Principles for the best multidisciplinary meetings

What is the role of the multidisciplinary team meeting in primary prolapse surgery and are alternative formats acceptable?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

In 2019, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended discussion of all primary prolapse cases at a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting prior to surgery. However, following the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face meetings were suspended. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of MDT meetings in an observational retrospective review of primary prolapse cases and determine whether alternatives to face-to-face MDT meetings such as virtual and remote paper result in different outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 100 consecutive patients with primary prolapse, who had already been through face-to-face MDT meetings in 2019, were subjected to remote paper (independent review by team members, who then submit a paper outcome to the MDT meeting chair) and a virtual MDT meeting by the same team (blinded). Outcomes included agree, minor amendment (changing the order of priority of the compartment, changing procedure from + to +/-), major amendment (adding/removing a compartment) and insufficient information. MDT outcomes were compared for remote paper, virtual, and face-to-face MDT options.

RESULTS

In 88% of cases, face-to-face MDT meetings agreed to proceed unchanged (4% minor amendment, 7% major amendment, 1% insufficient information). This compared with 80% at virtual MDT (5% minor amendment, 11% major amendment, 4% insufficient information) and 74% when conducted by remote paper (5% minor amendment, 15% major amendment, 6% insufficient information). There was no significant difference in outcomes among the MDT meeting formats (Chi-squared 7.73, p=0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary team discussion changes management in a minority of primary prolapse cases. Similar MDT decisions are produced by virtual and remote paper formats, although the latter had the lowest concordance of opinions.

CT review of ovarian fibrothecoma

Objective:

The aim of this study was to investigate the CT imaging characteristics of ovarian fibrothecoma which may aid in the differentiation from early stage epithelial tumours.

Methods:

Comparison of 36 patients (41 lesions) with pathologically proven ovarian fibrothecoma tumours and 36 (52 lesions) serous papillary carcinomas (SPCs) lesions. We noted their laterality, size, density, calcifications, Hounsfield units (HUs) and introduced a novel HU comparison technique with the psoas muscle or the uterus. Patients’ clinical findings such as ascites, pleural effusion, carbohydrate antigen-125 levels, and lymphadenopathy findings were also included.

Results:

Average age was 67.8 and 66 across the fibrothecoma and SPC cohort respectively. Fibrothecoma tumours had diameters ranging from 24 to 207 mm (Median: 94 mm). 80.6% of the fibrothecoma cohort had ascites which was comparable to the 72.2% in the SPC cohort. 70.7% of fibrothecoma tumour favour a purely to predominantly solid structural configuration (p < 0.001). The average HU value for the fibrothecoma solid component was 44 ± 11.7 contrasting the SPC HU value of 66.8 ± 15. The psoas:tumour mass ratio demonstrated a median of 0.7, whereas SPCs shows a median of 1.1 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Suspicion of ovarian fibrothecoma should be considered through interrogation of their structural density configuration, low psoas to mass HU ratio and a presence of ascites.

Advances in knowledge:

CT imaging can be a useful tool in diagnosing fibrothecoma tumours and subsequently reducing oncogynaecological tertiary centre referrals, financial burden and patient operative morbidity and mortality.

Composition, Quoracy and Cost of Specialist Skin Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are an integral component of skin cancer service provision, enabling the implementation of evidence-based decisions and standardised patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the composition, quoracy and cost of Specialist Skin Cancer Multidisciplinary Teams (SSMDTs) in the United Kingdom (UK) to establish the functionality and financial impact of these meetings.

METHODS

Cross-sectional design with a national freedom of information request made to 65 NHS trusts in the UK hosting an SSMDT. Detailed information with regard to attendance frequency and core membership from attendance registers was requested. Quoracy was measured against the 2006 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Cancer Services standard 'Improving outcomes for people with skin tumours including melanoma'. We costed the SSMDT utilising the running time, core membership salaries derived from national pay scales and overhead values provided by trusts.

RESULTS

Out of 58 respondents (89% response rate), only 15 SSMDTs (26%) were quorate by membership. Forty SSMDTs (69%) were quorate by meeting frequency. The main reasons for membership noncompliance was lack of clinical oncology presence. There was a large variation in the cost per patient (µ = £132.68, range: £31.67-£313.10). There was no geographical variation in quoracy or cost between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Contemporary Multidisciplinary Management of Sinonasal Mucosal Melanoma

Sinonasal mucosal melanoma (SNMM) is a rare tumor, comprising less than 10% of sinonasal malignancies. SNMM most frequently occurs in the nasal cavity (70%) and maxillary sinus (14%), typically as black patches. Overall, SNMM harbors a very poor prognosis; 5-year survival is less than 30%. Nasal cavity tumors confer a better prognosis than sinus melanoma. The primary management for SNMM is surgery, when feasible, followed by adjuvant radiotherapy. Recent studies suggest that immunotherapy may confer survival benefit to patients with advanced disease. The multidisciplinary team approach has been shown to optimize treatment, reduce costs, and minimize adverse events, while maximizing the chances for cure.

