Determinants of variable resource use for multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care

Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) provide an integrated team approach to ensure individualized and evidence-based treatment recommendations and best expert advice in cancer care. A growing number of patients and more complex treatment options challenge MDTM resources and evoke needs for case prioritization. In this process, decision aids could provide streamlining and standardize evaluation of case complexity. We applied the recently developed Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC, instrument with the aim to validate its performance in another healthcare setting and diagnostic area as a means to provide cases for full MDTM discussions.

METHODS

The 26-item MeDiC instrument evaluates case complexity and was applied to 364 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden. MeDiC scores were generated from individual-level health data and were correlated with clinicopathological parameters, healthcare setting, and the observed clinical case selection for MDTMs.

RESULTS

Application of the MeDiC instrument was feasible with rapid scoring based on available clinical data. Patients with high-risk prostate cancers had significantly higher MeDiC scores than patients with low or intermediate-risk cancers. In the total study, population affected lymph nodes and metastatic disease significantly influenced MDTM referral, whereas comorbidities and age did not predict MDTM referral. When individual patient MeDiC scores were compared to the clinical MDTM case selection, advanced stage, T3/T4 tumors, involved lymph nodes, presence of metastases and significant physical comorbidity were identified as key MDTM predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the MeDiC instrument in prostate cancer may be used to streamline case selection for MDTMs in cancer care and may complement clinical case selection.

Evaluation of changes to work patterns in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A national mixed-method survey study

BACKGROUND

It is not well understood the overall changes that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have had to make in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, nor the impact that such changes, in addition to the other challenges faced by MDTs, have had on decision-making, communication, or participation in the context of MDT meetings specifically.

METHODS

This was a mixed method, prospective cross-sectional survey study taking place in the United Kingdom between September 2020 and August 2021.

RESULTS

The participants were 423 MDT members. Qualitative findings revealed hybrid working and possibility of virtual attendance as the change introduced because of COVID-19 that MDTs would like to maintain. However, IT-related issues, slower meetings, longer lists and delays were identified as common with improving of the IT infrastructure necessary going forward. In contrast, virtual meetings and increased attendance/availability of clinicians were highlighted as the positive outcomes resulting from the change. Quantitative findings showed significant improvement from before COVID-19 for MDT meeting organisation and logistics (M = 45, SD = 20) compared to the access (M = 50, SD = 12, t(390) = 5.028, p = 0.001), case discussions (M = 50, SD = 14, t(373) = -5.104, p = 0.001), and patient representation (M = 50, SD = 12, t(382) = -4.537, p = 0.001) at MDT meetings.

DISCUSSION

Our study explored the perception of change since COVID-19 among cancer MDTs using mixed methods. While hybrid working was preferred, challenges exist. Significant improvements in the meeting organisation and logistics were reported. Although we found no significant perceived worsening across the four domains investigated, there was an indication in this direction for the case discussions warranting further 'live' assessments of MDT meetings.

Registered nurses' views on consideration of patient perspectives during multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) represent an integral component of modern cancer care and have increasingly been implemented to ensure accurate and evidence-based treatment recommendations. During MDTMs, multiple and complex medical and patient-related information should be considered by a multi-professional team whose members contribute various perspectives. Registered nurses (RNs) are expected to share information on the patient perspective at MDTMs. However, research suggests that RNs' contributions to case discussions are limited and that patient perspective is generally underrepresented. Our aim was to explore RNs' views of the prerequisites for and barriers to the inclusion of the patient perspective in MDTMs in Swedish cancer care.

METHODS

Data were collected from four focus group interviews with 22 RNs who worked as contact nurses in Swedish cancer care. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis identified two categories and five subcategories. The participants presented different views and expressed ambivalence about the patient perspective in MDTMs. Subcategories were related to medical versus holistic perspectives, the added value of patient perspective, and possibilities for patient contributions. The participants also discussed prerequisites for the patient perspective to be considered in MDTM decision-making process, with subcategories related to structures promoting attention to the patient perspective and determinants of RNs' contributions to case discussions in MDTMs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates various views related to the patient perspective in MDTMs and identifies a great need to clarify the RN's role. Our results indicate that if enhanced presentation of the patient perspective in MDTMs is desired, key information points and structures must be established to collect and present relevant patient-related information.

Model-based screening for pancreatic cancer in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Detecting pancreatic cancer at an earlier stage may contribute to an increased survival. Patients with stage I pancreatic cancer have a 5-year survival rate of 36%, while stage IV patients have a 5-year survival rate of 1% in Sweden. Research into novel blood-based biomarkers for pancreatic cancer is highly intensive and innovative, but has yet to result in any routine screening test. The aim of this study was to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of a hypothetical blood test for pancreatic cancer used for screening purposes and the economic aspects of testing.

