Multidisciplinary decisions in breast cancer: does the patient receive what the team has recommended?

The 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay Improved Multidisciplinary Treatment Compliance in Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer Patients: An Analysis of 2,323 Patients

PURPOSE

The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) can guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in the multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) of patients with early breast cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of the 21-gene RS assay on patient' compliance with MDT and its association with disease outcomes.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with pN0-1, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative breast cancer between January 2013 and June 2019 were enrolled. A logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with treatment adherence. Prognostic indicators were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

After the assay, patients were less likely to violate the treatment plan (14.9% vs. 23.1%, p < 0.001), and higher compliance rates were observed for chemotherapy (p = 0.042), radiotherapy (p = 0.012), and endocrine therapy (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the 21-gene RS assay (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.88; p = 0.009) was independently associated with MDT compliance. Moreover, compliance with MDT was independently associated with better disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29-0.64; p < 0.001), regardless of the 21-gene RS assay (interaction p = 0.842).

CONCLUSION

The 21-gene RS assay improved the MDT compliance rate in patients with early breast cancer. Adherence to MDT is associated with a better prognosis.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Adherence to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations in Patients With Curable Esophageal and Gastric Cancers

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) discussion is standard practice in the management of Upper Gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers. However, poor adherence to MDT recommendations may account for the lack of improved oncological outcomes with MDTs. We aim to quantify adherence rates and compare outcomes between adherent and non-adherent patients.

METHODS

We included all patients with potentially curable primary UGI carcinomas who were discussed at UGI MDT from 2017 to 2018. MDT recommendations were compared to actual treatment received. Oncological and survival outcomes were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Amongst 153 patients, 64 (41.8%) were non-adherent to MDT recommendations. Reasons for non-adherence were patient refusal (50.0%), treatment-related complications (31.3%), disease factors (17.2%) and clinician decision (1.56%). Univariate analysis showed that non-adherent patients were older (71.6 vs 65.2 years, p < 0.001), with higher clinical stage at point of diagnosis (p = 0.028), pathological stage after resection (p < 0.001) and were more likely to be recommended for multimodal therapy. No significant factors were associated with non-adherence at multivariate analysis. Non-adherent patients had worse median overall survival (19.5 months) compared to adherent patients (not reached at follow-up) with both unmatched and propensity-score matched analysis. Patients who received only part of the intended adjuvant chemotherapy course had worse median overall survival and disease-free survival compared to patients who completed or did not initiate adjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-adherence to MDT recommendations was associated with advanced age and tumor stage, and potentially contributes to the worse oncological outcomes in a group of patients already predisposed to poor outcomes.

How do patients make decisions in the context of a multidisciplinary team: an ethnographic study of four head and neck cancer centres in the north of England

OBJECTIVES

To describe how patients are engaged with cancer decisions in the context of multidisciplinary team (MDT) and how MDT recommendations are operationalised in the context of a shared decision.

DESIGN

Ethnographic qualitative study.

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a diagnosis of new or recurrent head and neck cancer; non-participant observation of 35 MDT meetings and 37 MDT clinics, informal interviews, and formal, semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 9 MDT staff members.

METHODS

Ethnographic methods including non-participant observation of MDT meetings and clinic appointments, informal interviews, field notes and formal semistructured interviews with patients and MDT members.

RESULTS

MDT discussions often conclude with a firm recommendation for treatment. When delivered to a patient in clinic, this recommendation is often accepted by the patient, but this response may result from the disempowered position in which they find themselves. While patient behaviour may thus appear to endorse clinicians' views that a paternalistic approach is desired by patients (creating a 'cycle of paternalism'), the rigidity of the MDT treatment recommendation can act as a barrier to discussion of options and the exploration of patient values.

CONCLUSIONS

The current model of MDT decision-making does not support shared decision-making and may actively undermine it. A model should be developed whereby the individual patient perspective has more input into MDT discussions, and where decisions are made on potential treatment options rather than providing a single recommendation for discussion with the patient. Deeper consideration should be given to how the MDT incorporates the patient perspective and/or delivers its discussion of options to the patient. In order to achieve these objectives, a new model of MDT working is required.

