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

Integrated care among patients with kidney or urinary bladder cancer: An NCI patterns-of-care analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients often have complex medical needs from diagnosis to survivorship/end-of-life care. Integrated care, including care coordination, multidisciplinary rounds, and supportive care services, is crucial for high-quality cancer care. Yet, factors influencing integrated care receipt are not well understood. This study describes patterns of integrated care among individuals diagnosed with kidney or urinary bladder cancer and examines patient- and hospital-level factors associated with these services.

METHODS

Analyzing 2019 National Cancer Institute Patterns-of-Care data, we assessed integrated care service receipt among stage I to IV kidney and stage 0a to IVb urinary bladder cancer patients aged ≥ 20 years using a stratified Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry sample. Integrated care services within 12 months postdiagnosis were identified by medical record abstraction. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified patient, clinical, and hospital-level factors significantly associated with receipt of integrated care.

RESULTS

Significant variations in receiving integrated care were observed based on insurance status; uninsured patients less likely to receive these services. Racial/ethnic differences were also noted, as non-Hispanic white patients had higher likelihoods of receiving integrated care. Stage IV kidney cancer patients were 2.63 times [1.44-4.79] more likely to receive integrated care than stage I patients. Treatment characteristics and hospital-level factors appeared to have minimal impact on receiving these services.

CONCLUSION

The lower likelihood of receiving integrated care among patients with no insurance and among certain racial/ethnic groups underscores gaps in equitable access to patient-centered cancer care. Future research should include patient perspectives to enhance understanding of unmet needs and influencing factors related to integrated care services.

The evolving role of multidisciplinary teams in optimizing non-muscle invasive bladder cancer care

INTRODUCTION

Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) represents a significant portion of bladder cancer cases and imposes a substantial economic burden, stemming from both direct treatment costs and long-term surveillance. As the treatment landscape evolves with advances in immunotherapy and targeted therapies, a multidisciplinary approach to management is increasingly crucial for optimizing patient outcomes and resource utilization.

AREAS COVERED

A PubMed search from 2010 to 15 June 2024 was conducted. This review examines the evolving role of multidisciplinary team (MDT) care in NMIBC management. It explores the potential benefits of MDT care, including improved risk stratification and personalized treatment plans, while acknowledging the challenges to implementation and proposing strategies to overcome them.

EXPERT OPINION

With a growing understanding of NMIBC and expanding therapeutic options, MDT care is pivotal in navigating patient care and maximizing outcomes. Strategic planning and collaborative efforts will facilitate the broader adoption of MDT care, enhancing the value of NMIBC treatment. MDT care holds promise for personalized, effective, and cost-efficient care for patients with NMIBC in the future.

Patterns of Discordance Between Clinical and Pathologic Stage in Head and Neck Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To enhance understanding in patterns of discordance between clinical and pathological T and N staging in multiple sites of head and neck squamous cell cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 580 newly diagnosed and surgically treated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients from a single institution over a 10-year period are presented. Clinical and pathologic staging are compared.

RESULTS

Notably, 33% of cases had staging discordance. Overall Cohen's kappa agreement was κ = 0.55 (moderate agreement). Highly discordant site stages with κ < 0.45 included: T2 oral cavity, T2 oropharynx, T3 larynx, and N1 lymph node. T2-4 oral cavity cancers were often overstaged, and more than one-third of T3 larynx cancers were understaged. Highly concordant site stages with κ>0.65 included: T1 larynx, T4 oropharynx, N0 lymph node, and N3 lymph node.

CONCLUSION

There exists a quantifiable and, in certain sites, clinically relevant pattern of discordance between clinical and pathologic staging. Tumor board multidisciplinary evaluation can highlight these discrepancies and aide in limiting effects on treatment decisions. However, discordant staging can affect the interpretation and application of prognostication, treatment, and data accuracy. Further investigation is warranted to improve clinical staging accuracy in areas of highest discordance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:4284-4291, 2024.

Real-world study: Impact of multidisciplinary management of apalutamide-associated adverse events in prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the adverse events (AEs) associated with apalutamide and the impact of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) protocol on its management at a tertiary care hospital in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This was an observational, prospective, cohort study based on real-world evidence at the Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. Includes patients diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) or high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and who started treatment with apalutamide between May 2019 and March 2023 in a real-world clinical setting.

RESULTS

Of the 121 patients treated with apalutamide, 52.1% experienced an AE, 19.8% experienced temporarily interruption or a reduction in the dose of apalutamide, and 13.2% discontinued treatment due to AEs. Without MDT protocol (49 patients), 24.5% of patients had to temporarily interrupt or reduce the dose of apalutamide due to AEs, with a median time from the start of treatment of 10.1 months, and 24.5% discontinued apalutamide due to AEs, with a median time from the start of treatment of 3.1 months. Meanwhile, whit MDT protocol (72 patients), 16.7% of patients had to temporarily interrupt or reduce the dose of apalutamide due to AEs, with a median time from the start of treatment of 1.6 months, and 5.6% discontinued apalutamide due to AEs, with a median time from the start of treatment of 4 months. The risk reduction associated with treatment discontinuation was statistically significant (p-value = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of MDT management of AEs associated with apalutamide to reduce treatment discontinuation.

Optimising head and neck cancer patient management: the crucial contributions of multidisciplinary tumour board decision-making

Introduction

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck is a great burden globally, which is being tackled through treatment options of surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of these, to avoid disease-related mortality. Multidisciplinary tumour boards play a pivotal role in customising and deciding management plan based on clinical aspects. The objective of the study is to determine the concordance of opinion between the treatment plan of a primary physician and board members.

Material and methods

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study that includes 137 head and neck carcinoma cases. They were discussed in the multidisciplinary tumour board meeting and were reviewed; all demographics were analysed including the tumour staging and the decisions of the primary physician was compared with those of the board. To check the concordance between primary surgeon plans or after board discussion Kappa agreement test was used.

Results

Total of 137 patients were included in the study out of which 63 cases were pre-treatment and 74 cases were post-treatment, i.e., surgically treated cases, with the distribution being 46% and 54%, respectively. Most cases, totaling 120, were SCC, accounting for 80% of the total cases. Among the pre-treatment cases, T4a and N0 were the most common categories, with 29 and 40 cases, respectively. Similarly, in post-treatment cases, the majority fell into the T4a and N1 categories, with 29 and 38 cases, respectively. When comparing the primary surgeon's plan with the tumour board meeting decision, the agreement showed a value of 0.273, indicating a slight level of agreement between the two entities.

Conclusion

Our data indicates that the multidisciplinary head and neck tumour board may have influenced the treatment plans of the primary surgeon, in approximately one in two patients (43.06%).

Multidisciplinary neurofibromatosis conference in the management of patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 and schwannomatosis in a single tertiary care institution

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of weekly neurofibromatosis (NF) multi-disciplinary conferences (MDC) on the diagnostic and therapeutic plan for patients with NF type 1 (NF1) and schwannomatosis (SWN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed patients with confirmed or suspected NF1 and SWN discussed in weekly MDC from March to July 2021. Demographic data collected included patient age, sex, pre-conference and post-conference diagnosis, radiological studies reviewed, and provider specialties in attendance. Outcomes reported included changes in imaging interpretation and treatment plans, changes in post-conference diagnosis relative to pre-conference diagnosis, and time to completion of the recommended change in treatment.

RESULTS

Data from 17 MDC "pre-conference" lists included 75 patients (38 female, 37 males, mean age (years): 38 (range: 6-80)) with NF1 (52%, 39/75) and SWN (36%, 27/75) discussed over a total of 91 case reviews. 18.7% (14/75) of all patients had NF2-related SWN, and 17.3% (13/75) of all patients had non-NF2 SWN. The MDC led to changes in imaging interpretation in 18.7% and changes in patient management in 74.7% (diagnostic testing (n = 52), surgical plan (n = 24), medical treatment (n = 9), clinical trial status (n = 4), and radiation treatment (n = 1)) of cases. Among patients for whom a change in management was recorded, 91% (62/68) completed at least one recommendation (mean time to completion (days): 41.4 (range: 0-278)).

