A systematic review of colorectal multidisciplinary team meetings: an international comparison

Preoperative imaging of colorectal liver metastases: what the radiologist and the multidisciplinary team need to know

The management of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has transformed over the past 2 decades. Advances in surgical techniques, systemic therapies, and local treatments have resulted in a paradigm shift. Disease that would once have been considered terminal is now frequently treated aggressively with both a disease-free and overall survival benefit. In line with the expanding range of treatment options, there has been an increase in the volume and complexity of imaging required in the management of these patients to ensure optimal patient selection and outcome. The radiologist plays a pivotal role in interpreting these studies, conveying the relevant information and informing the discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings. The purpose of this review is to provide an update for radiologists on the current surgical management of patients with CRLM highlighting specific imaging information that is required by the multidisciplinary team when assessing resectability and/or the need for additional liver-directed therapies.

Multi-disciplinary team meetings for lung cancer in Norway and Denmark: results from national surveys and observations with MDT-MODe

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Multi-disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings are widely regarded as the 'gold standard' of lung cancer care. MDTs improve adherence to clinical guidelines for lung cancer patients. In this study, we describe and compare lung cancer MDTs in Denmark and Norway by combining national surveys and the MDT-Metric for the Observation of Decision-making (MDT-MODe) instrument.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Identical surveys were sent out to all lung cancer MDT centers in Denmark and Norway by the Danish Lung Cancer Group and the Norwegian Lung Cancer Group. Six MDT centers, three in Denmark and three in Norway, were observed using the MDT-MODe instrument.

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

We found similar organization of MDT meetings in both countries, with the main difference being more local MDT meetings in Norway. All lung cancer MDTs were chaired by respiratory physicians and attended by a radiologist. Other members included oncologists, pathologists, thoracic surgeons, specialist nurses, nuclear medicine specialists and junior doctors. Overall, members reported that they had sufficient time for preparation and attending MDT meetings. With the MDT-MODe instrument it was found that the MDT chairs, surgeons, oncologists, radiologists all contributed positively to case discussion. Comorbidities were included in the discussion of most patients while the patient's view and psychosocial issues were less often discussed. A treatment decision was reached in 79.7% of cases discussed. In conclusion, we found similar settings and overall good quality concerning lung cancer MDT meetings in Denmark and Norway.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Patients Cared for by the Multidisciplinary Team in the Reggio Emilia Province, Italy

Colorectal cancer emerged as the third most prevalent malignancy worldwide, affecting nearly 2 million individuals in the year 2020. This study elucidates the pivotal role of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) in influencing the prognosis, as measured by relative survival rates, depending upon the stage and age. Cases recorded in an Italian Cancer Registry between 2017 and 2018 were included. Relative survival was reported at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis comparing MDT vs. no-MDT approaches. During the study period, 605 CRCs were recorded while 361 (59.7%) were taken care of by an MDT. Compared to no-MDT, MDT patients were younger with earlier stages and received more surgery. One year after diagnosis, survival was 78.7% (90% in MDT vs. 62% in no-MDT); stratifying by stage, in the MDT group there was no survival advantage for stage I (97.2% vs. 89.9%) and II (96.8% vs. 89.4%), but an advantage was observed for stage III (86.4% vs. 56.9%) and stage IV (63.7% vs. 27.4%). Similar values were observed at 3 years where a marked advantage was observed for stages III (69.9% vs. 35.1%) and IV (29.2% vs. 5.1%). The univariable analysis confirmed an excess risk in the no-MDT group (HR 2.6; 95% CI 2.0-3.3), also confirmed in the multivariable regression analysis (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.5-2.5). Despite the increase in the number of MDT patients in 2018 (from 50% to 69%), this does not correspond to an improvement in outcome.

Colorectal cancer: Getting the perspective and context right

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant global health burden, being the third leading cancer globally. Its incidence has been observed to be higher in developed regions such as North America and Europe with geographical variations in mortality rates. Efforts to address this disease burden include promoting early detection through screening and implementing treatment strategies to improve patient outcomes. With the growing and aging population, the incidence of CRC will undoubtedly increase. These epidemiological trends will mean that healthcare professionals will increasingly encounter CRC in more complex patients. Hence, it becomes imperative to have a deeper appreciation of the pathophysiology of CRC and understand the intricate interplay between a patient's physiology and their goals of care before offering treatment. This review article will aim to encapsulate the important nuances and perspectives of managing this disease in the context of an elderly patient.

Multidisciplinary teams and social science: a patient perspective

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are common in colorectal cancer and have been deemed important when providing care. Yet they take place outside of the patient, often with little consideration of the patient's views, goals and desires. In this paper specific examples from a patient perspective are integrated with the social science literature to provide an overview of areas of disconnect between MDT recommendations and the individual patient. The reasons for these disconnects are explored, including how MDTs relate to dyadic patient-clinician relationships, weak incorporation of patient-oriented outcomes in MDTs, poor integration of nonmedical patient information and the patient perspective and the impact of team dynamics and cognitive decision biases. Consideration of these issues should facilitate higher-quality MDT recommendations that are also more acceptable to patients.