Exploring non-physician care professionals' roles in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A qualitative study

The growing complexity of cancer care necessitates collaboration among different professionals. This interprofessional collaboration improves cancer care delivery and outcomes. Treatment decision-making within the context of a multidisciplinaire team meeting (MDTMs) may be seen as a particular form of interprofessional collaboration. Various studies on cancer MDTMs highlight a pattern of suboptimal information sharing between attendants. To overcome the lack of non-medical, patient-based information, it might be recommended that non-physician care professionals play a key patient advocacy role within cancer MDTMs. This study aims to explore non-physician care professionals' current and aspired role within cancer MDTMs. Additionally, the perceived hindering factors for these non-physician care professionals to fulfil their specific role are identified. The analysis focuses on nurses, specialist nurses, head nurses, psychologists, social workers, a head of social workers and data managers. The results show that non-physician care professionals play a limited role during case discussions in MDTMs. Neither do they actively participate in the decision-making process. Barriers perceived by non-physician care professionals are classified on two main levels: 1) team-related barriers (factors internally related to the team) and 2) external barriers (factors related to healthcare management and policy). A group of non-physician care professionals also belief that their information does not add value in the decision-making proces and as such, they underestimate their own role in MDTMs. To conclude, a change of culture is needed towards an interdisciplinary collaboration in which knowledge and expertise of different professions are equally assimilated into an integrated perspective to guarantee a true patient-centred approach for cancer MDTMs.

A Smartphone-Based App to Improve Adjuvant Treatment Adherence to Multidisciplinary Decisions in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) and adjuvant therapy are associated with improved survival rates in breast cancer. However, nonadherence to MDT decisions is common in patients. We developed a smartphone-based app that can facilitate the full-course management of patients after surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the influence factors of treatment nonadherence and to determine whether this smartphone-based app can improve the compliance rate with MDTs.

METHODS

Patients who had received a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer and had undergone MDT between March 2013 and May 2019 were included. Patients were classified into 3 groups: Pre-App cohort (November 2017, before the launch of the app); App nonused, cohort (after November 2017 but not using the app); and App used cohort (after November 2017 and using the app). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors related to MDT adherence. Compliance with specific adjuvant treatments, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy, was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 4475 patients were included, with Pre-App, App nonused, and App used cohorts comprising 2966 (66.28%), 861 (19.24%), and 648 (14.48%) patients, respectively. Overall, 15.53% (695/4475) patients did not receive MDT recommendations; the noncompliance rate ranged from 27.4% (75/273) in 2013 to 8.8% (44/500) in 2019. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that app use was independently associated with adherence to adjuvant treatment. Compared with the patients in the Pre-App cohort, patients in the App used cohort were less likely to deviate from MDT recommendations (odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.87; P=.007); no significant difference was found in the App nonused cohort (P=.77). Moreover, app use decreased the noncompliance rate for adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.65; P<.001) and radiotherapy (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.96; P=.04), but not for anti-HER2 therapy (P=.76) or endocrine therapy (P=.39).

CONCLUSIONS

This smartphone-based app can increase MDT adherence in patients undergoing adjuvant therapy; this was more obvious for adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Contributions to Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Care: Predictors of Complete Case Information and Comprehensive Case Discussions

Purpose

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings integrate complex information and base recommendations for clinical management on interdisciplinary and multiprofessional decision-making. To support high-quality decision-making and define key performance indicators, we aimed to determine completeness of case information and contributions to MDT case discussions in cancer care.

Methods

In a prospective observational study design, based on three MDTs, we applied the Metric for Observation of Decision-Making (MODe) tool to assess the quality of case presentation and team members’ contributions to case discussions. The MDTs handled patients with brain tumors, soft tissue sarcomas and hepatobiliary cancers. The results were correlated to patient and team characteristics and to MDT leadership skills.

Results

Data were collected from 349 case discussions during 32 MDT meetings. Information on radiology received the highest scores, followed by case history and information on histopathology. Patient-related information was less frequently mentioned and generally received low scores. Contributions to the case discussions were predominantly by the chair, surgeons, and oncologists with limited contributions from nurses. Leadership skills showed a positive correlation with case presentations scores and failure to reach a treatment recommendation correlated with lower case discussion scores.

Conclusion

Considerable resources are spent on MDT meetings in cancer care, which motivate initiatives to ensure high-quality and efficient decision-making processes. We identify unbalanced contributions from team members during MDT meetings, demonstrate limited provision of patient-related information and show that leadership skills may positively influence the quality of the case presentations. We suggest that MDTs should consider and develop these aspects to ensure high-quality MDT-based case management and decision-making.

