Analysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teams

Tumor board simulation improves interdisciplinary decision-making in medical students

INTRODUCTION

Training of interdisciplinary clinical reasoning and decision-making skills, essential in daily clinical practice in oncological specialties, are still underrepresented in medical education. Therefore, at LMU University Hospital Munich, we implemented a didactically modified tumor board simulation with experts from five different disciplines (medical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, radiology, and surgery) presenting patient cases into a one-week course on the basic principles of oncology. In this survey, we examined the self-assessed impact of our course on the interdisciplinary decision-making skills of medical students.

METHODS

Between November-December 2023 and January-February 2024, we surveyed two cohorts of medical students in the third year of medical school in our one-week course before and after participating in the tumor board simulation. The objective was to evaluate the self-assessed knowledge in interdisciplinary clinical decision-making, in integrating ethical considerations into clinical reasoning, and in comprehension of various professional viewpoints in interdisciplinary decision-making. Knowledge was assessed using a five-step Likert scale from 1 (no knowledge) to 5 (complete knowledge).

RESULTS

The survey was answered by 76 students before and 55 after the simulation, equaling 60-70% of all 100 course participants. Mean knowledge level regarding principles of interdisciplinary clinical decision-making improved significantly in all of the following exemplary aspects: purpose and procedure of tumor boards in clinical practice (from 2.4 ± 1.1 to 4.0 ± 1.0, Spearman's ρ = 0.6, p < 0.001), principles of dealing with ethical challenges in oncology (from 2.4 ± 1.1 to 3.4 ± 1.0, ρ = 0.4, p < 0.001), and principles of shared decision-making in oncology (2.7 ± 1.1 to 3.7 ± 1.0, ρ = 0.4, p < 0.001). Students reported that their skills in clinical decision-making and ability to discuss oncological patient cases from different professional viewpoints improved due to the teaching course.

CONCLUSION

By employing our interdisciplinary one-week course and a didactically modified tumor board simulation featuring experts from various oncological disciplines, medical students' comprehension of interdisciplinary clinical decision-making in oncology improved significantly.

Multidisciplinary care meeting practices across diverse international settings

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) meetings improve the quality of cancer care by providing a space for interdisciplinary communication. The Pediatric Oncology Facility Integrated Local Evaluation (PrOFILE) tool assesses MDC meetings as part of the Service Integration module. We aimed to evaluate the characteristics of MDC meetings at institutions that completed PrOFILE.

METHODS

From 2019 to 2021, 112 institutions from 23 countries collected data by utilizing the abbreviated version of PrOFILE. Within a secondary data analysis, we descriptively analyzed the characteristics of MDC meetings stratified by income level.

RESULTS

Participating institutions were located in low-income countries (LICs) (n = 6), lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) (n = 34), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) (n = 55), and high-income countries (HICs) (n = 17). Of the 112 participating facilities, 79% reported having MDC meetings. The existence of an MDC varied with income, with 50% of LICs and 100% of HICs hosting MDCs. The frequency of MDC meetings also differed, with 100% of MDCs in LICs occurring weekly, while 53% of MDCs in HICs occurred monthly. Specialties regularly represented at MDC meetings across all participating institutions were hematology/oncology (93%), pathology (52%), radiology (60%), general surgery (57%), and radiation oncology (51%). All MDC meetings in LICs reported representation from these specialties. Availability of test results and discussion of new cases did not vary with income. Residual disparities were identified for the following characteristics: discussion of new and interesting cases, inclusion of patient preferences, and ability to meet urgently.

CONCLUSIONS

The existence and components of a functional MDC meeting may vary between countries' income levels. Variation in certain components, such as access to tests, may be due to differences in resource distribution, but other factors such as inclusion of patient preferences and ability to meet urgently can be optimized in all settings to foster high-quality teamwork and communication.

Integrated Electronic Health Record of Multidisciplinary Professionals Throughout the Cancer Care Pathway: A Pilot Study Exploring Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Patients

Purpose

The aim of this pilot study was to first aggregate and then integrate the medical records of various healthcare professionals involved with breast cancer patients to reveal if and how patient-centered information is documented in multidisciplinary cancer care.

Patients and Methods

We aggregated 20 types of medical records from various healthcare professionals such as physicians, nurses and allied healthcare professionals (AHPs) throughout three breast cancer patients' care pathways in a department of breast surgery at a university hospital. Purposeful sampling was used, and three cases were examined. The number of integrated type of records was 14, 14, 17 in case 1, 2 and 3, respectively. We manually annotated and analyzed them exploratively using a thematic analysis. The tags were produced using both a deductive template approach and a data-driven inductive approach. All records were then given tags. We defined patient-centered information related tags and biomedical information related tags and then analyzed for if and how patient-centered information was documented.

Results

The number of patient-centered information related tags accounted for 30%, 30% and 20% of the total in case 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In all cases, patient-centered information was distributed across various medical records. The Progress Note written by doctors provided much of the patient-centered information, while other records contained information not described elsewhere in the Progress Notes. The records of nurses and AHPs included more patient-centered information than the doctors' notes. Each piece of patient-centered information was documented in fragments providing from each of the healthcare professionals' viewpoints.

Conclusion

The documented information throughout the breast cancer care pathway in the cases examined was dominated by biomedical information. However, our findings suggest that integrating fragmented patient-centered information from various healthcare professionals' medical records produces holistic patient-centered information from multiple perspectives and thus may facilitate an enhanced multidisciplinary patient-centered care.

A comparison of frailty measures in population-based data for patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have revealed age-related inequalities in colorectal cancer care. Increasing levels of frailty in an ageing population may be contributing to this, but quantifying frailty in population-based studies is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, validity and reliability of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), the Secondary Care Administrative Records Frailty (SCARF) index and the frailty syndromes (FS) measures in a national colorectal cancer cohort.

DESIGN

Retrospective population-based study using 136,008 patients with colorectal cancer treated within the English National Health Service.

METHODS

Each measure was generated in the dataset to assess their feasibility. The diagnostic codes used in each measure were compared with those in the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Validity was assessed using the prevalence of frailty and relationship with 1-year survival. The Brier score and the c-statistic were used to assess performance and discriminative ability of models with included each measure.