CONCLUSION

Weekly MDC changes the diagnostic and therapeutic management of the majority of patients discussed (74.7%) and promotes a high adherence rate to recommendations (91%).

The Impact of a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB) on Treatment Decision Making for Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC): 5-Year Data Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients in a locoregional renal cancer network by evaluating shared decision making (SDM) and adherence to MTB recommendations.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective cohort study included all cases from a Dutch renal cancer network with suspicion of or histologically confirmed RCC discussed in MTBs between 2017-2022. Main endpoints were distribution of cases presented, proportion of recommendations with multiple treatment options enabling shared decision making (SDM), definite treatment after SDM and adherence to MTB recommendations. Further endpoints were definite treatment per tumor stage stratified by age and inclusion in clinical trials. Outcomes were displayed as means and proportions (%). Pearson's Chi-Squared test was used to analyze the effect of age on definite treatment advice.

RESULTS

Overall, 2651 cases were discussed, of which 1900 (72%) were new referrals and 751 (28%) rediscussions. Majority of cases were cT1a-b tumors (46%) and 22% were local recurrences or metachronous metastatic. Adherence to MTB recommendation was 96% and in 30% multiple treatment options were recommended, allowing for SDM. In 45% of cases with cT1a tumors multiple treatment options were recommended by the MTB, resulting in (cryo)ablation (32%) and AS (30%) as most frequent definite treatments after SDM. Among patients with cT3-4 tumors the inclusion rate in clinical trials was 47%.

CONCLUSIONS

A network MTB creates opportunity to discuss multiple treatment options and clinical trials in SDM with patients at a high rate of adherence to MTB recommendation.

Novel hormone therapy and coordination of care in high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs in 20-50% of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing primary definitive treatment. Patients with high-risk BCR have an increased risk of metastatic progression and subsequent PCa-specific mortality, and thus could benefit from treatment intensification. Given the increasing complexity of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, multidisciplinary care (MDC) can play a crucial role in the individualized management of this patient population. This review explores the role for MDC when evaluating the clinical evidence for the evolving definition of high-risk BCR and the emerging therapeutic strategies, especially with novel hormone therapies (NHTs), for patients with either high-risk BCR or oligometastatic PCa. Clinical studies have used different characteristics to define high-risk BCR and there is no consensus regarding the definition of high-risk BCR nor for management strategies. Next-generation imaging and multigene panels offer potential enhanced patient identification and precision-based decision-making, respectively. Treatment intensification with NHTs, either alone or combined with radiotherapy or metastasis-directed therapy, has been promising in clinical trials in patients with high-risk BCR or oligometastases. As novel risk-stratification and treatment options as well as evidence-based literature evolve, it is important to involve a multidisciplinary team to identify patients with high-risk features at an earlier stage, and make informed decisions on the treatments that could optimize their care and long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, MDC data are scarce in the BCR or oligometastatic setting. Efforts to integrate MDC into the standard management of this patient population are needed, and will likely improve outcomes across this heterogeneous PCa patient population.

Multidisciplinary discussion and management of synchronous colorectal liver metastases: A single center study in China

BACKGROUND

The multidisciplinary team (MDT) has been carried out in many large hospitals now. However, given the costs of time and money and with little strong evidence of MDT effectiveness being reported, critiques of MDTs persist.

AIM

To evaluate the effects of MDTs on patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases and share our opinion on management of synchronous colorectal liver metastases.

METHODS

In this study we collected clinical data of patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases from February 2014 to February 2017 in the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital and subsequently divided them into an MDT+ group and an MDT- group. In total, 93 patients in MDT+ group and 169 patients in MDT- group were included totally.

RESULTS

Statistical increases in the rate of chest computed tomography examination (P = 0.001), abdomen magnetic resonance imaging examination (P = 0.000), and preoperative image staging (P = 0.0000) were observed in patients in MDT+ group. Additionally, the proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy (P = 0.019) and curative resection (P = 0.042) was also higher in MDT+ group. Multivariable analysis showed that the population of patients assessed by MDT meetings had higher 1-year [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.608, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.398-0.931, P = 0.022] and 5-year (HR = 0.694, 95%CI: 0.515-0.937, P = 0.017) overall survival.

CONCLUSION

These results proved that MDT management did bring patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases more opportunities for comprehensive examination and treatment, resulting in better outcomes.

U-CHANGE Project: a multidimensional consensus on how clinicians, patients and caregivers may approach together the new urothelial cancer scenario

Introduction

Advanced urothelial carcinoma remains aggressive and very hard to cure, while new treatments will pose a challenge for clinicians and healthcare funding policymakers alike. The U-CHANGE Project aimed to redesign the current model of care for advanced urothelial carcinoma patients to identify limitations ("as is" scenario) and recommend future actions ("to be" scenario).

Methods

Twenty-three subject-matter experts, divided into three groups, analyzed the two scenarios as part of a multidimensional consensus process, developing statements for specific domains of the disease, and a simplified Delphi methodology was used to establish consensus among the experts.

Results

Recommended actions included increasing awareness of the disease, increased training of healthcare professionals, improvement of screening strategies and care pathways, increased support for patients and caregivers and relevant recommendations from molecular tumor boards when comprehensive genomic profiling has to be provided for appropriate patient selection to ad hoc targeted therapies.

Discussion

While the innovative new targeted agents have the potential to significantly alter the clinical approach to this highly aggressive disease, the U-CHANGE Project experience shows that the use of these new agents will require a radical shift in the entire model of care, implementing sustainable changes which anticipate the benefits of future treatments, capable of targeting the right patient with the right agent at different stages of the disease.

Management of Patients with Spine Tumors Strengthened by a Dedicated Multidisciplinary Spine Tumor Board: A 15-Year Single-Institutional Experience

BACKGROUND

Patients with spine tumors frequently require timely, multistep, and multidisciplinary care. A Spine Tumor Board (STB) provides a consistent forum wherein diverse specialists can interact, facilitating complex coordinated care for these patients. This study aims to present a single, large academic center's STB experience specifically reviewing case diversity, recommendations, and quantifying growth over time.

METHODS

All patient cases discussed at STB from May 2006 (STB inception) to May 2021 were evaluated. Collected data submitted by presenting physicians and formal documentation completed during the STB are summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 4549 cases were reviewed by STB over the study period, representing 2618 unique patients. Over the course of the study, a 266% increase in number of cases presented per week was observed (4.1 to 15.0). Cases were presented by surgeons (74%), radiation oncologists (18%), neurologists (2%), and other specialists (6%). The most common pathologic diagnoses discussed were spinal metastases (n = 1832; 40%), intradural extramedullary tumors (n = 798; 18%), and primary glial tumors (n = 567; 12%). Treatment recommendations included surgery, radiation therapy, or systemic therapy for 1743 cases (38%), continued routine follow-up/expectant management for 1592 cases (35%), supplementary imaging to better clarify the diagnosis for 549 cases (12%), and variable tailored recommendations for the remainder of cases (18%).

CONCLUSIONS

Care of patients with spine tumors is complex. We believe that the formation of a stand-alone STB is instrumental to accessing multidisciplinary input, enhancing confidence in management decisions for both patients and providers, assisting with care orchestration, and improving quality of care for patients with spine tumors.