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.

The importance of a multidisciplinary approach to hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The rising incidence, genetic heterogeneity, multiple etiologies, and concurrent chronic liver diseases make diagnosis, staging, and selection of treatment options challenging in patients with HCC. The best approach to optimize the management of HCC is one that utilizes a core multidisciplinary liver tumor board, consisting of hepatologists, pathologists, interventional radiologists, oncologists, hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, nurses, and general practitioners. In most cases, HCC is diagnosed by abdominal imaging studies, preferably with a triphasic computed tomography scan of the abdomen or magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen. Histopathological diagnosis using a guided liver biopsy may be needed in noncirrhotic patients or when radiological diagnostic criteria are not fulfilled in the setting of cirrhosis. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system facilitates a standardized therapeutic strategy based on the tumor burden, extent of metastasis, severity of hepatic decompensation, comorbid medical illnesses, functional status of patient, HCC-related symptoms, and preference of the patient. Treatment options include curative surgery (hepatic resection and liver transplantation) and palliative measures (radiofrequency ablation, transarterial chemoembolization, and chemotherapy with sorafenib). The role of the multidisciplinary team is crucial in promptly reconfirming the diagnosis, staging the HCC, and formulating an individualized treatment plan. In potential liver transplant candidates, timely liver transplant evaluation and coordinating bridging/downsizing treatment modalities, such as radiofrequency ablation and transarterial chemoembolization, can be time-consuming. In summary, a multidisciplinary team approach provides a timely, individualized treatment plan, which can vary from curative surgery in patients with early-stage HCC to palliative/hospice care in patients with metastatic HCC. In most tertiary care centers in the US, a multidisciplinary liver tumor board has become the standard of care and a key component of best practice protocol for patients with HCC.

Evaluation and management of hepatocellular carcinoma

The burden of hepatocellular carcinoma is rising and anticipated to escalate and while the best chance for long term cure remains transplantation, however the shortage of available organs remains a limitation. Liver directed therapy can serve the role of bridge/downstaging to transplant or as palliative care. Despite an improved overall survival among patients with HCC, due to advancements in surgical techniques, liver directed and systemic therapy, the 5 year overall survival remains low at 18% high-lightening the need for novel therapies. Surveillance for HCC is key to detect disease at an early stage to increase the chances for a potentially curative option.

What is the role of the multidisciplinary team in the management of urinary incontinence?

Multidisciplinary teams (MDT) are a well-established part of service provision and clinical care in the UK. In 2013, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Urinary Incontinence guideline recommended that MDT review should be mandatory before invasive therapy is offered to all patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and overactive bladder (OAB). Currently, there is no evidence in the literature regarding the use of MDTs in urogynaecology. The aim of this paper is to assess the potential benefits and disadvantages of the creation of routine MDT meetings for the management of urinary incontinence.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Liver Transplantation: State of the Art

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive tumor that often occurs in chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. The incidence of HCC is growing worldwide. With respect to any other available treatment for liver cancer, liver transplantation (LT) has the highest potential to cure. LT allows for removal at once of both the tumor ("seed") and the damaged-hepatic tissue ("soil") where cancerogenesis and chronic liver disorders have progressed together. The Milan criteria (MC) have been applied worldwide to select patients with HCC for LT, yielding a 4-year survival rate of 75%. These criteria represent the benchmark for patient selection and are the basis for comparison with any other suggested criteria. However, MC are often considered to be too restrictive, and recent data show that between 25% and 50% of patients with HCC are currently transplanted beyond conventional indications. Consequently, any unrestricted expansion of selection criteria will increase the need for donor organs, lengthen waiting periods, increase drop-out rates, and impair outcomes on intention-to-treat analysis. Management of HCC recurrence after LT is challenging. There are a few reports available regarding the safety and efficacy of sorafenib for HCC recurrence after LT, but the data are heterogeneous. A multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial comparing placebo with sorafenib is advised. Alternatively, a meta-analysis of patient survival with sorafenib for HCC recurrence after LT could be helpful to characterize the therapeutic benefit and safety of sorafenib. Here, we review the use of LT for HCC, with particular emphasis on the selection criteria for transplantation in patients with HCC and management of HCC recurrence after LT.

Multidisciplinary approach for HCC patients: hepatology for the oncologists

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a complex and heterogeneous disease, often associated with underlying conditions, like cirrhosis or other relevant co-morbidities that worsen the prognosis and make the clinical management more challenging. Current recommendations emphasize the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for the management of HCC patients and stress the crucial role of careful prevention and the management of cirrhosis-associated complications. This article discusses the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in the treatment of HCC patients. Current recommendations for the treatment of cirrhotic patients with HCC are also reviewed.