RESULTS

All measures demonstrated feasibility, validity and reliability. Diagnostic codes used in SCARF and CCI have considerable overlap. Prevalence of frailty determined by each differed; SCARF allocating 55.4% of the population to the lowest risk group compared with 85.1% (HFRS) and 81.2% (FS). HFRS and FS demonstrated the greatest difference in 1-year overall survival between those with the lowest and highest measured levels of frailty. Differences in model performance were marginal.

CONCLUSIONS

HFRS, SCARF and FS all have value in quantifying frailty in routine administrative health care datasets. The most suitable measure will depend on the context and requirements of each individual epidemiological study.

A proposed framework for the implementation of head and neck cancer treatment at a new cancer center from a radiation oncology perspective

BACKGROUND

Establishing a new head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment center requires multidisciplinary team management and expertise. To our knowledge, there are no clear recommendations or guidelines in the literature for the commencement of HNC radiation therapy (RT) at a new cancer center. We propose a novel framework outlining the necessary components required to set-up a new radiation therapy HNC treatment.

METHODS

We reviewed the infrastructure and methodology in the commencement of HNC radiation therapy in our cancer care center and invited several external, experienced metropolitan head and neck radiation oncologists to develop a novel consensus guideline that may be used by new RT centers to treat HNC. Recommendations were presented to our internal and external staff specialists using a survey questionnaire with ratings utilized to determine consensus using pre-defined thresholds as per the American Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines Methodology Manual.

CONCLUSION

This consensus recommendation aims to improve RT utilization whilst advocating for optimal patient outcomes by presenting a framework for new radiation therapy centers ready to step up and manage the treatment of head and neck cancer patients. We propose these evidence-based consensus guidelines endorsed by external HNC radiation oncologists.

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.

Patient and parent perspectives on paediatric cancer multidisciplinary team working and national advisory panels in the UK: a qualitative research study

OBJECTIVE

The concept of patient-centred care is central to the role of cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and particularly pertinent with the recent rise in number of virtual national advisory panels (NAPs) for childhood cancer in the UK. We sought to explore patient and caregiver views regarding MDT working and NAPs.

METHODS

Three focus groups were undertaken between March 2019 and January 2020.

RESULTS

Sixteen participants attended. All regarded MDTs and NAPs highly, while highlighting patient involvement in decision-making should not be diluted by this process. The importance of personalised consultations was stressed, acknowledging that information-sharing preferences may change with circumstance and time. Most participants felt they had not been actively involved in decisions, including those made following MDT or NAP discussions. Group suggestions to improve patient-centred care included a clinician knowing them presenting their case, referral proformas to include family-related factors and an advocate attending meetings to represent the patient/family view.

CONCLUSION

Several changes have been driven forward by this work, including the modification of NAP referral proformas to include additional information. Patient and parent perspectives are now embedded into a best practice model for the NAPs to promote personalised recommendations at national level.

Implementation of streamlining measures in selecting and prioritising complex cases for the cancer multidisciplinary team meeting: a mini review of the recent developments

In January 2020, NHS England and NHS Improvement, in the United Kingdom, issued a permissive framework for streamlining cancer multidisciplinary (MDT) meetings. Streamlining is defined as a process whereby complex cases are prioritized for full discussion by an MDT in an MDT meeting (MDM), while the management of straightforward cases is expedited using Standards of Care (SoC). SoC are points in the pathway of patient management where there are recognized guidelines and clear clinical consensus on the options for management and should be regionally agreed and uniformly applied by regional Cancer Alliances. While this report marks the first major change in cancer MDT management since the Calman-Hine report in 1995, its implementation, nationally, has been slow with now nearly four years since its publication. It is argued however that streamlining is a necessary step in ensuring the viability of MDT processes, and therefore maintaining patient care in the current socioeconomic context of rising workload and cancer incidence, financial pressures, and workforce shortages. In this mini review, we offer a succinct summary of the recent developments around the implementation of the 2020 streamlining framework, including challenges and barriers to its implementation, and the potential future directions in this field, which we propose should increase utilisation of implementation science. We conclude that ensuring successful implementation of the framework and the SOC requires securing a buy-in from key stakeholders, including MDTs and hospital management teams, with clearly defined (a) management approaches that include triage (e.g. through a mini MDT meeting), (b) assessment of case complexity (something that directly feeds into the SOC), and (c) roles of the MDT lead and the members, while acknowledging that the SOC cannot be universally applied without the consideration of individual variations across teams and hospital Trusts.

China special issue on gastrointestinal tumors-Improved survival after multidisciplinary team decision for patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer: A multicenter, noninterventional, controlled study

Formal multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions in clinical practice require time and space but have unclear survival benefits for advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients. Our study aimed to investigate the long-term survival of patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer after MDT decision. From June 2017 to June 2019, continuous MDT discussions on advanced gastrointestinal cancer were conducted in 13 medical centers in China. MDT decisions and actual treatment received by patients were prospectively recorded. The primary endpoint was the difference in overall survival (OS) between patients in the MDT decision implementation and nonimplementation groups. The secondary endpoints included the implementation rate of MDT decisions and subgroup survival analysis. A total of 461 MDT decisions of 455 patients were included in our study. The implementation rate of MDT decisions was 85.7%. Previous treatment had an impact on MDT decision-making. The OS was 24.0 months and 17.0 months in the implementation and nonimplementation groups, respectively. The implementation of MDT decisions significantly reduced the risk of death in multivariate analyses (hazard ratio = 0.518; 95% confidence interval: 0.304-0.884, P = .016). Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in survival of patients with colorectal cancer, but not in survival of patients with gastric cancer. The rate of secondary MDT discussion was only 5.6% among patients who the MDT decisions were discontinued due to changes in their condition. MDT discussion can prolong the OS of patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer, especially those with colorectal cancer. Timely scheduling of the subsequent MDT discussion is necessary when the disease condition changes.

Adherence to interdisciplinary tumor board recommendations as an expression of quality-assured patient care: results of a bicentric German analysis

PURPOSE

Interdisciplinary tumor boards (ITBs) represent a central part of standard cancer care defining a guidelines-guided treatment plan adapted to the patient's capabilities, comorbidities and wishes in a multi-professional team. The implementation rate of ITB recommendations can be monitored by structured adherence analyses. But (inter)national definitions how to measure the level of implementation are missing. Here, we present results of 4 years of ITB adherence analyses in a bicentric German Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC).