METHOD

A model of a screening test was created, with varying specificity and sensitivity both set at 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% or 99% and applied to selected risk groups. Excessive costs of false positive screening outcomes, QALYs, ICERs and total costs were calculated.

RESULTS

Individuals with family history and genetic mutations associated with pancreatic cancer, new-onset diabetes ≥50 years of age and early symptoms had the highest positive predictive values and ICERs beneath the willingness-to-pay-level of EUR 100,000/QALY. Screening of the general population and smokers resulted in a high rate of false positive cases and extensive extra costs.

CONCLUSIONS

General screening for pancreatic cancer is not cost-effective, while screening of certain high-risk groups may be economically justified given the availability of a high-performing blood-based test.

Cancer patient management: role of multidisciplinary teams

OBJECTIVES

As a cancer model recommended by numerous governments and health care systems, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can improve clinical decision-making and overall patient care quality. This paper aims to discuss key elements and resources, as well as contingencies for effectiveness MDTs and their meetings.

METHODS

We derived elements, resources, and contingencies for effective MDTs by analyzing articles on the themes of MDTs and MDT meetings.

RESULTS

This paper identifies key elements comprising MDT characteristics, team governance, infrastructure for MDM, MDM organization, MDM logistics, and clinical decision-making in light of patient-centeredness. Resources that facilitate an MDM functioning consist of human resources and non-human resources. The paper further detects barriers to the sustainable performance of MDTs and provide suggestions for improving their functioning in light of patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

MDTs are vital to cancer care through enabling healthcare professionals with diversity of clinical specialties to collaborate and formulate optimal treatment recommendations for patients with suspected or confirmed cancer.

Benefits and drawbacks of videoconferencing for collaborating multidisciplinary teams in regional oncology networks: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Various forms of videoconferenced collaborations exist in oncology care. In regional oncology networks, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are essential in coordinating care in their region. There is no recent overview of the benefits and drawbacks of videoconferenced collaborations in oncology care networks. This scoping review presents an overview of videoconferencing (VC) in oncology care and summarises its benefits and drawbacks regarding decision-making and care coordination.

DESIGN

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (nursing and allied health) and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2020 for studies that included VC use in discussing treatment plans and coordinating care in oncology networks between teams at different sites. Two reviewers performed data extraction and thematic analyses.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included. Six types of collaboration between teams using VC in oncology care were distinguished, ranging from MDTs collaborating with similar teams or with national or international experts to interactions between palliative care nurses and experts in that field. Patient benefits were less travel for diagnosis, better coordination of care, better access to scarce facilities and treatment in their own community. Benefits for healthcare professionals were optimised treatment plans through multidisciplinary discussion of complex cases, an ability to inform all healthcare professionals simultaneously, enhanced care coordination, less travel and continued medical education. VC added to the regular workload in preparing for discussions and increased administrative preparation.

DISCUSSION

Benefits and drawbacks for collaborating teams were tied to general VC use. VC enabled better use of staff time and reduced the time spent travelling. VC equipment costs and lack of reimbursement were implementation barriers.

CONCLUSION

VC is highly useful for various types of collaboration in oncology networks and improves decision-making over treatment plans and care coordination, with substantial benefits for patients and specialists. Drawbacks are additional time related to administrative preparation.

Projected economic burden of pancreatic cancer in Sweden in 2030

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is predicted to become the second most common cause of cancer-related death by 2030. The objective of this study was to estimate the economic burden of pancreatic cancer for the years 2018 and 2030 based on changing demographics and incidence rates in Sweden.

METHOD

The incidence of pancreatic cancer in Sweden and additional relevant data were obtained from official statistics. A linear regression model and the mean incidence rates 2008-2018 were applied to calculate the incidence in 2030. An economic model based on the human capital method was created to calculate the indirect cost of pancreatic cancer in 2018 and 2030. Costs associated with surgery, radiology, oncology, and palliative care constituted the direct costs. A sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The incidence of pancreatic cancer in Sweden in the year 2018 was 1352 patients and projected to between 1554 (+15%) and 1736 (+28%) in 2030. The total cost was calculated to €125 million in 2018 and between €210 million (+68%) and €225 million (+80%) in 2030. The indirect cost in the ≤65-year-old group was €328,344 in 2018 and between €380,738 and €382,109 per individual in 2030.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic burden of pancreatic cancer is expected to increase in Sweden by 2030 due to the increasing incidence of the disease and changing demographics. Pancreatic cancer is a growing health care problem in urgent need of advancements in prevention, early detection, treatment, and control of the disease.