The Next Step Toward Patient-Centeredness in Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings: An Interview Study with Professionals

Background

Patient-centeredness is essential in complex oncological multidisciplinary team decision-making. Improvement seems to be needed, while there is a lack of knowledge about health care providers’ needs for improvement.

Objective

To explore multidisciplinary team members’ perspectives on the need to improve patient-centeredness in complex decision-making, and subsequently the strategies to enhance it.

Methods

This was a qualitative descriptive interview study. The participants were twenty-four professionals who attended multidisciplinary cancer team meetings weekly. The setting was five multidisciplinary teams (gastrointestinal, gynecological, urological, head and neck, and hematological cancer) in a Dutch academic hospital. Data were collected by semi-structured interviews and were analyzed with a combination of inductive and deductive content analysis.

Results

The participants voiced the need for additional information (patient-centered information, patients’s needs and preferences, individualized medical information) during the multidisciplinary team meeting, to be more patient-centered in the decision-making conversation with the patient following the meeting, and for more information following the meeting to support patient-centeredness. The strategies, which mostly originated from the needs, were categorized as organization, decision-making, and communication. The most prominent strategies were those aimed at collecting and using patient-centered information, and to facilitate the decision-making conversation with the patient following the multidisciplinary team meeting.

Conclusion

Our findings highlighted the need to improve patient-centeredness in oncological multidisciplinary teams and provided a comprehensive overview of strategies for improvement, supported by multidisciplinary team members. These strategies emphasize involvement of patients throughout the continuous process of decision-making for patients with cancer. These strategies may be implemented in other oncological multidisciplinary teams, taking in mind the local needs. Future research may help to prioritize the strategies and to determine and evaluate the effect on endpoints, like patient or professional satisfaction, shared decision-making, and on the decision that was made.

Translation of oncology multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) recommendations into clinical practice

Background

Multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) processes differ according to clinical setting and tumour site. This can impact on decision making. This study aimed to evaluate the translation of MDM recommendations into clinical practice across solid tumour MDMs at an academic centre.

Methods

A retrospective audit of oncology records was performed for nine oncology MDMs held at Liverpool Hospital, NSW, Australia from 1/2/17–31/7/17. Information was collected on patient factors (age, gender, country of birth, language, postcode, performance status, comorbidities), tumour factors (diagnosis, stage) and MDM factors (number of MDMs, MDM recommendation). Management was audited up to a year post MDM to record management and identify reasons if discordant with MDM recommendations. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess for factors associated with concordant management.

Results

Eight hundred thirty-five patients were discussed, median age was 65 years and 51.4% were males. 70.8% of patients were presented at first diagnosis, 77% discussed once and treatment recommended in 73.2%. Of 771 patients assessable for concordance, management was fully concordant in 79.4%, partially concordant in 12.8% and discordant in 7.8%. Concordance varied from 84.5% for lung MDM to 97.6% for breast MDMs. On multivariable analysis, breast and upper GI MDMs and discussion at multiple MDMs were significantly associated with concordant management. The most common reason for discordant management was patient/guardian decision (28.3%).

Conclusion

There was variability in translation of MDM recommendations into clinical practice by tumour site. Routine measurement of implementation of MDM recommendations should be considered as a quality indicator of MDM practice.

Opportunities and limitations of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation - A qualitative interview study with providers

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine opportunities and limitations of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation from the providers' perspective in breast and gynecological cancer centers.

METHODS

Semi-structured guideline-based expert interviews were conducted with providers from breast and gynecological cancer centers with and without patient participation in multidisciplinary tumor conferences. Interviews were transcribed, anonymized and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The providers (n = 30) reported that some process steps of shared decision making can be implemented in limited form and under certain conditions in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation. Above all, patients can potentially ask questions and contribute individual additional information and their preferences.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes first insights into the implementation of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation. From the providers' perspective, the implementation of shared decision making seems difficult under the current circumstances. Further studies, using patient experiences, participative observations or interventional designs, are required.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Despite the limited implementation of shared decision making in tumor conferences, patient participation can be advantageous as it can allow patients to ask questions and contribute individual additional information as well as their preferences.