METHODS

Between 2018 and 2021, for at least 1 month, the implementation rate of recommendations of 8 different ITBs of 2 CCC sites was evaluated manually according to harmonized criteria between both sites regarding the degree of implementation of ITB's recommendations.

RESULTS

In total, 1104 cases were analyzed (65% male, 35% female). Mean distance from patient's home to the CCC was 57 km (range 0.8-560.6 km). For 949 cases (86%) with known follow-up, the adherence rate was 91.9% (95% CI 0.9; 0.935). In 8.1%, ITB decisions were not implemented due to medical reasons (45.4%), patient's wish (35.1%) and unknown reasons (19.5%). Logistic regression revealed neither age (OR = 0.998, p = 0.90), nor gender (OR = 0.98, p = 0.92) or the distance from patient's home to the CCC (OR = 1.001, p = 0.54) were significantly associated with ITB adherence.

CONCLUSION

ITB adherences analyses can serve as a quality management tool to monitor the implementation rate of ITB recommendations and to stay in contact with practitioners, other hospitals and state cancer registries to share data and resources in accordance with data protection requirements for continuously improvement of quality management and patient care.

Impact of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Decision Making in Vascular Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

This cohort study aimed to prospectively determine the impact of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) on treatment plans in vascular patients.

METHODS

The weekly MDT at the institution consisted of a structured discussion of vascular cases in the presence of at least one representative of each specialty from vascular surgery, angiology, and interventional radiology. Participants were asked to examine the cases entered on the digital MDT platform and to fill in forms with a detailed open text treatment recommendation for each patient. Individual recommendations were compared with the final MDT decision, which was based on a shared decision after discussion of clinical and radiological data. The primary endpoint was the agreement rate. The rate of decision implementation was determined to verify the adherence to MDT recommendations.

RESULTS

Four hundred consecutive case discussions in 367 patients between November 2019 and March 2021 were included, excluding patients needing urgent treatment, yielding MDT discussion in 88.5% of carotid artery cases, 83% of aorto-iliac cases, and 51.7% of peripheral arterial cases, which included 56.9% of the chronic limb threatening ischaemia cases. The overall average agreement rate was 71% ± 41%. Analysis according to the specialty of the attending physician showed agreement rates of 82% ± 30% for senior vascular surgeons, 62% ± 44% for junior vascular surgeons, 71% ± 43% for interventional radiologists, 58% ± 50% for angiologists (p < .001), and 75% ± 38% considering only senior practitioners. The inter-rater agreement, resulted in kappa coefficients of 0.60 - 0.68 for senior vascular surgeons, 0.29 - 0.31 for junior vascular surgeons, 0.39 - 0.52 for interventional radiologists, and 0.25 for angiologists. The MDT treatment decision was implemented in 353 (96.2%) cases.

CONCLUSION

The impact of MDT discussion on treatment recommendations and the adherence to MDT recommendations were significant and in line with results reported from other specialties.

Harnessing the power of collective intelligence in dentistry: a pilot study in Victoria, Australia

BACKGROUND

In many dental settings, diagnosis and treatment planning is the responsibility of a single clinician, and this process is inevitably influenced by the clinician's own heuristics and biases. Our aim was to test whether collective intelligence increases the accuracy of individual diagnoses and treatment plans, and whether such systems have potential to improve patient outcomes in a dental setting.

METHODS

This pilot project was carried out to assess the feasibility of the protocol and appropriateness of the study design. We used a questionnaire survey and pre-post study design in which dental practitioners were involved in the diagnosis and treatment planning of two simulated cases. Participants were provided the opportunity to amend their original diagnosis/treatment decisions after viewing a consensus report made to simulate a collaborative setting.

RESULTS

Around half (55%, n = 17) of the respondents worked in group private practices, however most practitioners (74%, n = 23) did not collaborate when planning treatment. Overall, the average practitioners' self-confidence score in managing different dental disciplines was 7.22 (s.d. 2.20) on a 1-10 scale. Practitioners tended to change their mind after viewing the consensus response, particularly for the complex case compared to the simple case (61.5% vs 38.5%, respectively). Practitioners' confidence ratings were also significantly higher (p < 0.05) after viewing the consensus for complex case.

CONCLUSION

Our pilot study shows that collective intelligence in the form of peers' opinion can lead to modifications in diagnosis and treatment planning by dentists. Our results lay the foundations for larger scale investigations on whether peer collaboration can improve diagnostic accuracy, treatment planning and, ultimately, oral health outcomes.

Using Brain Tumor MRI Structured Reporting to Quantify the Impact of Imaging on Brain Tumor Boards

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (TB) are an essential part of brain tumor care, but quantifying the impact of imaging on patient management is challenging due to treatment complexity and a lack of quantitative outcome measures. This work uses a structured reporting system for classifying brain tumor MRIs, the brain tumor reporting and data system (BT-RADS), in a TB setting to prospectively assess the impact of imaging review on patient management. Published criteria were used to prospectively assign three separate BT-RADS scores (an initial radiology report, secondary TB presenter review, and TB consensus) to brain MRIs reviewed at an adult brain TB. Clinical recommendations at TB were noted and management changes within 90 days after TB were determined by chart review. In total, 212 MRIs in 130 patients (median age = 57 years) were reviewed. Agreement was 82.2% between report and presenter, 79.0% between report and consensus, and 90.1% between presenter and consensus. Rates of management change increased with increasing BT-RADS scores (0-3.1%, 1a-0%, 1b-66.7%, 2-8.3%, 3a-38.5%, 3b-55.9, 3c-92.0%, and 4-95.6%). Of 184 (86.8%) cases with clinical follow-up within 90 days after the tumor board, 155 (84.2%) of the recommendations were implemented. Structured scoring of MRIs provides a quantitative way to assess rates of agreement interpretation alongside how often management changes are recommended and implemented in a TB setting.

Guideline adherence and implementation of tumor board therapy recommendations for patients with gastrointestinal cancer

PURPOSE

Although participation in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) is an obligatory quality criterion for certification, there is scarce evidence, whether MTB recommendations are consistent with consensus guidelines and whether they are followed in clinical practice. Reasons of guideline and tumor board deviations are poorly understood so far.