A study of the decision outcomes and financial costs of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) in oncology

Background:

The benefits of multidisciplinary working in oncology are now accepted as the norm and widely accepted as being pivotal to the delivery of optimal cancer care. Central to this are the multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) and we have evaluated decision outcomes and financial costs of these.

Methods:

We reviewed the electronic patient records of 551 newly referred patients, discussed at 14 tumour site-specific MDMs for adult solid tumours and lymphoma (paediatric oncology and acute leukaemia were excluded) over a 1-month period, a total of 52 MDMs were studied. In addition, the records of a further 81 patients from 10 different MDMs were reviewed where the treating consultant had clearly recorded their opinion of how the patient should be managed and this was compared with the final MDM's consensus view. We also costed the MDMs utilising two different methodologies.

Results:

The mean age of the 551 patients in the study was 62 years. In all, 536 (97.3%) patients were treatment naive before MDM discussion and 15 (2.7%) had prior treatment. Median time to treatment after the MDM was 16 days. In 535 (97.1%) cases, the MDM discussions were clearly documented, 16 (2.9%) were not clearly documented. In total, 319 (57.9%) patients were discussed once, and 232 (42.1%) were re-discussed (one to six occasions). In 62 (12.7%) patients, there were delays in MDM discussion, 30 (48.4%) were related to radiology, 26 (41.9%) to histopathology and 6 (9.7%) a combination of both. Adherence to the MDM management plan decision occurred 503 times (91.3%) with 48 (8.7%) deviations. In the smaller cohort of 81 patients, the consultant management plan and MDM consensus was compatible 71 (87.6%) times. On four occasions, there were major alterations in management while six were minor. The cost per month of our MDMs ranged from £2192 to £10 050 (median £5136) with total cost of £80 850 per month and the cost per new patient discussed was £415.

Conclusion:

Adherence to MDM decisions by health-care professionals occurs in the majority of patients. MDMs are costly, which may have relevance in the currently challenged health-care financial environment. There is a need to improve MDM efficiency without losing the considerable benefits associated with regular MDMs.

Role of the multidisciplinary team in the diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

It has long been appreciated that hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a complex disease. HCC is typically preceded by liver cirrhosis, which is itself caused by various types of hepatitis of both viral and nonviral etiologies. Thus, the treatment of patients with HCC requires multiple healthcare professionals, including hepatologists, medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, transplantation surgeons, diagnostic radiologists, pathologists, nurses, nurse practitioners and interventional radiologists. These specialists should meet regularly to review patients' progress, ensure that treatments are individualized for each patient and agree on next steps. We review case presentations provided by the authors to illustrate the benefits and advantages of the multidisciplinary team matrix in the management of patients with HCC, including the effects of this treatment technique on patient outcome, survival and quality of life.

Using computerised decision support to improve compliance of cancer multidisciplinary meetings with evidence-based guidance

OBJECTIVES

The cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting (MDM) is regarded as the best platform to reduce unwarranted variation in cancer care through evidence-compliant management. However, MDMs are often overburdened with many different agendas and hence struggle to achieve their full potential. The authors developed an interactive clinical decision support system called MATE (Multidisciplinary meeting Assistant and Treatment sElector) to facilitate explicit evidence-based decision making in the breast MDMs.

DESIGN

Audit study and a questionnaire survey.

SETTING

Breast multidisciplinary unit in a large secondary care teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

All members of the breast MDT at the Royal Free Hospital, London, were consulted during the process of MATE development and implementation. The emphasis was on acknowledging the clinical needs and practical constraints of the MDT and fitting the system around the team's workflow rather than the other way around. Delegates, who attended MATE workshop at the England Cancer Networks' Development Programme conference in March 2010, participated in the questionnaire survey.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The measures included evidence-compliant care, measured by adherence to clinical practice guidelines, and promoting research, measured by the patient identification rate for ongoing clinical trials.

RESULTS

MATE identified 61% more patients who were potentially eligible for recruitment into clinical trials than the MDT, and MATE recommendations demonstrated better concordance with clinical practice guideline than MDT recommendations (97% of MATE vs 93.2% of MDT; N=984). MATE is in routine use in breast MDMs at the Royal Free Hospital, London, and wider evaluations are being considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Sophisticated decision support systems can enhance the conduct of MDMs in a way that is acceptable to and valued by the clinical team. Further rigorous evaluations are required to examine cost-effectiveness and measure the impact on patient outcomes. The decision support technology used in MATE is generic and if found useful can be applied across medicine.