Optimizing the structure of interdisciplinary tumor boards for effective cancer care

Introduction

Multi-professional interdisciplinary tumor boards (ITB) are essential institutions to discuss all newly diagnosed, relapsed or complex cancer patients in a team of specialists to find an optimal cancer care plan for each individual patient with regard to national and international clinical practice guidelines, patient´s preference and comorbidities. In a high-volume cancer center, entity-specific ITBs take place at least once a week discussing a large number of patients. To a high level of expertise and dedication, this also requires an enormous amount of time for physicians, cancer specialists and administrative support colleagues, especially for radiologists, pathologists, medical oncologists and radiation oncologists, who must attend all cancer-specific boards according to certification requirements.

Methods

In this 15-month prospective German single-center analysis, we examined the established structures of 12 different cancer-specific ITBs at the certified Oncology Center and demonstrate tools helping to optimize processes before, during and after the boards for optimal, time-saving procedures.

Results

By changing pathways, introducing revised registration protocols and new digital supports we could show that the workload of preparation by radiologists and pathologists could be reduced significantly by 22.9% (p=<0.0001) and 52.7% (p=<0.0001), respectively. Furthermore, two questions were added to all registration forms about the patient´s need for specialized palliative care support that should lead to more awareness and early integration of specialized help.

Discussion

There are several ways to reduce the workload of all ITB team members while maintaining high quality recommendations and adherence to national and international guidelines.

Addressing Challenges and Controversies in the Management of Prostate Cancer with Multidisciplinary Teams

The diagnostic and treatment landscapes of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving. This has led to several challenges and controversies regarding optimal management of the disease that outpace guidelines and clinical data. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be used to engage the array of specialists that collaborate to treat complex malignancies such as prostate cancer. While the rationale for the use of MDTs in prostate cancer is well known, ways to optimally use MDTs to address the challenges and controversies associated with prostate cancer management are less well understood. One area of MDT care that remains undefined is how MDTs can most effectively provide guidance on clinical decision-making in situations in which information from novel diagnostic testing (genetic testing, molecular imaging) is substantially different from the established clinical risk factors. In this review, we provide a clinical perspective on ways that MDTs can be used to address this and other challenges and controversies across the prostate cancer disease continuum, from diagnosis to end-of-life considerations. Beyond clinical scenarios, we also review ways in which MDTs can mitigate disparities of care in prostate cancer. Overall, MDTs play a central role in helping to address the daily vexing issues faced by clinicians related to diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment. Given the accelerating advances in precision medicine and targeted therapy, and the new questions and controversies these will bring, the value of MDTs for prostate cancer management will only increase in the future.

Multiple disciplinary team management of rare primary splenic malignancy: Two case reports

BACKGROUND

Malignant splenic tumors are rare but fatal, presenting a challenge in diagnosis and management involving hematology, oncology, and general surgery. By contrast, diagnosing and treating other common malignant tumors (such as lung and gastrointestinal cancer) offers multiple strategies for chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy with the prospect of a cure. With various specialists involved in clinical multiple disciplinary team (MDT) discussion, personal bias can be minimized. It can also ignite important discussion which can benefit not only one patient but many patients.

CASE SUMMARY

Here, we report on the MDT diagnosis and management of the malignant splenic tumors littoral cell angiosarcoma and histiocytic sarcoma. Although only two cases of rare primary splenic malignancy are presented, MDT is a novel means of rare disease treatment.

CONCLUSION

To benefit patients, imaging analysis, safe operation, precise pathology examination, and individualized therapeutic treatment strategies are required. The involvement of various specialists in a clinical MDT discussion minimizes personal bias and can create important ideas to benefit all patients.

Virtual Tumor Board Increases Provider Attendance and Case Presentations

PURPOSE:

Many cancer centers engage in multidisciplinary tumor board meetings to determine the optimal approach to complex cancer care. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions changed the format of these meetings from in-person to virtual. The aim of this study was to determine if the change to a virtual meeting format had an impact on attendance and cases presented.

METHODS:

Tumor board records were analyzed to obtain attendance and case presentation information at a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Twelve-month in-person tumor board data were compared with 12-month virtual tumor board data to assess for difference in attendance and case presentation patterns.

RESULTS:

Seven separate weekly tumor board meetings at the beginning of the study (breast, GI, gynecology, liver, lung, melanoma, and urology) were expanded to nine meetings on the virtual platform (+endocrine and pancreas). Overall attendance increased by 46% on the virtual platform compared with in-person meetings (4,030 virtual attendances v 2,753 in-person, P < .001). Increased attendance was present across all specialties on the virtual platform. In addition, the number of patient cases discussed increased from 2,127 in in-person meeting to 2,656 on the virtual platform (a 20% increase, P < .001).

CONCLUSION:

A significant increase was observed in overall tumor board attendance and in case presentations per meeting, requiring the expansion of additional weekly meetings. Furthermore, in a major cancer center with multiple community affiliates, virtual tumor boards may encourage increased participation from remote sites with the benefit of obtaining expert specialist advice as compared with geographically challenging in-person meetings.

Implementation rate and effects of multidisciplinary team meetings on decision making about radiotherapy: an observational study at a single Japanese institution

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have been widely used to determine the direction of treatment. However, no standard provisions exist for conducting MDTMs, and recommendations discussed in MDTMs are sometimes not implemented. ​This study analyzed the indications for radiotherapy discussed and recommended at MDTMs, identified the rate of radiotherapy recommendations for patients that were not implemented, and clarified the reasons at a single academic center in Japan.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that analyzed the minutes and electronic medical records of cases discussed at MDTMs held between April 2012-March 2017 at Yamagata University Hospital. We categorized how radiotherapy was initially presented at MDTMs, determined the rate of radiotherapy recommendations made through MDTMs, analyzed whether treatment recommendations were subsequently implemented, and examined the causes of non-implementation. We performed a statistical analysis to assess some clinical factors (sex, age, number of multidisciplinary team meetings, and classification of planned treatment) associated with the non-implementation of radiotherapy recommendations from MDTMs.

RESULTS

A total of 1813 cases were discussed at MDTMs, of which 71% (1293 cases) were presented with treatment plans, including radiotherapy. Further, 66% (1205 cases) were recommended for radiotherapy through the MDTMs. Recommendations from MDTMs were not implemented in 7% (142 cases). The most typical reason for non-implementation was the clinician's opinion (30%), followed by patient preferences (27%) and disease progression (20%). Change in cancer stage and improvement in symptoms were 12% and 4%, respectively. These ratios were similar each year. We could not find the factors associated with the non-implementation of radiotherapy recommendations from MDTMs.

CONCLUSIONS

MDTMs had a significant effect on the recommendation of radiotherapy for each patient with a tumor. The primary reason for the non-implementation of decisions made at MDTMs was the opinion of clinicians and the patient's preference. These results were similar to previous studies. We need to establish a monitoring system where patients themselves can decide the treatments based on their choices while using the recommendations from MDTMs.

The Prognostic Effect of Multidisciplinary Team Intervention in Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer

Background: The effect of multidisciplinary team intervention (MDT) on the prognosis of advanced gastric cancer (GC) is still controversial. This study aims to analyze the effect of MDTs on the overall survival time of advanced gastric cancer patients. Methods: Patients with advanced GC who underwent surgical treatment between 2007 and 2014 were included in the study. They were divided into two groups; the MDT group received MDT treatment and the non-MDT group received conventional treatment. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the overall survival (OS) of the two groups. The prognostic factors of advanced GC were evaluated by multivariate Cox regression analysis. Results: 394 patients were included in our study. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the prognosis of advanced GC patients with who underwent MDT intervention was better than those without (3-year OS of 55.6% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.005), Multivariate analysis indicated that MDT intervention could reduce mortality (HR = 0.493, p < 0.001). Conclusions: MDT intervention is an effective measure that improves the survival of patients with advanced GC.