METHODS

MTB's recommendations from the weekly MTB for gastrointestinal cancers at the University Cancer Center Leipzig/Germany (UCCL) in 2020 were analyzed for their adherence to therapy recommendations as stated in National German guidelines and implementation within an observation period of 3 months. To assess adherence, an objective classification system was developed assigning a degree of guideline and tumor board adherence to each MTB case. For cases with deviations, underlying causes and influencing factors were investigated and categorized.

RESULTS

76% of MTBs were fully adherent to guidelines, with 16% showing deviations, mainly due to study inclusions and patient comorbidities. Guideline adherence in 8% of case discussions could not be determined, especially because there was no underlying guideline recommendation for the specific topic. Full implementation of the MTBs treatment recommendation occurred in 64% of all cases, while 21% showed deviations with primarily reasons of comorbidities and differing patient wishes. Significantly lower guideline and tumor board adherences were demonstrated in patients with reduced performance status (ECOG-PS ≥ 2) and for palliative intended therapy (p = 0.002/0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of guideline deviations and adherence to MTB decisions by a systematic and objective quality assessment tool could become a meaningful quality criterion for cancer centers in Germany.

National advisory panels for childhood cancer in the United Kingdom: An evaluation of current practice and a best practice statement for the future

BACKGROUND

National advisory panels (NAPs) have been established for the care of children and young people (CYP) with cancer in the United Kingdom since 2011, with an increase in panel number in recent years. Their practice has not previously been reviewed; therefore, we sought to evaluate the role, practice and impact of six selected NAPs offering expertise in ependymoma, histiocytosis, leukaemia, neuroblastoma, renal tumours and sarcoma.

PROCEDURE

This service evaluation used mixed methodology, including review of NAP documentation, semi-structured interviews with the NAP chairs and an analysis of the cases referred for discussion.

RESULTS

Total 1110 referrals were analysed. Results demonstrated the significant scope and amount of work undertaken by the NAPs, largely testament to the commitment of the panel members. Specific roles fulfilled have been highlighted, and NAP recommendations have been shown to influence clinical decision-making and be implemented in the majority of cases. Despite widespread good practice, areas to address have been identified; these include clarity regarding NAP membership, consistency in recommendations, the consideration of holistic information to promote personalised management and the exploration of wider multidisciplinary team roles.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of increasing demand and the escalating number of NAPs, it is timely to consider how service improvement can be facilitated. Best practice guidelines have been formulated as a product of this study, to promote a sustainable and effective model for NAPs. Review and benchmarking national panel performance against these guidelines will drive high standards of care going forward and they should be embedded as standard practice.

Improving Outcomes in the Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: The Role of the Multidisciplinary Team Discussion Intervention

Objectives: There is disagreement over the prognostic value of multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). This study examined how an MDT affected patients with advanced GISTs in terms of their overall survival (OS) and whether it may enhance their performance status (PS). Methods: A retrospective data analysis was conducted on patients with advanced GISTs between 2000 and 2022. Depending on whether they had received the MDT discussion intervention, the patients were split into two groups. The OS between the two groups was compared using the Kaplan–Meier method. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to analyze the prognostic variables for advanced GIST. Fisher’s test was used to investigate the relationship between an MDT and PS. Results: There were 122 patients with an MDT and 117 patients without an MDT in this study. In comparison to the non-MDT group, the MDT group showed a higher survival rate (5-year OS, 42.62% vs. 28.21%, p < 0.05). MDT was an independent prognostic factor for OS in univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses (p < 0.05). Fisher’s test revealed that there were variations in PS between the two groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The effectiveness of an MDT in the treatment of advanced GIST was examined for the first time in this study. MDT discussion intervention is an effective measure for improving the outcomes of patients with advanced GISTs.

Impact of a prognostic model for overall survival on the decision-making process in a head and neck cancer multidisciplinary consultation meeting

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary decision-making in head and neck cancer care is complex and requires a tradeoff between prolonging survival and optimizing quality of life. To support prognostication and decision-making in head and neck cancer care, an individualized prognostic model for overall survival (OncologIQ) is available.

METHODS

By quantitative and qualitative research we have studied user value of OncologIQ and its impact on the decision-making process in a multidisciplinary consultation meeting.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals experienced added value upon using prognostic estimates of survival from OncologIQ in half (47.5%) of the measurements. Significant impact on the decision making process was seen when OncologIQ was used for older patients, patients having a WHO performance score ≥ 2, or high tumor stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The prognostic model OncologIQ enables patient-centered decision-making in a multidisciplinary consultation meeting and was mostly valued in complex patients.

Changing patterns of multidisciplinary team treatment, early mortality, and survival in colorectal cancer

Background

This study reports early mortality and survival from colorectal cancer in relation to the pattern of treatments delivered by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting at a high-volume institution in England over 14 years.

Methods

All patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer and discussed during MDT meetings from 2003 to 2016 at a single institution were reviewed. Three time intervals (2003–2007, 2008–2012, and 2013–2016) were compared regarding initial surgical management (resection, local excision, non-resection surgery, and no surgery), initial oncological therapy, 90-day mortality, and crude 2-year survival for the whole cohort. Sub-analyses were performed according to age greater or less than 80 years.

Results

The MDT managed 4617 patients over 14 years (1496 in the first interval and 1389 in the last). Over this time, there was a reduction in emergency resections from 15.5 per cent to 9.0 per cent (P < 0.0001); use of oncological therapies increased from 34.6 per cent to 41.6 per cent (P < 0.0001). The 90-day mortality after diagnosis of colorectal cancer dropped from 14.8 per cent to 10.7 per cent (P < 0.001) and 2-year survival improved from 58.6 per cent to 65 per cent (P < 0.001). Among patients aged 80 years or older (425 and 446, in the first and last intervals respectively) there was, in addition, a progressive increase in ‘no surgery’ rate from 33.6 per cent to 50.2 per cent (P < 0.0001) and a reduction in elective resections from 42.4 per cent to 33.9 per cent (P = 0.010). The 90-day mortality after elective resection fell from 10.0 per cent (18 of 180) to 3.3 per cent (5 of 151; P = 0.013).

Conclusions

Survival from colorectal cancer improved significantly over 14 years. Among patients aged ≥80 years, major changes in the type of treatment delivered were associated with a decrease in postoperative mortality.