Multidisciplinary team approach in breast cancer care: Benefits and challenges

The multidisciplinary team approach has been employed internationally for decades, as an attempt to bring collaborative decision-making and concentrate clinical experience from multiple specialties on single patient cases in a systematic fashion. Adoption is not yet worldwide, but is increasing. The role of the histopathologist is central, providing vital information and context to clinical diagnosis and management. Our review summarizes some of the most relevant research on the topic of MDT usage and efficacy in relation to breast cancer, attempting to draw together its advantages and challenges. It is hoped that this review will make a contribution to the current international literature regarding multidisciplinary approaches in breast cancer care.

Match between therapeutic proposal in multidisciplinary tumor board and actual treatment in head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVES

There are few published studies evaluating the quality and outcome of multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) decisions. The aim of the present study was to evaluate adherence to MDTB recommendations in head and neck cancer and to document reasons in case of discordance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included all patients with newly diagnosed head and neck cancer presented in our MDTB meetings between January 1st and December 31st, 2018, whatever the tumor site, histology type and TNM classification. MDTB recommendations were compared to actual treatment. Discordance was defined as treatment partially or entirely different from the treatment decision recorded in the MDTB minutes.

RESULTS

Board decisions were made for 344 new patients. Complete treatment concordance rate was 91.6% (315/344 patients), with deviation in 29 patients. Reasons for deviation were complications of treatment in 10 cases, patient refusal in 8, and physician's decision in 4 cases. Five patients died before therapy initiation. Mean interval from board discussion to treatment was 21 days, and depended on type of treatment (range, 1 to 74 days).

CONCLUSION

This study shows the importance of evaluating concordance between the protocol proposed in the MDTB and the treatment actually received, to identify factors for deviation and remedy them when possible.

Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences from the Providers' Perspective: Is It Feasible in Routine Cancer Care?

Objective

Recent studies from Germany show that a small amount of breast and gynecological cancer patients participate in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTCs) at some cancer centers. One reason for the variation by center might be the providers’ attitudes about and experiences with MTC patient participation (MTCpp), which has not been analyzed before. Therefore, it is the aim of this study to analyze the providers’ expected or experienced feasibility concerning MTCpp at breast and gynecological cancer centers in Germany.

Methods

This paper presents cross-sectional qualitative interview data from the PINTU study. From April to December 2018, n=30 health-care providers from n=6 breast and gynecological cancer centers in North-Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, were interviewed. One-half of the providers had no experience and the other half had experience with MTCpp. Inductive and deductive coding was performed in order to capture the feasibility aspects of participation.

Results

MTCpp seems not to be feasible in routine cancer care following providers’ expected barriers and negative experiences. However, MTCpp seems to be feasible for selected cancer patients following providers’ expected opportunities and positive experiences. Our results show that both provider groups report positive and negative experiences or expectations.

Conclusion

The mixed findings regarding expected or experienced feasibility of MTCpp provide first insights into differences concerning MTCpp between organizations. Our results suggest that the providers’ perceptions (expectations and experiences) influence the possibility for patients to participate in an MTC in a cancer center.

Compliance with multidisciplinary team recommendations and disease outcomes in early breast cancer patients: An analysis of 4501 consecutive patients

Background

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions are widely held to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, but patient compliance with the MDT recommendations and the impact of compliance on disease outcome are uncertain.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of data from a prospective database of breast cancer patients treated at Shanghai Ruijin Hospital between April 2013 and August 2018. MDT discussions were held for all patients before they started adjuvant therapy. The patients were classified into compliant and non-compliant groups according to whether they received the MDT-recommended regimens. We also analyzed which clinicopathological factors were associated with compliance and prognosis.

Results

Of 4501 breast cancer patients, 3681 (81.8%) and 820 (18.2%) were included in the compliant and non-compliant groups, respectively. Age >70 years (P < 0.001), invasive ductal carcinoma (P < 0.001), and histological grade III (P = 0.011) were independently associated with higher risk of non-compliance, whereas Ki-67 labeling index ≥14% and history of benign breast disease were independently associated with compliance. Disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.813, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.367–2.405, P < 0.001) and overall survival (HR 2.478, 95% CI 1.431–4.291, P < 0.001) were worse in the non-compliant group.

Conclusions

Several clinicopathological factors were associated with non-compliance with MDT recommendations for early breast cancer patients. Non-compliance was associated with worse disease outcome.

•

A large consecutive breast cancer cohort with MDT-based treatment recommendation.