Implementing multidisciplinary tumor boards in oncology: a narrative review

The healthcare industry compares unfavorably with other ultra-safe industries such as aviation and nuclear power plants, which address complexity by reducing the vulnerability of a single person and promoting teams and strong systems. A multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) is an evidence-based organizational approach to implementing a more effective concept in oncology practice. Studies addressing the correlation between MTBs and cancer outcomes show promising results, and other potential benefits are also addressed. The objectives of this article are to define and characterize MTBs in modern oncology practice, review the current literature on MTBs effectiveness and address challenges to the implementation and maintenance of MTBs. In this commentary-type narrative review, the authors present their opinions and, whenever possible, substantiate recommendations by citing supportive literature.

The Uro-Oncology Multi-disciplinary team (MDT) Clinic – Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes From Implementing a New Model of Care

Introduction

A multi-disciplinary approach has often been advocated to improve the delivery of oncological care, as compared to a mono-disciplinary and linear approach. Our study elucidates the clinical and patient-reported outcomes from a urologic-oncology multi-disciplinary team (MDT) clinic in a regional general hospital.

Materials and Methods

Patients who attended a uro-oncology MDT clinic which was started in January 2019 were identified. This service was specifically catered to patients who were histologically diagnosed with urological cancers. The MDT service comprised a multi-disciplinary tumour board followed by outpatient clinical consults with representatives from urology, medical and radiation oncology. Demographic variables, disease characteristics and treatment rendered were analysed. A survey was administered to assess patient satisfaction.

Results

Fifty patients with a median age of 70 years with complete case records were identified. The cancer types included prostate cancers (46%), urothelial cancers (26%) and renal cell carcinoma (12%) as the most frequent urological cancers. The median time from MDT to therapy initiation was 8 days. Among those with prostate, urothelial, renal and testicular malignancies, 71% (32/45) of our patients received treatment that were in accordance to guideline recommendations. A post-clinic survey showed that patients were satisfied with the information provided during the clinic and this also facilitated decision and time to initiation of therapy.

Conclusion

A multi-disciplinary service comprising a tumour board followed by a one-stop clinic provides patients with multi-disciplinary care, improved access to subsequent therapy, better time efficiency and high patient satisfaction scores. More studies are warranted to demonstrate its oncological outcomes.

Birt-Hogg-Dubé Syndrome and Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Carcinoma Syndrome: An Effective Multidisciplinary Approach to Hereditary Renal Cancer Predisposing Syndromes

Aim

We aimed to describe and analyse clinical features, characteristics, and adherence to surveillance guidelines in an Australian Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome (BHD) and hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC) cohort.

Methods

All identified patients with a diagnosis of BHD or HLRCC at RBWH 01/01/2014-01/09/2019 were included (HREC/17/QRBW/276). All patients were initially assessed and counselled by a clinical geneticist and then referred to an adult nephrologist. Baseline and incidental clinical variables were extracted and analysed.

Results

Fifty-seven patients were identified (28 BHD, 29 HLRCC) with a median age of 47 years. The median and cumulative follow-up were 1 and 99 years, respectively. Baseline renal MRI occurred in 40/57 patients, and 33/57 had regular MRI as per the national guidelines (eviQ). Of 18/57 without baseline imaging, nine were yet to have imaging, seven were lost follow-up, and two patients had logistic difficulties. RCC was diagnosed in 11/57 patients: two of 28 with BHD were diagnosed with RCC aged 73 and 77, both prior to commencement of surveillance. Nine of 29 patients with HLRCC were diagnosed with RCC (one of 29 during surveillance at 47 years of age) and eight of 29 prior to commencement of surveillance (11-55 years). Amongst BHD patients, cutaneous fibrofolliculomas were noted in 15 patients, lung cysts were detected in seven patients, spontaneous pneumothoraces in five patients, and parotid oncocytoma in two of 28. Amongst those with HLRCC, cutaneous leiomyomas were noted in 19/29, cutaneous leiomyosarcoma diagnosed in one of 29, and uterine fibroids in 13 female patients.

Conclusion

Evidence-based RCC screening in BHD and HLRCC cohort is feasible and able to identify incidental renal lesions. Multidisciplinary patient management enables expedited genetic counselling, diagnosis, longitudinal screening, and RCC management. The success of this clinical model warrants consideration of undertaking longitudinal screening of BHD and HLRCC patients by nephrologists.

The Effects of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Clinical Practice for Colorectal, Lung, Prostate and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

Multidisciplinary team meetings have increasingly been implemented in cancer care worldwide to ensure timely, accurate and evidence-based diagnosis, and treatment plans. Nowadays, multidisciplinary team meetings are generally considered indispensable. However, they are considered time-consuming and expensive, while the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings are not yet fully understood. The aim of this systematic review is to update and summarize the literature and create an overview of the existing knowledge. Cancer types such as colorectal, lung, prostate and breast cancer with rapidly increasing incidence rates will inevitably impact the workload of clinicians. Understanding the effects of the widely implemented multidisciplinary team meetings in oncology care is fundamental in order to optimize care pathways and allocate resources in the rapidly diversifying landscape of cancer therapies.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of our systematic review is to identify the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) for lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Methods: Our systematic review, performed following PRISMA guidelines, included studies examining the impact of MDTMs on treatment decisions, patient and process outcomes. Electronic databases PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for articles published between 2000 and 2020. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and GRADE scale. Results: 41 of 13,246 articles were selected, evaluating colorectal (21), lung (10), prostate (6) and breast (4) cancer. Results showed that management plans were changed in 1.6–58% of cases after MDTMs. Studies reported a significant impact of MDTMs on surgery type, and a reduction of overall performed surgery after MDTM. Results also suggest that CT and MRI imaging significantly increased after MDTM implementation. Survival rate increased significantly with MDTM discussions according to twelve studies, yet three studies did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Despite heterogeneous data, MDTMs showed a significant impact on management plans, process outcomes and patient outcomes. To further explore the impact of MDTMs on the quality of healthcare, high-quality research is needed.

Quantifying the utility of a multidisciplinary neuro-oncology tumor board

OBJECTIVE

There has been limited research on the efficacy of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) in improving the treatment of patients with tumors affecting the nervous system. The objective of the present study was to quantify the utility of MDTBs in providing alternative diagnostic interpretations and treatment plans for this patient population.

METHODS

The authors performed a prospective study of patients in 4 hospitals whose cases were discussed at MDTBs between July and November 2019. Patient demographic data, diagnoses, treatment plans, and eligibility for clinical trials were recorded, among other variables.

RESULTS

A total of 176 cases met eligibility criteria for study inclusion. The majority (53%) of patients were male, and the mean patient age was 52 years. The most frequent diagnosis was glioblastoma (32.4%). Among the evaluable cases, MDTBs led to 38 (21.6%) changes in image interpretation and 103 (58.2%) changes in patient management. Additionally, patients whose cases were discussed at MDTBs had significantly shorter referral times than patients whose cases were not discussed (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

MDTB discussions led to significant numbers of diagnostic and treatment plan changes as well as shortened referral times, highlighting the potential clinical impact of multidisciplinary care for patients with nervous system tumors.

Impact of optional multidisciplinary tumor board meeting on the mortality of patients with gastrointestinal cancer: A retrospective observational study

Background

Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings (MDTs) have shown a positive effect on patient care and play a role in the planning of care. However, there is limited evidence of the association between MDTs and patient mortality and in‐hospital morbidity for mixed cases of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer.

Aim

To evaluate the influence of optional MDTs on care of patients with cancer to determine potential associations between MDTs and patient mortality and morbidity.