Construction on teaching quality evaluation indicator system of multi-disciplinary team (MDT) clinical nursing practice in China: A Delphi study

AIM

To construct an evaluation indicator system for nursing multi-disciplinary team (MDT) clinical practice in China and to provide quantifiable indicators for MDT clinical teaching courses.

METHODS

Based on relevant literature retrieval and analysis, a evaluation indicator system of nursing MDT clinical teaching quality was preliminarily constructed using the Donabedian. Structure-Process-Outcome model as theoretical guidance. Then, a final indicators content was formed after two rounds of expert consultation and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to determine the weight of indicators at all levels.

RESULTS

The effective response rate of the questionnaires in two rounds were 95.23% (20/21) and 100% (20/20) respectively, the expert authority coefficient (Cr) were 0.838 and 0.853 respectively and the Kendall's coefficient of concordance (Kendall's W) of indicators at all levels were 0.137-0.612 (P < 0.05). The final evaluation index system consisted of three one-class indicators, 8 s-class indicators and 28 third-class indicators.

CONCLUSION

The study constructed a comprehensive set of evaluation indicator system of nursing MDT clinical practice, which was scientific and reliable and provides reference for the clinical teaching quality evaluation of MDT nursing.

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.

Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Proposal and Final Therapeutic Choice in Early Breast Cancer: Is There an Agreement?

Background

A multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) approach in breast cancer (BC) management is a standard of care. One of the roles of MDMs is to identify the best diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for patients (pts) with new diagnosis of early BC. The purpose of this study was to define whether there was an agreement between the planned program (i.e., MDMs-based decision) and that actually applied. In addition, the study explored factors associated with discordance.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of a consecutive series of 291 patients with new diagnosis of early BC, discussed at MDMs at the University Hospital of Udine (Italy), from January 2017 to June 2018. The association between clinico-biological factors and discordance between what was decided during the MDMs and what was consequently applied by the oncologist was explored through uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results

The median age was 62 years (range 27-88 years). Among invasive early BC patients, the most frequent phenotype was luminal A (38%), followed by luminal B (33%), HER2-positive (12%), and triple-negative (5%). In situ carcinoma (DCIS) represented 12% of cases. The median time from MDM discussion to first oncologic examination was 2 weeks. The rate of discordance between MDM-based decision and final choice, during a face-to-face consultation with the oncologist, was 15.8% (46/291). The most frequent reason for changing the MDM-based program was clinical decision (87%). Follow-up was preferred to the chemotherapy (CT) proposed within the MDMs in 15% of cases, and to the endocrine therapy (ET) in 39% of cases (among these, 44.5% had a diagnosis of DCIS). Therapeutic change from sequential CT-ET to ET alone was chosen in 16/46 pts (35%): among these patients, seven had a luminal B disease and six had an HER2-positive disease. On univariate analysis, factors associated with discordance were values of Ki-67 14%-30% (OR 3.91; 95% CI 1.19-12.9), age >70 years (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.28-4.63), housewife/retired status (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.14-4.85), polypharmacy (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.02-3.72), postmenopausal status (OR 4.15; 95% CI 1.58-10.9), and high Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.09-1.57). The association with marital status, educational level, alcohol and smoke habits, presence of a caregiver, parity, grading, histotype and phenotype, and stage was not statistically significant. On multivariate analysis, only Ki-67 value maintained its statistical significance.

Conclusion

The results of our study could be useful for enhancing the role of MDMs in the clinical decision-making process in early BC.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinicopathological characteristics, survival outcomes, and genetic alterations of younger patients with gastric cancer: Results from the China National Cancer Center and cBioPortal datasets

Background

The survival outcomes of younger patients with gastric cancer (GC) have remained controversial. This study explores the clinicopathological characteristics, survival outcomes, and genetic alterations of younger and older patients with GC.

Methods

Patients with GC were identified from the China National Cancer Center Gastric Cancer Database (NCCGCDB) during 1998–2018. Survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. Sequencing datasets were enrolled from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) databases.

Results

A total of 1146 younger (<40 years of age) and 16,988 older (≥40 years of age) cases were included in the study. Younger patients had more poorly differentiated lesions than older patients (53.7% vs. 33.8%, respectively; p < 0.0001), and were more often pTNM stage IV (19.5% vs. 11.8%, respectively; p < 0.001). The 5‐year overall survival (OS) of patients from the NCCGCDB increased from 1998 to 2018. Younger patients with pTNM stage III had a lower survival rate than older patients (p = 0.014), while no differences by age were observed at other stages. The mutation frequency of the LRP1B, GNAS, APC, and KMT2D genes was higher for older than younger patients (p < 0.05 for all genes). While not significantly different, younger patients from the TCGA and MSKCC databases were more likely to have CDH1, RHOA, and CTNNB1 gene mutations.

Conclusions

A stable proportion and improved survival of younger patients were reported using NCCGCDB data. Younger patients with pTNM stage III had lower rates of survival than older patients. Distinct molecular characteristics were identified in younger GC patients which may partly explain the histopathology and prognosis specific to this subpopulation.

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.

Multidisciplinary Team Decisions in Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Service and Quality Evaluation

Objective

To investigate whether decisions made by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) were implemented and review the MDT process to identify areas for improvement.

Methods

This was a retrospective service evaluation project. Consecutive cases of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from vascular surgery MDT meetings were reviewed. MDT outputs were extracted and compared with implemented clinical management obtained from the electronic health record (EHR) to determine concordance. Cases were re-reviewed to understand reasons why planned management was not implemented.

Results

From 42 MDT meetings, 106 patients were identified. Twenty four patients were discussed at two MDTs and four patients were discussed three times. Of the 106 patients, 91 (85.8%) were treated as planned, seven (6.6%) declined planned management and opted for conservative management, four (3.8%) patients died before treatment, and four (3.8%) had alternative management for individual reasons. Of the patients discussed multiple times, 15 (53.6%) needed review by a consultant anaesthetist or additional investigations.

Conclusion

This service evaluation found a similar proportion of cases as in existing oncology literature where the MDT decision was not implemented. However, the natural history of AAA brings nuance to this finding. Facilitating patient preference is an important problem that will require future study. This evaluation resulted in local improvements to the MDT process for AAA.

•

A small proportion of decisions made by the Vascular MDT are not implemented.