•

Factors identified associated with non-compliance with MDT recommendations.

•

A significantly better survival in patients compliant with MDT recommendation.

What are the appropriate thresholds for High Quality Performance Indicators for breast surgery in Australia and New Zealand?

Aim

To evaluate BreastSurgANZ members’ compliance at various threshold rates for 4 evaluable High-Quality Performance Indicators (HQPIs) introduced to improve patient care. To benchmark global best practice to assist in determining the eventual threshold standards.

Method

BreastSurgANZ Quality Audit data 2012–2016 & 2018 was used to determine rates of attainment through a range of thresholds for 4 HQPI’s. Rates were assessed for different volume surgeons and comparison made to international standards.

Results

1.3761 patients needing mastectomy for in situ disease, if the threshold rate for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) was ≥ 40% then 30% of all members and 78% of very high-volume surgeons achieved that rate, which is comparable to international recommendations.

2.26,007 patients requiring mastectomy, if the threshold rate for IBR was ≥ 20% then 28% of all surgeons and 78% very high-volume surgeons met the standard. This is below most international recommendations.

3. For 31,698 invasive tumours ≤ 2 cm, if the threshold rate for breast conservation was ≥ 70% then 64% of all surgeons met the standard; 70% is comparable internationally.

4.1382 women =<50 years if the threshold rate for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was set at ≥ 15% then 36% of surgeons complied; 15% is below most international recommendations.

Conclusions

Even at these modest thresholds there are low levels of achievement by BreastSurgANZ members with high volume surgeons more likely to comply. These thresholds are either comparable or lower than globally accepted standards. Members should strive to meet, even exceed these important goals as they are a metric of improved patient care.

•

High quality performance indicators are important for driving improvements in care.

•

Our threshold standards for IBR for insitu disease are comparable internationally.

•

Threshold indicators for invasive breast cancer are well below international standards.

•

Members are achieving internationally comparable rates of breast conservation.

•

Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for women <50yrs is below international standards.

Ultrasound-Guided Core Biopsy of Breast Lesions in a Resource Limited Setting: Initial Experience of a Multidisciplinary Team

Objective

There is increasing tendency to multidisciplinary care of patients with of breast lesions. This study sought to evaluate the initial experience of the diagnostic arm of a new breast program in a resource limited setting.

Materials and Methods

In 2015, we commenced the pilot phase of an IRB-approved breast care protocol. As part of the protocol's diagnostic arm, an ultrasound-guided breast core biopsy training was implemented. Eligible patients were clinically evaluated and underwent CNB using 16G needle under US guidance. The procedure was rated by the participants and histopathological results compared with surgical specimens.

Results

Eighty six participants (18.22%) with 113 palpable breast lesions completed the study. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 94.44%, 92.86%, and 95.83% respectively. Unweighted kappa-coefficient (k) agreement between histopathology of core biopsy and surgically excised specimens, were 0.798 (95% CI of 0.69 - 0.90) and 0.801 (95% CI of 0.71-0.92) for benign and malignant breast lumps respectively. The procedure was well accepted and all the patients were willing to accept a repeat CNB and would recommend it.

Conclusion

Despite the prevailing challenges, co-ordinated team diagnosis is feasible and may result in the modest improvement in the diagnostic accuracy of breast lesions and patient satisfaction.

The role of multidisciplinary decision making in oropharyngeal cancer: do we follow guidelines and are treatment decisions being implemented?

PURPOSE

A multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to cancer management is gold-standard. With an increasing disease incidence and growing research into human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), updated UK management guidelines were recently published. This study aimed to evaluate the MDT decision-making process among OPC patients at a tertiary centre.

METHODS

MDT meetings over a 12-month period were analysed retrospectively. MDT decisions were compared with guidelines and patient records examined to identify decision implementation. Reasons behind any discordant decisions were explored.

RESULTS

This study included 140 OPC patients. Thirty-three (23.6%) were not tested for HPV. Patients over 70 years with a smoking history treated palliatively were less likely to be tested (P = 0.017). Eighty-five percent of MDT decisions followed guidelines with the majority not complying (76.2%) related to patient comorbidity. Ten decisions (7.1%) were not implemented. Reasons included: Seven due to patient choice, of which four patients (57.1%) were only seen following the MDT meeting, and three due to clinician decisions as new clinical information emerged.