Methods and results

This was a retrospective observational study at the referral center of King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Among all adult patients diagnosed with GI cancer from January 2017 to June 2019, 130 patients were included. We categorized patients into two groups: 66 in the control group (non‐MDT) and 64 in the MDT group. The main outcome measure was overall mortality, measured by survival analysis. The follow‐up was 100% complete. Four patients in the MDT group and 13 in the non‐MDT group died (P = .04). The median follow‐up duration was 294 days (interquartile range [IQR], 140‐434) in the non‐MDT group compared with 176 days (IQR, 103‐466) in the MDT group (P = .20). There were no differences in intensive care unit or hospital length‐of‐stay or admission rates. The overall mortality at 2 years was 13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐0.66) in the MDT group and 38% (95% CI, 0.10‐0.39) in the non‐MDT group (P = .08). The MDT group showed a 72% (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08‐0.90; P = .03) decrease in mortality over time compared with the non‐MDT group.

Conclusions

MDTs were associated with decreased mortality over time. Thus, MDTs have a positive influence on patient care by improving survival and should be incorporated into care.

The Growth of Integrated Care Models in Urology

With heightened awareness of health care outcomes and efficiencies and reimbursement-based metrics, it is ever more important that urologists consider the effects of integrated care models on physicians/staff/clinics fulfillment and patient outcomes, and whether and how to optimally implement these models within their unique practice settings. Despite growing evidence that integrating care improves outcomes, uncertainty persists regarding which approach is most efficient and achievable in terms of specialty considerations and financial resources. In this article, we discuss strategies for integrating urologic care and its impact on current and future health care delivery.

Collaborative Review: Factors Influencing Treatment Decisions for Patients with a Localized Solid Renal Mass

CONTEXT

With the addition of active surveillance and thermal ablation (TA) to the urologist's established repertoire of partial (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) as first-line management options for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), appropriate treatment decision-making has become increasingly nuanced.

OBJECTIVE

To critically review the treatment options for localized, nonrecurrent RCC; to highlight the patient, renal function, tumor, and provider factors that influence treatment decisions; and to provide a framework to conceptualize that decision-making process.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A collaborative critical review of the medical literature was conducted.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identify three key decision points when managing localized RCC: (1) decision for surveillance versus treatment, (2) decision regarding treatment modality (TA, PN, or RN), and (3) decision on surgical approach (open vs minimally invasive). In evaluating factors that influence these treatment decisions, we elaborate on patient, renal function, tumor, and provider factors that either directly or indirectly impact each decision point. As current nomograms, based on preselected patient datasets, perform poorly in prospective settings, these tools should be used with caution. Patient decision aids are an underutilized tool in decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Localized RCC requires highly nuanced treatment decision-making, balancing patient- and tumor-specific clinical variables against indirect structural influences to provide optimal patient care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

With expanding treatment options for localized kidney cancer, treatment decision is highly nuanced and requires shared decision-making. Patient decision aids may be helpful in the treatment discussion.

The Impact of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Patient Management in Oncologic Thoracic Surgery: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

the aim of this paper is to quantify multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) impact on the decisional clinical pathway of thoracic cancer patients, assessing the modification rate of the initial out-patient evaluation.

METHODS

the impact of MDT was classified as follows: confirmation: same conclusions as out-patient hypothesis; modification: change of out-patient hypothesis; implementation: definition of a clear clinical track/conclusion for patients that did not receive any clinical hypothesis; further exams required: the findings that emerged in the MDT meeting require further exams.

RESULTS

one thousand consecutive patients evaluated at MDT meetings were enrolled. Clinical settings of patients were: early stage lung cancer (17.4%); locally advanced lung cancer (27.4%); stage IV lung cancer (9.8%); mesothelioma (1%); metastases to the lung from other primary tumors (4%); histologically proven or suspected recurrence from previous lung cancer (15%); solitary pulmonary nodule (19.2%); mediastinal tumors (3.4%); other settings (2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

MDT meetings impact patient management in oncologic thoracic surgery by modifying the out-patient clinical hypothesis in 10.6% of cases; the clinical settings with the highest decisional modification rates are "solitary pulmonary nodule" and "proven or suspected recurrence" with modification rates of 14.6% and 13.3%, respectively.

Patterns of Multidisciplinary Care of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Medicare Patients

Importance

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) yields proven benefits for patients with cancer, although it may be underused in the complex management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

Objective

To characterize the patterns of MDC in the treatment of HNSCC among elderly patients in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 2011, to identify patients 66 years or older diagnosed with head and neck cancer and determine the dates of diagnosis, oncology consultations, treatment initiation, and speech therapy evaluation in addition to MDC completion. Multidisciplinary care was defined in a stage-dependent manner: localized disease necessitated consultations with radiation and surgical oncologists, and advanced-stage disease also included a medical oncology consultation, all before definitive treatment. Data were analyzed between December 2016 and September 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates of MDC across all subsites of head and neck cancer as measured by the presence of an evaluation for each oncologist on the MDC team and its effect on treatment initiation.

Results

This cohort study assessed 28 293 patients with HNSCC (mean [SD] age, 75.1 [6.6] years; 67% male; 87% White) from the SEER-Medicare linked database. The HNSCC subsites included larynx (40%), oral cavity (30%), oropharynx (21%), hypopharynx (7%), and nasopharynx (2%). Overall, the practice of MDC significantly increased over time, from 24% in 1991 to 52% in 2011 (P < .001). For patients with localized (stage 0-II) tumors, 60% received care in the multidisciplinary setting, whereas 28% of those with advanced-stage disease did. A total of 18 181 patients (64%) were treated with initial definitive nonsurgical therapy across all stages. Regardless of stage and subsite, few patients (2%) underwent evaluation by a speech-language pathologist before definitive therapy. Multidisciplinary care prolonged the time to initiation of definitive treatment by 11 days for localized disease and 10 days for advanced disease.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that most elderly patients with localized HNSCC received MDC, whereas few patients with advanced-stage disease received such care, although a significant proportion received adjuvant therapy. Multidisciplinary care may prolong time to initiation of definitive treatment with an uncertain impact. Consultation with a speech-language pathologist before definitive therapy was rare.

Expert radiologist review at a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary tumor board: impact on patient management

PURPOSE

To identify the frequency, source, and management impact of discrepancies between the initial radiology report and expert reinterpretation occurring in the context of a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 974 consecutive patients discussed at a weekly MTB at a large tertiary care academic medical center over a 2-year period. A single radiologist with dedicated hepatobiliary imaging expertise attended all conferences to review and discuss the relevant liver imaging and rated the concordance between original and re-reads based on RADPEER scoring criteria. Impact on management was based on the conference discussion and reflected changes in follow-up imaging, recommendations for biopsy/surgery, or liver transplant eligibility.

RESULTS

Image reinterpretation was discordant with the initial report in 19.9% (194/974) of cases (59.8%, 34.5%, 5.7% RADPEER 2/3/4 discrepancies, respectively). A change in LI-RADS category occurred in 59.8% of discrepancies. Most common causes of discordance included re-classification of a lesion as benign rather than malignant (16.0%) and missed tumor recurrence (13.9%). Impact on management occurred in 99.0% of discordant cases and included loco-regional therapy instead of follow-up imaging (19.1%), follow-up imaging instead of treatment (17.5%), and avoidance of biopsy (12.4%). 11.3% received OPTN exception scores due to the revised interpretation, and 8.8% were excluded from listing for orthotopic liver transplant.

CONCLUSION

Even in a sub-specialized abdominal imaging academic practice, expert radiologist review in the MTB setting identified discordant interpretations and impacted management in a substantial fraction of patients, potentially impacting transplant allocation. The findings may impact how abdominal imaging sections best staff advanced MTBs.

