feel that these centers have a positive effect on both patient and provider experience. The creation of specialty centers with a focus on improving outcomes and quality of care should be a goal of health care systems and are especially important for patients with NETs and other rare cancers.

Does multidisciplinary care enhance the management of advanced breast cancer?: evaluation of advanced breast cancer multidisciplinary team meetings

PURPOSE

To assess the contribution of the advanced breast cancer (ABC) multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) to patient care and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Members of ABC MDMs at two health services completed questionnaires in November 2007. The questionnaire asked about the performance of the MDMs and their contribution to improvement in patient care in five domains: medical management, psychosocial care, palliative care, care in the community, and benefits for team members. A final section covered the perceived value and importance of the MDM in patient management. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, mean, and standard deviation) were used to summarize the performance, improvement, and importance scores.

RESULTS

A total of 27 multidisciplinary team members (73%) completed the questionnaire. The MDM performed best in medical management (mean performance score out of 5 [M] = 3.78) and palliative care (M = 3.77). These were also the areas that were most improved through the MDM. Benefits to team members and care in the community (both M = 3.05) ranked lowest by both measures. The MDM provided the most benefit for patient management in the areas of "awareness of services available" (M = 4.32), "efficiency of referrals" (M = 4.27) and "supportive care for patients" (M = 4.27). "Awareness of services available," "psychological care for patients," and "continuity of care" were considered the most important (M = 4.64).

CONCLUSION

The study provides evidence that MDMs make an important contribution to the logistical and medical management of patients with advanced breast cancer.

A multidisciplinary approach to the management of urologic malignancies: does it influence diagnostic and treatment decisions?

OBJECTIVE

It is recognized that multidisciplinary teams may improve management decisions for patients with malignancies. We prospectively studied the effect of such a multidisciplinary approach on the diagnosis and treatment decisions of patients newly presenting with urologic malignancies.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-nine consecutive new patients presenting to our institution with an outside diagnosis of a urologic malignancy for diagnostic or treatment considerations (2007-2008). All cases were reviewed and discussed at a tumor board with all members of the different subspecialties present. Reevaluation of the outside diagnostic and treatment plan was undertaken. Based on this team review and approach, patients were classified based on changes in diagnosis and/or treatment.

RESULTS

Cohort was comprised of patients with the diagnosis of cancer of the prostate (34%), bladder (23%), kidney (35%), testicle (5%), and other (1%). Only 35% of patients had no changes in diagnosis or treatment, 38% had a change in diagnosis or treatment, 10% required further analysis (i.e., "other"), and 17% were N/A. Changes in diagnosis were most common in bladder (23%) and renal (17%) cancers. Changes in treatment were most common in bladder cancer (44%), followed by kidney (36%), testicular (29%), then prostate (22%) cancers. A stage effect on diagnostic and treatment considerations was also noted, especially for bladder cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary team approach affects the diagnostic and management decisions in a significant number patients with a newly diagnosed urologic malignancy, and thereby seems to have a clinical impact for many of our patients with urologic cancers.