•

Incorporating patient choice into the MDT decision making process poses a challenge.

•

Patients discussed multiple times may represent complexity of comorbidities.

Ureteral metastasis from pulmonary adenocarcinoma: A case report and literature review

The occurrence of ureteral metastasis from distant primary tumors is uncommon, and appears to be especially rare when it originates from the lungs. In the case presented here, a patient with lumbago and left hydronephrosis was diagnosed with left ureteral metastasis of pulmonary adenocarcinoma after a CT‐guided percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy of the lung and retroperitoneal laparoscopic left nephroureterectomy. He accepted the targeted therapy because the lung tumor epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (exon19 deletion) was positive, and preoperative staging of lung adenocarcinoma was stage IVA. After an 8‐month follow‐up, he is still alive and well, with no local recurrence or distant metastases. The therapy outcome assessment is stable disease. Although rare, our case has demonstrated that pulmonary adenocarcinoma has the possibility of metastasizing to the ureter, a risk that should be considered in some lung cancer patients.

Team functioning across different tumour types: Insights from a Swiss cancer center using qualitative and quantitative methods

Background

Multidisciplinary care is pivotal in cancer centres and the interaction of all cancer disease specialists in decision making processes is state‐of‐the‐art.

Aim

To describe differences of MDTMs by tumour type.

Methods

Twelve multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) with participation of different cancer disease specialists at a tertiary hospital were assessed by an exploratory sequential mixed method approach with interviews, observations and a survey to address the following five topics: organisational structure and supporting technology; leadership; teamwork; decision‐making, perceived value and motivation. Thirteen persons with different tumour specialities and levels of seniority were interviewed. The 12 MDTMs were observed twice by uninvolved persons and evaluated by the participating physicians with a survey.

Results

There were no systematic differences between MDTMs for different tumour types with the exception of the non‐disease specific type MDTM, which was the only one for which the organisational structure was not driven by an electronic tool. However, several factors could be identified that generally influenced the functioning of the MDTMs. In particular, the quality of decision‐making was highly dependent on the availability of case‐based information and the presence of relevant cancer disease specialists. Leadership and teamwork were rated as important and were comparable across the MDTM. Team participants' motivation and perceived value of MDTMs was high across all meetings.

Conclusion

MDTM at a single institution did not demonstrate disease specific characteristics. An effective MDTM, irrespective of the tumour type, can be successfully structured by technical means and a chairperson coordinating the interaction of cancer disease specialists to improve the decision‐making process.

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.

Thyroid Cancer Patients' View of Clinician Professionalism and Multidisciplinary Approach to Their Management

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to query thyroid cancer patients about 1) both the characteristics of the healthcare facilities where they were treated and the healthcare professionals that provided that treatment, as well as 2) the multidisciplinary approach used in the treatment process.

METHODS

Using a web-based survey, patients were asked to give their opinion of the healthcare centers, the professionalism of their team of specialists, and the thyroid cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDT).

RESULTS

For the 485 patients that responded, the most highly rated aspect of healthcare centers was the reduced waiting time between diagnosis and surgical intervention, an opinion expressed by 62.7% of patients. The most appreciated aspect of professionalism was the kindness shown toward patients by healthcare staff (66.6%). About 44.3% of patients were aware of the existence of thyroid cancer MDT. Most of respondents (82.7%) agreed that patients' opinions should be considered by their physicians when making treatment decisions.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that most patients with thyroid cancer appreciate therapeutic efficacy and kindness, and almost all are clearly in favor of using a multidisciplinary approach to their disease. Since such patients often demand to participate in the decision-making process, multidisciplinary teams should make every effort to share information with, and to integrate the opinion of, patients in the management of their thyroid disease.

The Effect of Multidisciplinary Team Discussion Intervention on the Prognosis of Advanced Colorectal Cancer

Purpose: The effects of multidisciplinary team discussion intervention on the treatment and prognosis of advanced colorectal cancer are still controversial. Large sample size studies to evaluate the efficacy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer are lacking. Materials and Methods: We statistically analyzed the data of surgical patients diagnosed with advanced colorectal cancer from 2008 to 2014 by retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether or not they received multidisciplinary team discussion intervention. After at least 3 years of follow up, differences between two groups were compared with respect to treatment process and patient prognosis. Results: The time to treatment in intervention group was shorter (9.6 ± 4.2 days vs 10.7 ± 5.6 days; p= 0.002). There were no significant differences in recurrence and metastasis rate between the two groups. Multivariate survival analysis suggested that multidisciplinary team discussion intervention reduced the risk of death (HR = 0.677; p = 0.006). And it had significant interaction with tumor invasion and tumor stage, and especially had beneficial effects in the tumor stage IV subgroup (p=0.005) and tumor invasion T4 subgroup (p<0.001). Conclusion: Multidisciplinary team discussion intervention accelerated the treatment process and reduced the death risk of patients with advanced colorectal cancer, especially improved the overall survival of stage IV and invasion T4 patients. The clinical characteristics of tumor invasion and tumor stage must be the primary considerations when judging whether patients need to conduct multidisciplinary team discussions.

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.

Impact of a Thoracic Multidisciplinary Conference on Lung Cancer Outcomes

BACKGROUND

With the complexity of cancer treatment rising, the role of multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs) in making diagnostic and treatment decisions has become critical. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a thoracic MDC (T-MDC) on lung cancer care quality and survival.

METHODS

Lung cancer cases over 7 years were identified from the Roswell Park cancer registry system. The survival rates and treatment plans of 300 patients presented at the MDC were compared to 300 matched patients. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines were used to define the standard of care. The compliance of care plans with NCCN guidelines was summarized using counts and percentages, with comparisons made using Fisher's exact test. Survival outcomes were summarized using Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

There was improvement in median overall survival (36.9 versus 19.3 months; p<0.001) and cancer specific survival (48 versus 28.1 months; p<0.001) for lung cancer patients discussed at the T-MDC compared to controls. These differences were statistically significant in patients with stages III/IV, but not in patients with stages I/II disease. The NCCN guidelines compliance rate of treatment plans improved from 80% to 94% (p<0.001) following MDC discussion. 123 of 300 (41%) patients had treatment plan changes recommended by the MDC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that lung cancer patients have a survival benefit from MDC discussion compared to controls. Patients with advanced disease (stages III and IV) benefited the most. Further research is necessary to understand the precise mechanisms that drive these results.