Medical oncology referral and systemic therapy of patients with advanced stage urothelial carcinoma

Aim: To understand physician visit patterns among patients with stage IV (including nonmetastatic [M0] and metastatic [M1] disease) urothelial carcinoma (UC) and understand factors associated with a timely referral to a medical oncologist and systemic treatment. Patients & methods: Retrospective analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data. Results: First physician encounter was with a urologist (M0: 69%; M1: 53%) or primary care physician ([PCP]; M0: 19%, M1: 25%) for the majority of patients around UC diagnosis. After the index urologist encounter, most patients had a subsequent medical oncologist visit at a median of 52 days (M0: 69.5 days, M1: 33 days). In an adjusted model, older age, index PCP visit, higher comorbidities and M0 disease were negatively associated with a medical oncologist referral. Among those referred to a medical oncologist, older age, Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black race and not being married were negatively associated with subsequent chemotherapy receipt (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Many patients with advanced UC encounter multiple specialists during their disease course. Older patients or those with a first UC-related encounter with a PCP are less likely to be referred to medical oncology. Once referred to medical oncology, social determinants, including race and marital status, are relevant predictors of receiving chemotherapy.

A Multidisciplinary Toxicity Team for Cancer Immunotherapy-Related Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Methods to obtain real-time multidisciplinary input for irAEs that require subspecialist care are unknown. This study aimed to determine whether a virtual multidisciplinary immune-related toxicity (IR-tox) team of oncology and medicine subspecialists would be feasible to implement, be used by oncology providers, and identify patients for whom multidisciplinary input is sought.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated with ICIs and referred to the IR-tox team in August 2017 through March 2018 were identified. Feasibility was defined as receipt of electronic referrals and provision of recommendations within 24 hours of referral. Use was defined as the proportion of referring providers who used the team's recommendations, which was determined through a postpilot survey. Demographics and tumor, treatment, and referral data were collected. Patient features and irAE associations were analyzed.

RESULTS

The IR-tox team was found to be feasible and used: 117 referrals from 102 patients were received in 8 months, all providers received recommendations within 24 hours, 100% of surveyed providers used the recommendations, and 74% changed patient management based on IR-tox team recommendations. Referrals were for suspected irAEs (n=106; 91%) and suitability to treat with ICIs (n=11; 10%). In referred patients, median age was 64 years, 54% were men, 13% had prior autoimmunity, and 46% received ICI combinations versus monotherapy (54%). The most commonly referred toxicities were pneumonitis (23%), arthritis (16%), and dermatitis (15%); 15% of patients had multisystem toxicities. Multiple referrals were more common in those treated with combination ICIs (odds ratio [OR], 6.0; P=.035) or with multisystem toxicities (OR, 8.1; P=.005). The IR-tox team provided a new multidisciplinary forum to assist providers in diagnosing and managing complex irAEs. This model identifies educational and service needs, and patients with irAEs for whom multidisciplinary care is most sought.

CONCLUSIONS

A virtual multidisciplinary toxicity team for irAEs was a feasible and used service, and facilitated toxicity identification and management.

Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Tumor Board Connecting Eight General Hospitals in Japan via a High-Security Communication Line

PURPOSE

The complexity of lung cancer treatment is rapidly increasing, necessitating the use of multidisciplinary approaches for improving outcomes. Although it is common for institutions to have their own tumor boards, tumor boards connecting several general hospitals, and therefore allowing for more diverse opinions, are not prevalent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A tumor board connecting eight hospitals was formed to discuss patients for whom formulating a treatment strategy was difficult. Physicians and hospital staff accessed a high-security communication line via LiveOn ( Japan Media Systems Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), which is completely isolated from the Internet and password protected, that enables each hospital to share the electronic medical records and images of relevant patients at other hospitals on desktop computers in real time. The lung cancer tumor board began in April 2017 and has since been held every Tuesday evening for 1 hour. Preparatory records containing the age, sex, histology, TNM classification, background, and discussion points for each patient are created before each tumor board meeting. After the tumor board discussion, all conclusions and related articles used in the board are added to the minutes, which are finalized as Microsoft Word files, consolidated, and archived. These files can be retrieved later using key words.

RESULTS

From April 2017 to June 2018, 202 patients were discussed. Although TNM classification was not changed for any patient, diverse opinions led to a change in the proposed strategy for 49 of 202 patients.

CONCLUSION

The multidisciplinary tumor board was useful in obtaining various opinions from the perspectives of different experts. This should be evaluated in a prospective study.

Osteomalacia and renal failure due to Fanconi syndrome caused by long-term low-dose Adefovir Dipivoxil: a case report

Background

Progressive bone pain and fracture and abnormal positron emission tomography combined with a computed tomography are main reasons for the oncologists suspecting bone tumor. During the patient’s medical treatment, the oncologists’ unfamiliarity with adverse reactions to anti-HBV drugs were main reason for the long-term exposure to the drug and the adverse reaction (ADR) experienced by the patient.

Case presentation

A 63-year-old Chinese man had a 27-month history of progressive generalized bone pain combined with spontaneous fractures. Positron emission tomography combined with a computed tomography, revealed an abnormal increase in ribose metabolism and low positron serum inorganic phosphorus concentration (0.7; 0.78–1.65 mmol/L). Serum creatinine level was 252 μmol/L (53–97) μmol/L, and glomerular filtration rate was 22.79 mL/min/1.73 m². The patient was referred to a multidisciplinary clinic to clarify the diagnosis of myeloma or bone tumor for further treatment in 2017. His medical history revealed that he had a 30-year history of chronic hepatitis B infection. He had received lamivudine at a daily dose of 100 mg for 19 years (1990 to 2009), which had been changed to adefovir (10 mg/day) owing to lamivudine resistance in 2009. Based on the changes in the patient’s laboratory markers and the results of emission computed tomography and other radiographic findings, adefovir-induced hypophosphatemic osteomalacia due to acquired renal Fanconi syndrome was suspected by the clinical pharmacist. Considerable clinical improvement was observed after adefovir discontinuation and the administration of entecavir (1.0 mg, every other day).

Conclusion

Fanconi syndrome with osteomalacia can develop in patients with chronic hepatitis B infection being treated with adefovir at a conventional low dosage of 10 mg/day. This case highlights the importance of ADR as a differential diagnosis and the need of pharmacists with drug safety expertise expert in the patient management.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards in Dermatologic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities have made oncologic care ever more challenging, and multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are increasingly being used as a forum to discuss and coordinate care for complex oncology patients. Literature on the use of MTBs specific to cutaneous oncology and dermatologic surgery remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To share our experiences with cutaneous oncology MTBs at the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC).

METHODS

We describe the formation, timing, participation, clinical discussion, case follow-up, and coordination of care of our MTBs.

RESULTS

A log of all cases discussed at cutaneous oncology MTBs from August 2018 to August 2019 is presented as an example. Five specific cases are described in further detail to demonstrate critical components of multidisciplinary care.

CONCLUSION

The MTBs at UVMMC has created a collaborative environment for providers in multiple specialties to jointly formulate and coordinate optimal treatment plans for difficult cases, particularly when treatment guidelines do not exist or are insufficient. Furthermore, MTBs can serve as an educational forum for all participants.

The impact of tumor board on cancer care: evidence from an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Tumor Boards (TBs) are Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings in which different specialists work together closely sharing clinical decisions in cancer care. The composition is variable, depending on the type of tumor discussed. As an organizational tool, MDTs are thought to optimize patient outcomes and to improve care performance. The aim of the study was to perform an umbrella review summarizing the available evidence on the impact of TBs on healthcare outcomes and processes.

METHODS

Pubmed and Web of Science databases were investigated along with a search through citations. The only study design included was systematic review. Only reviews published after 1997 concerning TBs and performed in hospital settings were considered. Two researchers synthetized the studies and assessed their quality through the AMSTAR2 tool.