Virtual Clinical and Precision Medicine Tumor Boards, a Cloud-based Platform-mediated Implementation of Multidisciplinary Reviews among Oncology Centers in the Covid-19 Era: an Observational Study Protocol

Background

Multidisciplinary tumor boards play a pivotal role in the patient-centered clinical management and in the decision-making process to provide best evidence-based, diagnostic, and therapeutic care to patients with cancer. Among the barriers to achieve an efficient multidisciplinary tumor board, lack of time and geographical distance play a major role. Therefore, the elaboration of an efficient virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (VMTB) is a key point to successfully obtain an oncology team and implement a network among health professionals and institutions. This need is stronger than ever during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective

This paper presents a research protocol for an observational study focused on exploring the structuring process and the implementation of a multi-institutional VMTB in Sicily, Italy. Other endpoints include analysis of cooperation between participants, adherence to guidelines, patients’ outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

Methods

This protocol encompasses a pragmatic, observational, multicenter, noninterventional, prospective trial. The study’s programmed duration is 5 years, with a half-yearly analysis of the primary and secondary objectives’ measurements. Oncology care health professionals from various oncology subspecialties at oncology departments in multiple hospitals (academic and general hospitals as well as tertiary centers and community hospitals) are involved in a nonhierarchic manner. VMTB employs an innovative, virtual, cloud-based platform to share anonymized medical data that are discussed via a videoconferencing system both satisfying security criteria and compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Results

The protocol is part of a larger research project on communication and multidisciplinary collaboration in oncology units and departments spread in the Sicily region. The results of this study will particularly focus on the organization of VMTBs, involving oncology units present in different hospitals spread in the area, and creating a network to allow best patient care pathways and a hub-and-spoke relationship. The present results will also include data concerning organization skills and pitfalls, barriers, efficiency, number, and types with respect to clinical cases and customer satisfaction.

Conclusions

VMTB represents a unique opportunity to optimize patient management through a patient-centered approach. An efficient virtualization and data-banking system is potentially time-saving, a source for outcome data, and a detector of possible holes in the hull of clinical pathways. The observations and results from this VMTB study may hopefully be useful to design nonclinical and organizational interventions that enhance multidisciplinary decision-making in oncology.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26220

Cost-effectiveness of gallbladder histopathology after cholecystectomy for benign disease

Background

The prevalence of incidental gallbladder cancer is low when performing cholecystectomy for benign disease. The performance of routine or selective histological examination of the gallbladder is still a subject for discussion. The aim of this study was to assess the cost‐effectiveness of these different approaches.

Methods

Four management strategies were evaluated using decision‐analytical modelling: no histology, current selective histology as practised in Sweden, macroscopic selective histology, and routine histology. Healthcare costs and life‐years were estimated for a lifetime perspective and combined into incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to assess the additional cost of achieving an additional life‐year for each management strategy.

Results

In the analysis of the four strategies, current selective histology was ruled out due to a higher ICER compared with macroscopic selective histology, which showed better health outcomes (extended dominance). Comparison of routine histology with macroscopic selective histology resulted in a gain of 12 life‐years and an incremental healthcare cost of approximately €1 000 000 in a cohort of 10 000 patients, yielding an estimated ICER of €76 508. When comparing a macroscopic selective strategy with no histological assessment, 50 life‐years would be saved and the ICER was estimated to be €20 708 in a cohort of 10 000 patients undergoing cholecystectomy.

Conclusion

A macroscopic selective strategy appears to be the most cost‐effective approach.

Leadership perspectives in multidisciplinary team meetings; observational assessment based on the ATLAS instrument in cancer care

OBJECTIVES

High-quality leadership and chairing skills are central components in team performance during multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. We hypothesized that the recently developed A Tumor Leadership Assessment inStrument (ATLAS) could provide relevant information to support more detailed insights into MDT chairing and leadership aspects of relevance for team feedback and targeted improvements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The observational assessment instrument ATLAS rates chairing and leadership skills during MDT meetings in 12 predefined domains that include e.g. time management, case prioritization, team involvement, discussion climate and clarity of treatment recommendations. We used ATLAS to prospectively assess 33 MDT meetings in neuro-oncology, sarcoma and hepatobiliary cancer.