CONCLUSION

The majority of MDT decisions followed guidelines and any discordant decisions were justifiable. Discussing management options with patients beforehand facilitates decision implementation as decisions can potentially change after seeing the patient. Progress is still needed with regards to HPV testing. Reasons for not testing could include subliminal decision-making among clinicians, and patients falling between centres. Crucially, the role of the MDT in head and neck cancer should be to ratify decisions rather than making them, hence the need to see patients prior to MDT discussion.

Multicentre prospective observational study evaluating recommendations for mastectomy by multidisciplinary teams

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for mastectomy by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) may contribute to variation in mastectomy rates. The primary aim of this multicentre prospective observational study was to describe current practice in MDT decision-making for recommending mastectomy. A secondary aim was to determine factors contributing to variation in mastectomy rates.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing mastectomy between 1 June 2015 and 29 February 2016 at participating units across the UK were recruited. Details of neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST), operative and oncological data, and rationale for recommending mastectomy by MDTs were collected.

RESULTS

Overall, 1776 women with breast cancer underwent 1823 mastectomies at 68 units. Mastectomy was advised by MDTs for 1402 (76·9 per cent) of these lesions. The most common reasons for advising mastectomy were large tumour to breast size ratio (530 women, 29·1 per cent) and multicentric disease (372, 20·4 per cent). In total, 202 postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) unifocal tumours were advised mastectomy and not offered NST, owing to large tumour to breast size ratio in 173 women (85·6 per cent). Seventy-five women aged less than 70 years with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) tumours were advised mastectomy and not offered NST, owing to large tumour to breast size ratio in 45 women (60 per cent).

CONCLUSION

Most mastectomies are advised for large tumour to breast size ratio, but there is an inconsistency in the use of NST to downsize tumours in patients with large ER+ or HER2+ cancers. The application of standardized recommendations for NST could reduce the number of mastectomies advised by MDTs.

Analysing Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Patient Management: A Prospective Observational Evaluation of Team Clinical Decision-Making

Background

Multidisciplinary team (MDT)-driven cancer care is a mandatory UK national policy, widely used globally. However, few studies have examined how MDT members make decisions as a team. We report a single-centre prospective study on team working within breast cancer MDT.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study of 10 breast MDT meetings (MDM). Trained clinical observer scored quality of presented information and disciplinary contribution to case reviews in real time, using a validated tool, namely Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making. Data were analysed to evaluate quality of team working.

Results

Ten MDMs were observed (N = 346 patients). An average of 42 patients were discussed per MDM (range: 29–51) with an average 3 min 20 s (range: 31 s–9 min) dedicated to each patient. Management decision was made in 99% of cases. In terms of contribution to case reviews, breast care nurses scored significantly (p < 0.05) lower (M = 1.79, SD = 0.12) compared to other team members (e.g. surgeons, M = 4.65; oncologists, M = 3.07; pathologists, M = 4.51; radiologists, M = 3.21). Information on patient psychosocial aspects (M = 1.69, SD = 0.68), comorbidities (M = 1.36, SD = 0.39) and views on treatment options (M = 1.47, SD = 0.34) was also significantly (p < 0.05) less well represented compared to radiology (M = 3.62, SD = 0.77), pathology (M = 4.42, SD = 0.49) and patient history (M = 3.91, SD = 0.48).

Conclusion

MDT evaluation via direct observation in a meeting is feasible and reliable. We found consistent levels of quality of information coverage and contribution within the team, but certain aspects could be improved. Contribution to patient review resides predominantly with surgeons, while presented patient information is largely of biomedical nature. These findings can be fed to cancer MDTs to identify potential interventions for improvement.

Multidisciplinary care of breast cancer patients: a scoping review of multidisciplinary styles, processes, and outcomes

Background

Clinical practice guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care that brings together all relevant disciplines to discuss optimal disease management. However, the literature is characterized by heterogeneous definitions and few reviews about the processes and outcomes of multidisciplinary care. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and classify the definitions and characteristics of multidisciplinary care, as well as outcomes and interventions for patients with breast cancer.

Methods

A systematic search for quantitative and qualitative studies about multidisciplinary care for patients with breast cancer was conducted for January 2001 to December 2017 in the following electronic databases: medline, embase, PsycInfo, and cinahl. Two reviewers independently applied our eligibility criteria at level 1 (title/abstract) and level 2 (full-text) screening. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively.