RESULTS

Five systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2017 were retrieved. One review was focused on gastrointestinal cancers and included 16 studies; another one was centered on lung cancer and included 16 studies; the remaining three studies considered a wide range of tumors and included 27, 37 and 51 studies each. The main characteristics about format and members and the definition of TBs were collected. The decisions taken during TBs led to changes in diagnosis (probability to receive a more accurate assessment and staging), treatment (usually more appropriate) and survival (not unanimous improvement shown). Other outcomes less highlighted were quality of life, satisfaction and waiting times.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that the multidisciplinary approach is the best way to deliver the complex care needed by cancer patients; however, it is a challenge that requires organizational and cultural changes and must be led by competent health managers who can improve teamwork within their organizations. Further studies are needed to reinforce existing literature concerning health outcomes. Evidence on the impact of TBs on clinical practices is still lacking for many aspects of cancer care. Further studies should aim to evaluate the impact on survival rates, quality of life and patient satisfaction. Regular studies should be carried out and new process indicators should be defined to assess the impact and the performance of TBs more consistently.

Practice patterns of multidisciplinary team meetings in Korean cancer care and patient satisfaction with this approach

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach is a cornerstone of clinical oncology. This study investigated the current state of MDT care, including patient satisfaction, in Korea.

METHODS

We obtained the annual number of cancer patients who have received MDT care since 2014 from the registry of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). In addition, patients who received MDT care from August 2014 to May 2017 at four university hospitals were further characterized, and patient satisfaction was measured prospectively using a patient-reported questionnaire.

RESULTS

The total number of patients who received MDT care increased from 2014 to 2016 (2,113 to 9,998 patients, respectively) in the HIRA Cohort. The type of cancer that most often required MDT was breast cancer (23.8%), followed by colorectal cancer (19.1%). In the Representative Cohort (n = 1,032), MDT was requested by the surgeon more than half the time (55.7%). The main focus of MDT was decision making for further treatment planning (99.0%). The number of doctors participating in the MDT was usually five (70.0%). After initiating an MDT approach, the treatment plan changed for 17.4% of patients. Among these patients, 359 completed a prospective satisfaction survey regarding their MDT care. The overall satisfaction with the MDT approach was very high, with an average score of 9.6 out of 10 points.

CONCLUSION

The application of MDT care is a rapidly growing trend in clinical oncology, and shows high patient satisfaction. Further research is needed to determine which types of cancer patients could benefit most from MDT, and to enable MDT care to operate more efficiently so that it may expand successfully throughout Korea.

How to implement the requirements of a quality assurance system for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

In 2003, the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, DKG) launched a certification program aimed at improving the quality of cancer care. The purpose of this article is to describe the experience of the Prostate Cancer Unit (PCU) at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, in the process towards DKG certification.

METHODS

In 2018, PCU decided to apply for certification by adopting DKG catalogue of requirements (CoR) and quality indicators. A multiprofessional working group was established with the aim of acting the necessary steps to meet DKG standards.

RESULTS

Our organizational setting (procedures, personnel) and activities were accurately analyzed, thus outlining strengths and weaknesses, and modified to comply with DKG CoR and indicators. As examples, (1) a quality management plan was developed; (2) measures were taken to strengthen the surgical expertise; (3) cases evaluated in weekly tumor boards were expanded to include surgical cases with pathological risk factors, metastatic, relapsed and castration-resistant patients; (4) a survey was added to the patient-dedicated initiatives already scheduled; (5) the TuDoc software became the tool to register all new cases of prostate cancer patients referred to PCU.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of certification requires many efforts but represents a unique opportunity of improving quality of care of prostate cancer patients, making it comparable on an international scale.

Multidisciplinary Imaging Review Conference Improves Neuro-oncology Radiation Treatment Planning and Follow-up

Purpose: To review the impact of a weekly multidisciplinary neuroradiology imaging review on the management of patients undergoing radiotherapy.

Methods: A prospective study of the management of 118 patients (30=head and neck, 40=skull base, central nervous system=48) was conducted over a 12-month period from January 2018 through January 2019. After review of each patient’s history and relevant imaging, a radiation oncologist completed a form detailing the changes that were made in diagnosis and management. Imaging source (external and internal examinations), availability of outside reports, report timeliness, the value of reports, changes in interpretation, changes in clinical management, and changes in prognosis were documented. Changes in interpretation and management were designated as major or minor depending on the significance of the change. The managing radiation oncologist indicated whether the imaging review conference substituted for a peer-to-peer consultation with a neuroradiologist.

Results: Nearly half (47%) of all patients had a change in interpretation. Of those, 32% of patients had a major change in interpretation, while 14% had a minor change in interpretation. The existence of the multidisciplinary imaging review conference prevented a peer-to-peer consultation (interruption) by the radiation oncologists to the neuroradiologists in 90% of the cases presented. Further analysis was performed.

Conclusion: The involvement of neuroradiologists in a joint radiation oncology imaging review conference resulted in changes in diagnostic imaging interpretation that led to significant changes in management, expected prognosis, and workflow. 

Current management of stage I testicular germ cell tumors in a French cancer institute. A practice analysis over the 10 past years

BACKGROUND

Testicular Germ Cell Tumors (TGCTs) represent the most frequent malignant tumour among young male adults. Orchiectomy alone cure 80% of stage I. Standard options after orchiectomy include radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy (CT) by 1 cycle of carboplatin AUC 7 or active surveillance (SV) for seminomatous GCTs (SGCT) and retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RPLND), CT by 1 or 2 cycles of Bleomycine Etoposide Cisplatine (BEP) or active surveillance for nonseminomatous GCTs (NSGCT). Adjuvant treatments decrease the relapse rate after orchiectomy with substantial toxicities without any benefit on overall survival. Recent guidelines accorded utmost importance on SV rather than adjuvants strategies. The main objective of this study was to describe our current practice over the 10 past years in regard of these recommendations.

METHODS

Data of 50 patients with stage I GCT treated in our institute were collected between 2006 and 2016. Demographic and anatomopathologic data were reported. Clinical practice in our center was analyzed during two periods [2006-2011] and [2012-2016] according to the European Association of Urology Guidelines in 2011.

RESULTS

Patient's median age was 35.3 years. The analysis of clinical practice during the last 10 years showed that in SGCT, main treatment was RT than SV and CT. This option declined over the years (89% between 2006-2010 versus 53% between 2011-2016) whereas SV was more often employed (27% between 2011-2016 versus none between 2006-2010). Surveillance was used for 64% of NSGCT.

CONCLUSIONS

In our center, RT was less used over the years for the benefit of SV which is recommended by guidelines.

Multidisciplinary Approach to HCC Management: How Can This Be Done?

Multidisciplinary tumor boards have evolved to address the increasing complexity of cancer care management. Given that hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often arises in the setting of underlying cirrhosis, expert input from hepatologists alongside hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, radiation oncologists, interventional and body radiologists, and medical oncologists has become increasingly important in order to offer patients appropriate cancer treatments. The MDLTB structure has evolved since the early 2000s to bring these specialists together at regularly scheduled meetings to develop a therapeutic treatment plan for HCC management. MDLTBs have reduced the time to treatment and improved patient satisfaction. Standardized documentation with common data elements has been recommended to ensure adequate communication from MDLTB to referring healthcare providers. Retrospective studies consistently highlight the frequency of changes in treatment plans after MDLTB review to better adhere to guideline recommended care. Despite several decades of MDLTBs implementation, few studies describe clinical outcomes associated with MDLTBs such as patient survival and cost benefits. More research is needed in this area to further justify the heavy use of resources that are needed to maintain MDLTBs. Development and use of a centralized database to store such information may assist with future studies of clinical outcomes and inform quality improvement projects.

Multidisciplinary teams for the proper management of patients with genitourinary tumors: When topics set scientific societies’ agenda

Introduction:

The multidisciplinary management of oncologic patients is identified as the bottom line element of quality in tumor care.

