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

Multidisciplinary neurofibromatosis conference in the management of patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 and schwannomatosis in a single tertiary care institution

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of weekly neurofibromatosis (NF) multi-disciplinary conferences (MDC) on the diagnostic and therapeutic plan for patients with NF type 1 (NF1) and schwannomatosis (SWN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed patients with confirmed or suspected NF1 and SWN discussed in weekly MDC from March to July 2021. Demographic data collected included patient age, sex, pre-conference and post-conference diagnosis, radiological studies reviewed, and provider specialties in attendance. Outcomes reported included changes in imaging interpretation and treatment plans, changes in post-conference diagnosis relative to pre-conference diagnosis, and time to completion of the recommended change in treatment.

RESULTS

Data from 17 MDC "pre-conference" lists included 75 patients (38 female, 37 males, mean age (years): 38 (range: 6-80)) with NF1 (52%, 39/75) and SWN (36%, 27/75) discussed over a total of 91 case reviews. 18.7% (14/75) of all patients had NF2-related SWN, and 17.3% (13/75) of all patients had non-NF2 SWN. The MDC led to changes in imaging interpretation in 18.7% and changes in patient management in 74.7% (diagnostic testing (n = 52), surgical plan (n = 24), medical treatment (n = 9), clinical trial status (n = 4), and radiation treatment (n = 1)) of cases. Among patients for whom a change in management was recorded, 91% (62/68) completed at least one recommendation (mean time to completion (days): 41.4 (range: 0-278)).

CONCLUSION

Weekly MDC changes the diagnostic and therapeutic management of the majority of patients discussed (74.7%) and promotes a high adherence rate to recommendations (91%).

European multidisciplinary tumor boards support cross-border networking and increase treatment options for patients with rare gynecological tumors

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of European cross-border multidisciplinary tumor boards in terms of participation, adherence to treatment recommendations, and access to novel treatment strategies.

METHODS

The European reference network for rare gynecological tumors (EURACAN G2 domain) aims to improve the diagnosis, management, and treatment of patients with these cancers. Cross-border multidisciplinary tumor boards were initiated to facilitate intercollegiate clinical discussions across Europe and increase patients' access to specialist treatment recommendations and clinical trials. All G2 healthcare providers were invited to participate in monthly multidisciplinary meetings. Patient data were collected using a standardized form and case summaries were distributed before each meeting. After each tumor board, a meeting summary with treatment recommendations was sent to all participants and the project manager at the coordinating center. The multidisciplinary tumor board format and outcomes were regularly discussed at G2 domain meetings. Anonymized clinical data and treatment recommendations were registered in a prospective database. For this report, clinical data were collected between November 2017 and December 2020 and follow-up data retrieved until May 2021.

RESULTS

During the 3-year period, 31 multidisciplinary tumor boards were held with participants from 10 countries and 20 centers. 91 individual patients were discussed between one and six times for a total of 109 case discussions. Follow-up data were retrieved from 64 patients and 80 case discussions. Adherence to treatment recommendations was 99%. Multidisciplinary tumor board recommendations resulted in 11 patients getting access to off-label treatment and one patient being enrolled in a clinical trial in another European country. 14/91 patients were recommended for surveillance only when additional treatment had been considered locally.

CONCLUSION

Cross-border multidisciplinary tumor boards enable networking and clinical collaboration between healthcare professionals in different countries. Surveillance strategies, off-label drug use, and increased participation in clinical trials are possible benefits to patients with rare gynecological tumors.

Changes in multidisciplinary team decisions in a high volume head and neck oncological center following those made in its preferred partner

Objective

Head and neck cancer care is highly complex, and multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) are vital for improved outcomes. In the Netherlands, head and neck cancer care is practiced in eight high-volume head and neck oncologic centers (HNOC) and six affiliated hospitals preferred partner (PP) centers. Patients treated in the PP are presented and discussed in the HNOC. To evaluate the importance of these mandatory and decisive steps in decision making, we have assessed the changes in treatment.

Materials and methods

Retrospective evaluation of head and neck cancer patients referred between January 2011 and October 2018 for a MDT evaluation to the HNOC was conducted. The differences in MDT recommendation were classified with regards to major and minor changes.

Results

Management recommendation(MR) changed after 113 of 515 MDT discussions within the PP (487 patients; 22%), of which 86 cases (16%) were major changes. In 67 cases (59.3%), escalation of management was recommended, while in 43 cases (38.1%) de-escalation was recommended.

Conclusion

There was a high rate of change of MRs, when comparing the PP recommendations with the HNOC recommendations. Since patient and tumor characteristics seem unable to predict these changes, we recommend all patients be seen for a clinical presentation, revision of diagnostics, and MDT discussion in a high volume HNOC.

Management of Patients with Spine Tumors Strengthened by a Dedicated Multidisciplinary Spine Tumor Board: A 15-Year Single-Institutional Experience

BACKGROUND

Patients with spine tumors frequently require timely, multistep, and multidisciplinary care. A Spine Tumor Board (STB) provides a consistent forum wherein diverse specialists can interact, facilitating complex coordinated care for these patients. This study aims to present a single, large academic center's STB experience specifically reviewing case diversity, recommendations, and quantifying growth over time.