2021 American Thyroid Association Guidelines for Management of Patients with Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer

Background: Anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) is a rare but highly lethal form of thyroid cancer. Since the guidelines for the management of ATC by the American Thyroid Association were first published in 2012, significant clinical and scientific advances have occurred in the field. The aim of these guidelines is to inform clinicians, patients, and researchers on published evidence relating to the diagnosis and management of ATC. Methods: The specific clinical questions and topics addressed in these guidelines were based on prior versions of the guidelines, stakeholder input, and input of the Task Force members (authors of the guideline). Relevant literature was reviewed, including serial PubMed searches supplemented with additional articles. The American College of Physicians Guideline Grading System was used for critical appraisal of evidence and grading strength of recommendations. Results: The guidelines include the diagnosis, initial evaluation, establishment of treatment goals, approaches to locoregional disease (surgery, radiotherapy, targeted/systemic therapy, supportive care during active therapy), approaches to advanced/metastatic disease, palliative care options, surveillance and long-term monitoring, and ethical issues, including end of life. The guidelines include 31 recommendations and 16 good practice statements. Conclusions: We have developed evidence-based recommendations to inform clinical decision-making in the management of ATC. While all care must be individualized, such recommendations provide, in our opinion, optimal care paradigms for patients with ATC.

Medical and Nonmedical Information during Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Care

Background: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings provide treatment recommendations based on available information and collective decision-making in teams with complementary professions, disciplines and skills. We aimed to map ancillary medical and nonmedical patient information during case presentations and case discussions in MDT meetings in cancer care. Methods: Through a nonparticipant, observational approach, we mapped verbal information on medical, nonmedical and patient-related characteristics and classified these based on content. Data were collected from 336 case discussions in three MDTs for neuro-oncology, sarcoma and hepato-biliary cancer. Results: Information on physical status was presented in 48.2% of the case discussions, psychological status in 8.9% and comorbidity in 48.5% of the cases. Nonmedical factors, such as family relations, occupation, country of origin and abode were referred to in 3.6–7.7% of the cases, and patient preferences were reported in 4.2%. Conclusions: Provision of information on comorbidities in half of the cases and on patient characteristics and treatment preferences in <10% of case discussions suggest a need to define data elements and develop reporting standards to support robust MDT decision-making.

Can routine register data be used to identify vulnerable lung cancer patients of suboptimal care in a German comprehensive cancer centre?

OBJECTIVES

Several patient factors have been described to influence access to optimal cancer care like socioeconomic factors or place of residence. In this study, we investigate whether data routinely collected in a clinical cancer registry can be used to identify populations of lung cancer patients with increased risk of not receiving optimal cancer care.

METHODS

We analysed data of 837 lung cancer patients extracted from the clinical cancer registry of a German university hospital. We compared patient populations by two indicators of optimal care, namely implementation of tumour board meeting recommendations as well as the timeliness of care.

RESULTS

There was a high rate of implementation of tumour board meeting recommendations of 94.4%. Reasons for non-implementation were mainly a patient's own wish or a worsening of the health situation. Of all patient parameters, only tumour stage was associated with the two optimal care indicators.

CONCLUSION

Using routine data from a clinical cancer registry, we were not able to identify patient populations at risk of not getting optimal care and the implementation of guideline-conform care appeared to be very high in this setting. However, limitations were the ambiguity of optimal care indicators and availability of parameters predictive for patients' vulnerability.

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.

How Effective Is the Multidisciplinary Team Approach in Bariatric Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are widely recommended in the management of bariatric surgery patients; however, there is limited evidence for their effectiveness. The aims of this study were to evaluate the decision-making process of a single-day bariatric MDT clinic and secondly to evaluate whether these MDT decisions were implemented.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study analysing MDT treatment decisions from February 2012 to June 2013 using an MDT proforma. The decision-making process of the MDT meeting was investigated by assessing the alterations in management plan between the surgeon and the rest of the MDT. Adherence to MDT decisions was also assessed.

RESULTS

Decisions regarding 200 consecutive patients were analyzed. There was MDT agreement for 55%, and patients were listed for surgery on the day of the MDT. There was MDT disagreement regarding 45%, with conflicting opinions expressed by surgeons in 33/200 (17%), anaesthetists in 60/200 (30%) and dieticians in 65/200 (33%). The MDT plan was instigated in 78% and the most common reason for failure was patients failing to attend for further assessment. By the end of the study, 85% of patients underwent bariatric surgery, 11.5% declined further input, 2.5% chose further weight loss and 1% were removed from waiting list.

CONCLUSION

Use of a single-day MDT clinic format resulted in a change in plan for a significant number of patients. This can be interpreted as improved quality of care for these patients, and we conclude the MDT approach is valuable.

Value of multidisciplinary collaboration in acute and chronic pancreatitis

Multidisciplinary collaboration (MDC) has been widely adopted in healthcare to optimize patient care. MDC brings several specialized healthcare providers to the table using several methods, including multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs), multidisciplinary clinics, teleconferences, and online multidisciplinary expert panels, to reach the goal of achieving the best diagnosis and treatment plan for complex diseases. Diagnosis and management of acute/chronic pancreatitis is complex which necessitates the development and utilization of MDC. The key members of pancreatitis MDM include gastroenterologists, radiologists, pathologists, hepatobiliary surgeons, chairperson, and a coordinator. After selection of admitted or referred patients, the availability of required information is reviewed, and then each case is discussed. The final diagnosis and treatment plan is confirmed by consensus, especially for complex cases that require endoscopic intervention or pancreatectomy and patients with the possibility of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. It has been shown that MDMs have improved the clinical outcome of patients with acute/chronic pancreatitis. In addition to MDM, the feasibility of multidisciplinary clinics, teleconferences, and online multidisciplinary expert panels for the management of pancreatic disorders has been investigated. Understanding structure, potential advantages, and limitations of MDC will help clinicians and healthcare systems in developing an optimized MDC to improve the management of acute/chronic pancreatitis. This narrative review summarized prior recommendations and explored the impact of MDC on clinical outcomes of patients with pancreatitis. Our recommendations offer a generalizable method that can be utilized by healthcare systems.