Management of non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 colon cancer

Endoscopic resection techniques enable en-bloc resection of T1 colon cancers. A complete removal of T1 colon cancer can be considered curative when histologic examination of the specimens shows none of the high-risk factors for lymph nodes metastases. Criteria predicting lymph nodes metastases include deep submucosal invasion, poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and high-grade tumor budding. In these cases, complete (R0), local endoscopic resection is considered sufficient as negligible risk of lymph nodes metastases does not outweigh morbidity and mortality associated with surgical resection. Challenges arise when endoscopic resection is incomplete (RX/R1) or high-risk histological features are present. The risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 CRC ranges from 1% to 36.4%, depending on histologic risk factors. Presence of any risk factor labels the patient "high risk," warranting oncologic surgery with mesocolic lymphadenectomy. However, even if 70%-80% of T1-CRC patients are classified as high-risk, more than 90% are without lymph node involvement after oncological surgery. Surgical overtreatment in T1 CRC is a challenge, requiring a balance between oncologic safety and minimizing morbidity/mortality. This narrative review explores the landscape of managing non-curative T1 colon cancer, focusing on the choice between advanced endoscopic resection techniques and surgical interventions. We discuss surveillance strategies and shared decision-making, emphasizing the importance of a multidisciplinary approach.

MDT-How it is important in rectal cancer

The concept of multidisciplinary team discussion of patient's care has been a part of routine medical practice for several decades [Monson et al. in Bull Am Coll Surg 101:45-46, 2016; NHS. Improving outcomes in colorectal cancer-the manual. (Guidance on commissioning cancer services-improving outcomes). 1997.]. The idea of bringing multiple specialties and ancillary services together to help optimize patient outcomes has been implemented in several clinical arenas from burns to physical medicine and rehabilitation to oncology. In the oncology realm, multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs) originated as a broad-based meeting that would permit the review and discussion of cancer patients to optimize treatment strategies [Cancer Co. Optimal Resources for Cancer Care: 2020 Standards. Chicago, IL: 2019.]. Over time, as further specialization occurred and clinical treatment algorithms have become more complex, multidisciplinary tumor boards have become more disease site specific. In this article we will discuss the importance of MDTs, specifically focusing on rectal cancer MDTs including their impact on treatment planning as well as the unique interplay of clinical specialties that provide internal quality control and improvement. Additionally, we will discuss some of the potential benefits of MDTs beyond the direct impact on patient care and review some of the challenges of implementation.

The multidisciplinary approach to eosinophilia

Eosinophilic granulocytes are normally present in low numbers in the bloodstream. Patients with an increased number of eosinophilic granulocytes in the differential count (eosinophilia) are common and can pose a clinical challenge because conditions with eosinophilia occur in all medical specialties. The diagnostic approach must be guided by a thorough medical history, supported by specific tests to guide individualized treatment. Neoplastic (primary) eosinophilia is identified by one of several unique acquired genetic causes. In contrast, reactive (secondary) eosinophilia is associated with a cytokine stimulus in a specific disease, while idiopathic eosinophilia is a diagnosis by exclusion. Rational treatment is disease-directed in secondary cases and has paved the way for targeted treatment against the driver in primary eosinophilia, whereas idiopathic cases are treated as needed by principles in eosinophilia originating from clonal drivers. The vast majority of patients are diagnosed with secondary eosinophilia and are managed by the relevant specialty-e.g., rheumatology, allergy, dermatology, gastroenterology, pulmonary medicine, hematology, or infectious disease. The overlap in symptoms and the risk of irreversible organ involvement in eosinophilia, irrespective of the cause, warrants that patients without a diagnostic clarification or who do not respond to adequate treatment should be referred to a multidisciplinary function anchored in a hematology department for evaluation. This review presents the pathophysiology, manifestations, differential diagnosis, diagnostic workup, and management of (adult) patients with eosinophilia. The purpose is to place eosinophilia in a clinical context, and therefore justify and inspire the establishment of a multidisciplinary team of experts from diagnostic and clinical specialties at the regional level to support the second opinion. The target patient population requires highly specialized laboratory analysis and therapy and occasionally has severe eosinophil-induced organ dysfunction. An added value of a centralized, clinical function is to serve as a platform for education and research to further improve the management of patients with eosinophilia. Primary and idiopathic eosinophilia are key topics in the review, which also address current research and discusses outstanding issues in the field.

How consequences of colorectal cancer treatment are managed: a qualitative study of stakeholder experiences about supportive care and current practices

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors experience treatment-effects such as symptoms and functional impairments. There is limited evidence about how these are managed and what services or supports are available in the community. We aimed to identify current practice and available supports for managing consequences of treatment from clinician and CRC survivor perspectives.