METHODS

All patient cases discussed at STB from May 2006 (STB inception) to May 2021 were evaluated. Collected data submitted by presenting physicians and formal documentation completed during the STB are summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 4549 cases were reviewed by STB over the study period, representing 2618 unique patients. Over the course of the study, a 266% increase in number of cases presented per week was observed (4.1 to 15.0). Cases were presented by surgeons (74%), radiation oncologists (18%), neurologists (2%), and other specialists (6%). The most common pathologic diagnoses discussed were spinal metastases (n = 1832; 40%), intradural extramedullary tumors (n = 798; 18%), and primary glial tumors (n = 567; 12%). Treatment recommendations included surgery, radiation therapy, or systemic therapy for 1743 cases (38%), continued routine follow-up/expectant management for 1592 cases (35%), supplementary imaging to better clarify the diagnosis for 549 cases (12%), and variable tailored recommendations for the remainder of cases (18%).

CONCLUSIONS

Care of patients with spine tumors is complex. We believe that the formation of a stand-alone STB is instrumental to accessing multidisciplinary input, enhancing confidence in management decisions for both patients and providers, assisting with care orchestration, and improving quality of care for patients with spine tumors.

Imaging evaluation of lymphoma in pregnancy with review of clinical assessment and treatment options

Lymphoma-related malignancies can be categorized as Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) based on histologic characteristics. Although quite rare during pregnancy, HL and NHL are the fourth and fifth most common malignancies during the pregnancy period, respectively. Given the rarity of lymphoma among pregnant patients, radiologists are usually unfamiliar with the modifications required for staging and treatment of this population, even those who work at centers with busy obstetrical services. Therefore, this manuscript serves to not only review the abdominopelvic imaging features of lymphoma in pregnancy, but it also discusses topics including birthing parent and fetal lymphoma-related prognosis, both antenatal and postpartum, current concepts in the management of pregnancy-related lymphoma, as well as the current considerations regarding birthing parent onco-fertility.

Prospective Analysis of Radiology Resource Utilization and Outcomes for Participation in Oncology Multidisciplinary Conferences

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Radiology participation is necessary in oncology multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs), but the resources required to do so are often unaccounted for. In this prospective study we provide an analysis of resource utilization as a function of outcomes for all MDCs covered by an entire radiology section and provide a time-based cost estimate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following institutional review board approval, prospective data on all MDCs covered by abdominal radiologists at a single tertiary care academic center were obtained over nine weeks. A predefined questionnaire was used by a single observer who attended every imaging review and recorded the total time spent by the radiologists and several outcome measures. The total time recorded was used to provide a time-based cost estimate using a national salary survey.

RESULTS

Six radiologists participated in a total of 57 MDCs, with 577 cases reviewed and discussed. 181 (31%) cases were performed at outside facilities requiring full reinterpretation. Clinically significant revisions to original reports were recorded in 107 (18.5%) cases. Radiologist input directly resulted in alteration of cancer staging in 65 (11%) patients and specific recommendations for follow-up diagnostic workup in 280 (48%) of cases. The mean total time devoted by the staff radiologist per week to MDCs was 18.7 hours/week, nearly a half of full-time effort, or 8% of total effort per radiologist. The total annual projected cost of radiology coverage for each weekly MDC was $26,920.

CONCLUSION

Section-wide radiologist participation in MDCs directly resulted in change in clinical management in nearly half of reviewed cases. This was achieved at a notable time cost, highlighting the need for efficient integration of radiology MDC participation into radiologist workflow and compensation models.

Influence of endocrine multidisciplinary tumor board on patient management and treatment decision making

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MDT) are used to obtain input regarding cancer management. This study assessed the impact of our institutional Endocrine MDT.

METHODS

MDT notes on patients with thyroid cancer treated during 2012-2018 were abstracted retrospectively from the electronic medical record. Management change (MC) was prospectively collected by the MDT coordinator. Biannual evaluations reviewed the impact of the MDT as observed by attendees.

RESULTS

MC was recommended in 47 (15%) of 286 presentations, with additional imaging being the most frequent (43%). Presentation of recurrences were more likely to result in MC (24% vs. 13% initial, p = 0.03). Overall, 98% of attendees found the conference exceeded educational expectations. About 24% reported intending to use a more evidence/guideline-based approach after attending and this trend increased over time (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

MDT presentations led to a higher rate of MC particularly in recurrent TC patients and increased evidenced-based practice for attendees.

Quantifying the utility of a multidisciplinary neuro-oncology tumor board

OBJECTIVE

There has been limited research on the efficacy of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) in improving the treatment of patients with tumors affecting the nervous system. The objective of the present study was to quantify the utility of MDTBs in providing alternative diagnostic interpretations and treatment plans for this patient population.

METHODS

The authors performed a prospective study of patients in 4 hospitals whose cases were discussed at MDTBs between July and November 2019. Patient demographic data, diagnoses, treatment plans, and eligibility for clinical trials were recorded, among other variables.