Factors Influencing Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Trastuzumab Choice in Older Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-positive Breast Cancer Patients

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate influence factors for adjuvant chemotherapy regimen choice on the basis of trastuzumab in older human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer under multi-disciplinary team (MDT) modality.

Materials and Methods: HER2-positive breast cancer patients aged ≥ 60 years who received breast cancer surgery between April 2013 and December 2017 in Shanghai Ruijin Hospital were retrospectively enrolled. Clinical and pathological features, MDT recommendations, administration of adjuvant treatment, cardiotoxicity, and disease outcome information were reviewed and analyzed.

Results: A total of 222 older HER2-positive breast cancer patients were included and recommended to receive adjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab therapy. Paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (PH, 41/222, 18.5%), docetaxel plus carboplatin and trastuzumab (TCH, 62/222, 27.9%), and antharcyclines plus cyclophosphamide followed by taxanes and trastuzumab (AC-TH, 119/222, 53.6%) were the three main regimens. Patients with T1a-b (P<0.001), grade 1-2 (P=0.008), node-negative (P<0.001), stage I (P<0.001), low Ki-67 level (P<0.001) disease, with cardiovascular comorbidities (P=0.011), and aged ≥ 70 years (P<0.001) were more likely to be recommended to PH regimen. Among the 178 patients who finally received adjuvant chemotherapy plus one-year trastuzumab treatment, only four patients (4/117, 3.4%) were recorded to have asymptomatic LVEF declining ≥ 10% but remaining ≥ 50% within one-year trastuzumab treatment.

Conclusions: Clinical factors, including age, tumor size, node status, and cardiovascular comorbidity influenced the recommendation of trastuzumab with chemotherapy for older HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Low risk older HER2-positive breast cancer patients treated with PH had favorable outcome and good cardiac safety, which needed further clinical validation.

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.

Pulmonary Metastasectomy versus Continued Active Monitoring in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC): a multicentre randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Lung metastasectomy in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without good evidence of survival or palliative benefit. We aimed to test its effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS

Multidisciplinary teams in 13 hospitals recruited participants with potentially resectable lung metastases to a multicentre, two-arm RCT comparing active monitoring with or without metastasectomy. Other local or systemic treatments were decided by the local team. Randomisation was remote and stratified by site with minimisation for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, the number of metastases, and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The central Trial Management Group were blind to patient allocation until completion of the analysis. Analysis was on intention to treat with a margin for non-inferiority of 10%.

RESULTS

Between December 2010 and December 2016, 65 participants were randomised. Characteristics were well-matched in the two arms and similar to those in reported studies: age 35 to 86 years (interquartile range (IQR) 60 to 74); primary resection IQR 16 to 35 months previously; stage at resection T1, 2 or 3 in 3, 8 and 46; N1 or N2 in 31 and 26; unknown in 8. Lung metastases 1 to 5 (median 2); 16/65 had previous liver metastases; carcinoembryonic antigen normal in 55/65. There were no other interventions in the first 6 months, no crossovers from control to treatment, and no treatment-related deaths or major adverse events. The Hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing metastasectomy with control, was 0.82 (95%CI 0.43, 1.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Because of poor and worsening recruitment, the study was stopped. The small number of participants in the trial (N = 65) precludes a conclusive answer to the research question given the large overlap in the confidence intervals in the proportions still alive at all time points. A widely held belief is that the 5-year absolute survival benefit with metastasectomy is about 35%: 40% after metastasectomy compared to < 5% in controls. The estimated survival in this study was 38% (23-62%) for metastasectomy patients and 29% (16-52%) in the well-matched controls. That is the new and important finding of this RCT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01106261. Registered on 19 April 2010.

Decision-Making in Gynaecological Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: A Cross-Sectional, Observational Study of Ovarian Cancer Cases

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are widely used across the UK to provide expert decisions and improve cancer outcomes. However, little is known about the underlying mechanisms of MDT decision-making. We investigated how decisions are made regarding the management of advanced ovarian cancer in gynaecological oncology MDT meetings.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was performed, focussing on 41/ 223 MDT case discussions across six hospitals. The validated MDT-MODe tool was adapted to increase relevance to gynaecological oncology. Case information and contributions from seven disciplines were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Spearman's correlation investigated relationships between factors and an exploratory factor analysis examined the underlying structure of MDT discussion.

RESULTS

Forty-one MDT decisions were made for patients with FIGO Stage III/IV ovarian cancer. MDT case discussions were structured by four factors: "Clinical Presentation," "Patient Factors," "Chair's Direction" and "Input from Other Specialties." Nurses were often quiet but facilitated discussion of patient factors. Junior doctors were not involved in MDT decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision-making process in MDT meetings is driven by four underlying factors, the most significant of which represents patient history, tumour markers, images and radiologist input. Patient factors were underrepresented, and nurses should be empowered to overcome this.

Multidisciplinary meetings at the emergency department: A conversation-analytic study of decision-making

Multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) have become an established part of many medical disciplines. Much research has been done to investigate the conditions under which they work best. This research, however, has been mostly retrospective and has had little consideration for the actual workings of MDMs. The aim of this study was to determine how Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) come to a shared decision and thus how they organize MDMs moment by moment. For this purpose we recorded twenty MDMs at the Department of Emergency Medicine (ED) of the Radboud University Medical Center in The Netherlands between November 2017 and June 2018. These meetings, contrary to those discussed in the literature, were scheduled ad-hoc as patients were seen at the ED and were conducted by small MDTs of between three and six participants, always involving a surgeon, a geriatrician, and an emergency physician. Using Conversation Analysis we found that despite the ad hoc nature of these meetings, teams collaboratively developed a structure that was grounded in everyday medical practice and reached a decision in on average slightly over 10 min. First they do a case presentation in which they share the patient's medical history and results of the physical examination and any medical tests. They subsequently agree on a differential diagnosis, and then develop a work plan. Finally, the decision is often formulated to invite confirmation and make it an interactionally shared decision. The benefit of having an MDM was evidenced by discussion of patients' frailty in particular: it was sometimes omitted during the case presentation, but then consistently requested by the geriatrician. And as we show, it was occasionally invoked as a definitive argument for deciding between surgical or conservative treatment. Our analysis suggests that MDMs can have added value in other disciplines where it is feasible to schedule meetings ad hoc.