RESULTS

The aspects time management, effective case prioritization and provision of clear treatment plans were found to be well-functioning, whereas facilitatation of case discussions, encouragment of team member contributions, keeping the meeting focused and ability to summarize case discussions showed variable and partly weak results.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the ATLAS instrument effectively captures various aspects of MDT leadership and chairing skills. It may thereby provide relevant information to prioritize initiatives that support and develop effective teamwork and decision-making during MDT meetings.

Economics of multidisciplinary teams in oncology: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the current literature on resource use, costs and economic evaluations of multidisciplinary teams in the field of oncology.

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary teams are commonly considered best practice and are in widespread use in the field of oncology. However, multidisciplinary teams are expensive to provide, requiring significant clinician time and health care resources. Their effectiveness varies according to the type of cancer and stage of disease, and their cost-effectiveness has not been clearly established.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Papers reporting on the costs of using multidisciplinary teams for the treatment of patients with cancer (at any age, level of care and in any country) will be included in the review. Costs may include the costs or resources used to provide the multidisciplinary teams (e.g. teleconference equipment, travel-time and clinician-time) or subsequent medical or non-medical costs of care.

METHODS

Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), will be searched from inception. Citations and references of included studies will also be searched. Two reviewers will undertake title and abstract screening, followed by full text screening. Data extraction will be conducted using a customized form. Included studies will be summarized using narrative synthesis structured around intervention characteristics and the type of economic data presented. Additional narrative synthesis will be considered for specific subgroups (depending on numbers and variation).

Impact of Adherence to Multidisciplinary Recommendations for Adjuvant Treatment in Radical Prostatectomy Patients With High Risk of Recurrence

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate adherence to recommended adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) in radical prostatectomy (RP) patients with adverse pathologic features and to analyse the outcome of patients who followed or denied this recommendation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 1140 consecutive RP patients (2006-2015) with non-organ confined (pT3) prostate cancer and either positive surgical margins (R1) and/or lymph node involvement (pN1) and non-detectable postoperative prostate-specific antigen who received multidisciplinary aRT recommendations. Patients were stratified into adherence versus non-adherence to recommendations. Additionally, subgroups within pathologic criteria (pT3R1N0, pT3R0N1, pT3R1N1) were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier, as well as multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to assess biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival, metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 508 (44.6%) patients were non-adherent. Of those, 273 (53.6%) did not receive any RT, and 235 (46.4%) received salvage RT. At 8 years, BCR-free survival was 57.7 versus 20.1%, metastasis-free survival was 76.5 versus 75.4%, cancer-specific survival was 91.7 versus 87.4%, and overall survival was 80.4 versus 75.8% in adherent versus non-adherent patients, respectively (P < .001). In multivariable Cox regression predicting BCR, metastatic progression, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality, non-adherence to aRT recommendation represented an independent predictor (hazard ratio [HR], 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-4.5; HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2; HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5-5.3; and HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Only about 55% of patients followed our multidisciplinary recommendations. Adherent patients were significantly less likely to experience BCR, metastatic progression, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality. Thus, patients with high risk of recurrence may be advised about the possibility of improved oncologic outcomes in case of adherence to aRT recommendations.

Function, information, and contributions: An evaluation of national multidisciplinary team meetings for rare cancers

National virtual multidisciplinary team meetings have been established in Swedish cancer care in response to centralized treatment of rare cancers. Though national meetings grant access to a large multidisciplinary network, we hypothesized that video-based meetings may challenge participants’ contributions to the case discussions. We investigated participants’ views and used observational tools to assess contributions from various health professionals during the multidisciplinary team meetings. Data on participants’ views were collected using an electronic survey distributed to participants in six national multidisciplinary team meetings for rare cancers. Data from observations were obtained from the multidisciplinary team meetings for penile cancer, anal cancer, and vulvar cancer using the standardized observational tools Meeting Observational Tool and Metric of Decision-Making that assess multidisciplinary team meeting functionality and participants’ contributions to the case discussions. Participants overall rated the multidisciplinary team meetings favorably with high scores for development of individual competence and team competence. Lower scores applied to multidisciplinary team meeting technology, principles for communicating treatment recommendations, and guidelines for evaluating the meetings. Observational assessment resulted in high scores for case histories, leadership, and teamwork, whereas patient-centered care and involvement of care professionals received low scores. National virtual multidisciplinary team meetings are feasible and receive positive ratings by the participants. Case discussions cover medical perspectives well, whereas patient-centered aspects achieve less attention. Based on these findings, we discuss factors to consider to further improve treatment recommendations from national multidisciplinary team meetings.

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.