Methods:

In 2015, 7 Italian scientific societies representing the specialists involved in the diagnosis and treatment of genitourinary tumors joined efforts in the Italian uro-oncologic multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) project. The aims were to promote the reorganization of genitourinary cancer care, switching to a multidisciplinary approach, reach a consensus on the core elements for the setup of MDTs in genitourinary oncology, and support health policy makers and managers in remodeling of the assistance and care of uro-oncologic patients on a national level.

Results:

The first activity was the setup of 5 working groups, given the task of exploring selected topics: general principles, organization of MDTs, minimal requirements, economic evaluation, and relations with authorities. The groups participated in the writing of a document that was approved by the scientific societies and published on their web sites. Moreover, a few items summarizing the extensive document were approved in the first MDT Consensus Conference held in Milan in December 2015.

Conclusions:

The experience of this initial phase led to the opening of the team to other professionals and societies, in line with a correct management of patients with genitourinary tumors, which need a multidisciplinary as well as a multiprofessional approach with emerging techniques and procedures, and with a new project work package on genitourinary paths of care and indicators.

Performance and cost of a renal cancer specialist multidisciplinary team meeting: Results from 1500 discussions

Objectives:

To report on the performance and cost of a surgeon-led renal cancer specialist multidisciplinary team meeting at a high-volume centre.

Materials and methods:

Retrospective analysis of 1500 consecutive cases discussed from 2 September 2015 onwards. Performance was assessed as the number of cases where a clinical recommendation was made. The cost per meeting, discussion and patient were calculated using the mid-point of pay band attributable to the attendees (National Health Service pay scales 2015).

Results:

Over 34 meetings, 1500 discussions occurred (933 patients: 61.7% male; mean age 63.8). Above a one-quarter of discussions ( n = 399, 26.6%) were new referrals. Each patient’s case was discussed a mean of 1.6 times, the majority being discussed once ( n = 563, 60.3%). In 93.3% of discussions, a clinical recommendation was made. Only 100 discussions (6.7%) were deferred due to incomplete clinical information. A total of 11.1% ( n = 166) cases were discharged. The average costs were: £141,901 per year, £2729 per meeting, £62 per case discussed and £99 per patient.

Conclusion:

One discussion was usually sufficient to decide management; deferral was uncommon; and, given the low discharge rate, referrals seemed appropriate. The cost per patient was modest, and represented good value in providing a focused and shared clinical decision-making pathway for renal cancer patients.

Level of evidence:

2C

An evidence-based medicine approach for case presentations by trainees

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a key aspect of medical training that can be challenging for trainees to learn. Tumour boards (TBs) are multidisciplinary meetings that are often opportunities for trainees to deliver patient case presentations, which is another integral part of medical education; however, TBs are time intensive, typically lack academic structure and may fail to emphasise EBM.

OBJECTIVE

To design a systematic approach to improve both trainee satisfaction and the level of evidence cited at typical academic TBs.

METHODS

From 2017 to 2018, Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology was used to develop a systematic approach for medical oncology trainees towards TBs. Statistical testing was used to assess which characteristics of a patient case made it more difficult to apply EBM. Anonymous surveys were distributed to trainees before and after the intervention to assess the educational utility.

RESULTS

We developed a shared voluntary case database, so that references with higher levels of evidence could be rapidly recalled and applied to similar cases. We then developed EBM-focused review sessions to highlight database trends. Both the database and the review sessions had high participation rates (>90% cases had voluntary data entry), and each were reported to have educational value by trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

A two-step implementation of an easy-to-use case database followed by review sessions focused on high-yield sources of evidence improved trainee satisfaction for TBs, but did not significantly improve the strength of the evidence cited.

Is There a Difference in Staging and Treatment of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Tumors Between Tertiary Care and Community-Based Institutions?

Objective

To characterize the differences in the staging and treatment of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma between a tertiary care center and community‐based practices.

Methods

This study is a retrospective chart review of 943 adult patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer presenting to a tertiary care center between 2008 and 2014 as part of the University of Michigan Head and Neck Cancer Specialized Program of Research Excellence (UM HN‐SPORE) database. Demographic information, diagnostic testing, staging information, and treatment recommendations were recorded.

Results

Of 943 patients reviewed, 159 had documentation of tumor stage that was assigned by the community‐based practice. Of these, 53% had a tumor staging change made at the tertiary care center, with 43% of patients upstaged and 10% of patients downstaged. Fifty‐one percent received different treatment than had previously been offered at the community‐based practice, although only 31% of these patients had a change in tumor staging.

Conclusion

Over half of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are evaluated at a tertiary care center after the initial evaluation at a community‐based practice have their tumors staged differently, with the majority upstaged. A significant number of these patients also received different treatment than was initially offered at the referring practice. Future studies are required to determine whether these differences have an effect on tumor recurrence and patient survival rates.

Level of Evidence

2c (Outcomes Research).

The efficiency of electronic list-based multidisciplinary team meetings in management of gastrointestinal malignancy: a single-center experience in Southern China

Background

The multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion has earned increasing popularity for the delivery of cancer care. However, MDT meeting (MDTM) is time and resource intensive, and some efforts to optimize discussion processes are required. This study aims to investigate the efficiency of electronic list-based MDTM in treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy.

Methods

Between January 2015 and December 2016, patients with GI cancers were retrospectively reviewed. Patients permitting an MDTM with our novel technique (eMDT group) were compared with those undergoing a traditional discussion (cMDT group). The efficiency of MDT working, including time cost per meeting or case and overall number of reviewed cases, was checked, with accuracy of clinical staging and other outcomes explored meanwhile.

Results

Three thousand six hundred seventy-four patients were included, with 2156 (58.7%) and 1518 (41.3%) cases for eMDT and cMDT groups, respectively. Comparisons in age (P = 0.529), gender (P = 0.844), cancer type (P = 0.218), treatment plan (P = 0.737), and pathological stage (P = 0.098) were not significant between groups. However, the average time cost in both each meeting (149.4 vs. 205.1 min; P < 0.001) and each case (3.1 vs. 6.2 min; P < 0.001) was markedly reduced. Besides, this novel technique was associated with improved accuracy of clinical staging (P = 0.070) and reduced hospital stay (P < 0.001) compared with the traditional approach, with similar incidence of complications observed (P = 0.243).

Conclusions

The MDT working based on an intelligent checklist could save considerable time while not affecting treatment of GI malignancies. The improved efficiency also earns an increased capacity of hospital admission and in-patient care.

Contemporary Patterns of Multidisciplinary Care in Patients With Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary clinics integrate the expertise of several specialties to provide effective treatment to patients. This exposure is especially relevant in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), which requires critical input from urology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology, among other supportive specialties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the present study, we sought to catalog the different styles of multidisciplinary care models used in the management of MIBC and to identify barriers to their implementation. We surveyed providers from academic and community practices regarding their currently implemented multidisciplinary care models, available resources, and perceived barriers using the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network and the Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada e-mail databases.

RESULTS

Of the 101 responding providers, most practiced at academic institutions in the United States (61%) or Canada (29%), and only 7% were from community practices. The most frequently used model was sequential visits on different days (57%), followed by sequential same-day (39%) and concurrent (1 visit with all providers; 22%) models. However, most practitioners preferred a multidisciplinary clinic involving sequential same-day (41%) or concurrent (26%) visits. The lack of clinic space (58%), funding (41%), staff (40%), and time (32%) were the most common barriers to implementing a multidisciplinary clinic.

CONCLUSION

Most surveyed practitioners at academic centers use some form of a multidisciplinary care model for patients with MIBC. The major barriers to more integrated multidisciplinary clinics were limited time and resources rather than a lack of provider enthusiasm. Future studies should incorporate patient preferences, further evaluate practice patterns in community settings, and assess their effects on patient outcomes.