METHODS

This qualitative study, informed by an interpretivist constructionist paradigm, included semi-structured interviews. Clinicians with experience of treating CRC patients and adult CRC survivors were recruited across Australia. Interviews explored experiences about problems experienced after CRC treatment and how these were managed. Data collection and analysis, using thematic analysis, was iterative whereby emergent themes during analysis were incorporated into subsequent interviews.

RESULTS

We interviewed 16 clinicians and 18 survivors. Survivors experienced a range of consequences of treatment amendable to support including allied health, information, and self-management. Barriers to support access included clinicians' worry about patient out-of-pocket expenses, long waitlists, lack of awareness about existing supports, and perception no therapeutic options were available. Healthcare professionals with expertise in CRC were often difficult to identify outside of cancer settings. Survivorship care could be improved with individualised timely information and identification of pathways to access healthcare providers with expertise in managing consequences of CRC treatment within primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve CRC survivor lives posttreatment, routine assessment of consequences of treatment, individualised care planning involving relevant healthcare professionals, access to supportive care when needed, and improved information provision and engagement of a range of health professionals in follow-up care are needed.

Impact of the 12-gene recurrence score in influencing adjuvant chemotherapy prescription in mismatch repair proficient stage II/III colonic carcinoma-a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The 12-gene recurrence score (RS) is a clinically validated assay which predicts recurrence risk in patients with stage II/III colon cancer. Decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy may be guided using this assay or based on the judgement of tumour board.

AIMS

To assess the concordance between the RS and MDT decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analyses were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method using the Review Manager version 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Four studies including 855 patients with a mean age of 68 years (range: 25-90 years) met inclusion criteria. Overall, 79.2% had stage II disease (677/855) and 20.8% had stage III disease (178/855). For the entire cohort, concordant results between the 12-gene assay and MDT were more likely than discordant (odds ratio (OR): 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.56, P < 0.001). Patients were more likely to have chemotherapy omitted than escalated when using the RS (OR: 9.76, 95% CI: 6.72-14.18, P < 0.001). For those with stage II disease, concordant results between the 12-gene assay and MDT were more likely than discordant (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.17-0.53, P < 0.001). In stage II disease, patients were more likely to have chemotherapy omitted than escalated when using the RS (OR: 7.39, 95% CI: 4.85-11.26, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the 12-gene signature refutes the decision of tumour board in 25% of cases, with 75% of discordant decisions resulting in omission of adjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, it is possible that a proportion of such patients are being overtreated when relying on tumour board decisions alone.

Global survey on the surgical management of patients affected by colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: impact of surgical specialty and geographic region

BACKGROUND

Consensus on the best surgical strategy for the management of synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has not been achieved. This study aimed to assess the attitudes of surgeons involved in the treatment of sCRLM.

METHODS

Surveys designed for colorectal, hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB), and general surgeons were disseminated through representative societies. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare responses between specialties and continents.

RESULTS

Overall, 270 surgeons (57 colorectal, 100 HPB and 113 general surgeons) responded. Specialist surgeons more frequently utilized minimally invasive surgery (MIS) than general surgeons for colon (94.8% vs. 71.7%, p < 0.001), rectal (91.2% vs. 64.6%, p < 0.001), and liver resections (53% vs. 34.5%, p = 0.005). In patients with an asymptomatic primary, the liver-first two-stage approach was preferred in most respondents' centres (59.3%), while the colorectal-first approach was preferred in Oceania (83.3%) and Asia (63.4%). A substantial proportion of the respondents (72.6%) had personal experience with minimally invasive simultaneous resections, and an expanding role for this procedure was foreseen (92.6%), while more evidence was desired (89.6%). Respondents were more reluctant to combine a hepatectomy with low anterior (76.3%) and abdominoperineal resections (73.3%), compared to right (94.4%) and left hemicolectomies (90.7%). Colorectal surgeons were less inclined to combine right or left hemicolectomies with a major hepatectomy than HPB and general surgeons (right: 22.8% vs. 50% and 44.2%, p = 0.008; left: 14% vs. 34% and 35.4%, p = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The clinical practices and viewpoints on the management of sCRLM differ between continents, and between and within surgical specialties. However, there appears to be consensus on a growing role for MIS and a need for evidence-based input.

Performance measures for the SACRED team-centered approach to advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology have defined performance measures for upper and lower gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and small-bowel endoscopy. Quality indicators to guide endoscopists in the growing field of advanced endoscopy are also underway. We propose that equal attention is given to developing the entire advanced endoscopy team and not the individual endoscopist alone.We suggest that the practice of teams intending to deliver high quality advanced endoscopy is underpinned by six crucial principles concerning: selection, acceptance, complications, reconnaissance, envelopment, and documentation (SACRED).