Results

The search yielded 9537 unique results, of which 191 were included in the final analysis. Two main types of multidisciplinary care were identified: conferences and clinics. Most studies focused on outcomes of multidisciplinary care that could be variously grouped at the patient, provider, and system levels. Research into processes tended to focus on processes that facilitate implementation: team-working, meeting logistics, infrastructure, quality audit, and barriers and facilitators.

Summary

Approaches to multidisciplinary care using conferences and clinics are well described. However, studies vary by design, clinical context, patient population, and study outcome. The heterogeneity of the literature, including the patient populations studied, warrants further specification of multidisciplinary care practice and systematic reviews of the processes or contexts that make the implementation and operation of multidisciplinary care effective.

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

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

Sexual function and sex hormones in breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Breast cancer patients (BCP) are at risk of female sexual dysfunction (FSD). Our aim was to clarify the effects of treatment strategies, and steroid hormones levels on FSD.

METHODS

We enrolled 136 BCP (46.9 ± 0.8 years), and 122 completed questionnaires. BCP were divided into four groups: 22 women with advanced breast cancer on neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), 48 on adjuvant therapy (AT), 30 taking hormonal therapy (HT) and 22 with metastatic cancer on first line chemotherapy (FLT). Fifty-eight healthy women (43 ± 2.8 years) were enrolled as controls. FSD was evaluated by FSFI, and sexual distress was assessed with FSDS-R. We have collected demographic data, laboratory values, and LH, FSH, total testosterone (T), and estradiol (E2) levels.

RESULTS

BCP showed a prevalence of FSD of 69%, total FSFI score was 17. FSDS-R was 8.3. FSD had a prevalence of 72 % in NAT, 65% in AT, 77% in metastatic BCP under FLT, 67% in HT, compared with a prevalence of 20% in controls. BCP showed lower E2 than normal values, as well as T. LH and FSH were significantly elevated than normal values. Total FSFI score was positively correlated with T in 122 BCP, no significant correlation was found between E2 and FSFI. Significant differences were found between NAT and HT in lubrication, pain domains and total FSDS-R score, AT and HT in pain domain, AT and NAT in lubrication domain.

CONCLUSIONS

BCP are at high risk of developing FSD both for treatment choice and hormonal status, but they have not sexually related personal distress.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Establishing the aims, format and function for multidisciplinary team-driven care within an inflammatory bowel disease service: a multicentre qualitative specialist-based consensus study

OBJECTIVE

To obtain a specialist-based consensus on the aims, format and function for MDT-driven care within an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) service.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, multicentre study using a Delphi formal consensus-building methodology.

SETTING

Participants were recruited nationally across 13 centres from July to August 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

24 participants were included into the Delphi Specialist Consensus Panel. They included six consultant colorectal surgeons, six gastroenterologists, five consultant radiologists, three consultant histopathologists and 4 IBD nurse specialists.

INTERVENTIONS

Panellists ranked items on a Likert scale (1=not important to 5=very important). Items with a median score >3 were considered eligible for inclusion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Consensus was defined with an IQR ≤1. Consensus on categorical responses was defined by an agreement of >60%.

RESULTS

A consensus on items (median; IQR) that described the aims of the MDT-driven care that were considered very important included: advance patient care (5;5-5), provide multidisciplinary input for the patient's care plan (5;5-5), provide shared experience and expertise (5;5-5), improve patient outcome (5;5-5), deliver the best possible care for the patient (5;5-5) and to obtain consensus on management for a patient with IBD (5;4-5). A consensus for being a core MDT member was demonstrated for colorectal surgeons (24/24), radiologists (24/24), gastroenterologists (24/24), nurse specialists (24/24), dieticians (14/23), histopathologists (21/23) and coordinators (21/24).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has provided a consensus for proposed aims, overall design, format and function MDT-driven care within an IBD service. This can provide a focus for core members, and aid a contractual recognition to ensure attendance and proactive contribution.

Efficacy of the multidisciplinary tumor board conference in gynecologic oncology: A prospective study

Evidence has shown that multidisciplinary tumor board conferences (MTBCs) improve patient management for various cancer types. However, few retrospective studies have investigated MTBC efficacy for patients with gynecologic cancers. Here, we prospectively aimed to evaluate how MTBCs influence patient management in gynecologic oncology. This prospective study included 85 consecutive cases that were presented at gynecologic oncology MTBCs in our tertiary university hospital between January 2015 and April 2016. The primary endpoint was treatment plan change rate, which included both major and minor changes. Major changes were defined as exchange, addition, or subtraction of treatment modality. Minor changes included all other, such as intramodality changes or treatment time changes. The secondary endpoints were the change rates of diagnosis, diagnostic work-up, and radiological and pathological findings.The treatment plan change rate, irrespective of changes in diagnostic work-up, was 27.1%, which included 10.6% major and 16.5% minor changes. Among the treatment plan changes, changes in the treatment plan change rate alone were noted in 16.5% of cases, and changes in diagnosis and radiological findings occurred in 7.1% and 3.5% of cases, respectively. Diagnosis and radiological findings, irrespective of changes in diagnostic work-up, were also changed in 9.4% and 10.6% of cases, respectively. However, there were no changes in pathological findings. Moreover, there was a change of diagnostic method for further work-up in 23.5% of cases. The implementation rate of MTBC-determined treatment changes was 91.8%. Gynecologic oncology MTBCs resulted in considerable changes in treatment plans. Diagnosis, diagnostic work-up, and radiological findings were influenced by MTBCs. The data emphasize the importance of adopting a multidisciplinary team approach for gynecologic cancer management.

Bayesian prediction of lung and breast cancer mortality among women in Spain (2014-2020)

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) is the main cause of cancer mortality among women, and mortality from lung cancer (LC) is increasing among women. The purpose of the present study was to project the mortality rates of both cancers and predict when LC mortality will exceed BC mortality.

METHODS

The cancer mortality data and female population distribution were obtained from the Spanish National Statistics Institute. Crude rate (CR), age-standardized rate (ASR), and age-specific rate were calculated for the period 1980-2013 and projected for the period 2014-2020 using a Bayesian log-linear Poisson model.

RESULTS

All calculated rates were greater for BC than for LC in 2013 (CR, 27.3 versus 17.3; ASR, 13.5 versus 9.3), and the CR was not projected to change by 2020 (29.2 versus 27.6). The ASR for LC is expected to surpass that of BC in 2019 (12.9 versus 12.7).

CONCLUSIONS

By 2020 the LC mortality rates may exceed those of BC for ages 55-74 years, possibly because of the prevalence of smoking among women, and the screening for and more effective treatment of BC. BC screening could be a good opportunity to help smokers quit by offering counseling and behavioral intervention.

Surveillance of waiting times for access to treatment: a registry-based computed approach in breast cancer care

The current study set out to automatically generate waiting times for access to surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and to analyse their determinants for non-metastatic breast cancer patients. We used data from the Poitou-Charentes regional cancer registry of women diagnosed with stages I-III breast carcinoma between 2008 and 2010. Waiting times were automatically computed from a previously validated algorithm modelling the care trajectory and then compared with national guidelines. The population of this study included 1082 patients. The compliance with guidelines ranged from 52.4% (access to adjuvant chemotherapy) to 89.2% (access to adjuvant radiotherapy). Younger age, a higher TNM stage, a lower grade, having a triple negative tumour, being the subject of multidisciplinary meetings and being a patient at a public hospital were associated with longer waiting times. The main result was the significant heterogeneity between geographical areas of treatment for all waiting times studied. The original, reproducible use of a registry-based automated algorithm to generate waiting times will help to follow these indicators routinely and efficiently.

Consideration of comorbidity in treatment decision making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Comorbidity is very common among patients with cancer. Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) are increasingly the context within which cancer treatment decisions are made internationally. Little is known about how comorbidity is considered, or impacts decisions, in MDTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate previous evidence on consideration, and impact, of comorbidity in cancer MDT treatment decision making. Twenty-one original studies were included.

RESULTS

Lack of information on comorbidity in MDTs impedes the ability of MDT members to make treatment recommendations, and for those recommendations to be implemented among patients with comorbidity. Where treatment is different from that recommended due to comorbidity, it is more conservative, despite evidence that such treatment may be tolerated and effective. MDT members are likely to be unaware of the extent to which issues such as comorbidity are ignored.

CONCLUSIONS

MDTs should systematically consider treatment of patients with comorbidity. Further research is needed to assist clinicians to undertake MDT decision making that appropriately addresses comorbidity. If this were to occur, it would likely contribute to improved outcomes for cancer patients with comorbidities.