RESULTS

A total of 176 cases met eligibility criteria for study inclusion. The majority (53%) of patients were male, and the mean patient age was 52 years. The most frequent diagnosis was glioblastoma (32.4%). Among the evaluable cases, MDTBs led to 38 (21.6%) changes in image interpretation and 103 (58.2%) changes in patient management. Additionally, patients whose cases were discussed at MDTBs had significantly shorter referral times than patients whose cases were not discussed (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

MDTB discussions led to significant numbers of diagnostic and treatment plan changes as well as shortened referral times, highlighting the potential clinical impact of multidisciplinary care for patients with nervous system tumors.

Impact of a Virtual Multidisciplinary Sarcoma Case Conference on Treatment Plan and Survival in a Large Integrated Healthcare System

PURPOSE

Quantifying the impact of a multidisciplinary cancer case conference on patient outcome and care quality remains challenging.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively investigated the impact of our virtual multidisciplinary sarcoma case conference (VMSCC) on treatment plan in patients presented to the VMSCC from July to October 2020 (prospective cohort) and retrospectively in patients with metastatic or locally advanced high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) reviewed in the VMSCC in 2016 and 2017 (high-grade STS cohort). We also investigated the factors related to the nonadherence to the VMSCC-recommended plan in both cohorts.

RESULTS

In both cohorts, approximately 28% of the patients were referred to the VMSCC for review without a treatment plan. In significantly more cases, referring physicians outside of the sarcoma group did not have a plan formulated before the VMSCC review compared with the referring physicians within the sarcoma group. In 28.2% (prospective cohort) and 19.5% (high-grade STS cohort) of the patients, VMSCC recommended a different plan. The adherence to the VMSCC-recommended plan was 87.9% and 83.1%, respectively. The causes of the nonadherence were primarily due to disease progression or patient's decision against recommended therapy. The median overall survival for the high-grade STS cohort was 26 months.

CONCLUSION

VMSCC affected the treatment plan in approximately 50% of the patients in both cohorts. The median overall survival of the patients with high-grade STS reviewed by the VMSCC in our cohort is comparable with the literature.

Benefits and Limitations of a Multidisciplinary Approach in Cancer Patient Management

Over the years, a growing body of literature has confirmed as beneficial the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach in the so-often-intricate scenario of cancer patients' management. Together with the consolidation of tumor-board experience in clinical practice, certain aspects have emerged as controversial and a source of current debate. In this systematic literature review, we focused our attention on the impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards, assessing benefits and limitations as a result of the dissemination of such approaches. On the bright side, adherence to clinical guidelines, treatment outcomes, and overall improvement in decision-making processes have been recognized as advantages. On the other side, our analysis highlights a few limitations that should be taken into account to optimize cancer patients' management. Of note, some issues, such as costs, legal responsibility, geographic barriers, and treatment delays, have yet to be resolved. In order partly to address this matter, software platforms and novel methods of computational analysis may provide the needed support. Therefore, the aim of our analysis was to describe the multidisciplinary approach in cancer care in terms of adherence to clinical guidelines, treatment outcomes, and overall improvement in decision-making processes through a systematic review of the literature.

Impact of multidisciplinary tumour board in the management of ovarian carcinoma in the first-line setting. Exhaustive analysis from the Rhone-Alpes region

OBJECTIVE

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is a poor prognosis disease partly linked to diagnosis at an advanced stage. The quality of care management is a factor that needs to be explored, more specifically optimal organisation of first-line treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective study, dealing with all patients diagnosed within the Rhone-Alpes region with initial diagnosis EOC in 2012, was performed. The aim was to describe the impact of multidisciplinary tumour boards (MTB) in the organisation of care and the consequence on the patient's outcomes.

RESULTS

271 EOC were analysed. 206 patients had an advanced EOC. Median progression-free survival (PFS) is 17.8 months (CI95%, 14.6-21.2) for AOC. 157 patients (57.9%) had a front-line surgery versus 114 patients (42.1%) interval debulking surgery. PFS for AOC patients with no residual disease is 24.3 months compared with 15.3 months for patients with residual disease (p = .01). No macroscopic residual disease is more frequent in the patients discussed before surgery in MTB compared with patients not submitted before surgery (73% vs. 56.2%, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the heterogeneity of medical practices in terms of front-line surgery versus interval surgery, in the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and in the setting of MTB discussion.

A Multidisciplinary Toxicity Team for Cancer Immunotherapy-Related Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Methods to obtain real-time multidisciplinary input for irAEs that require subspecialist care are unknown. This study aimed to determine whether a virtual multidisciplinary immune-related toxicity (IR-tox) team of oncology and medicine subspecialists would be feasible to implement, be used by oncology providers, and identify patients for whom multidisciplinary input is sought.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated with ICIs and referred to the IR-tox team in August 2017 through March 2018 were identified. Feasibility was defined as receipt of electronic referrals and provision of recommendations within 24 hours of referral. Use was defined as the proportion of referring providers who used the team's recommendations, which was determined through a postpilot survey. Demographics and tumor, treatment, and referral data were collected. Patient features and irAE associations were analyzed.

RESULTS

The IR-tox team was found to be feasible and used: 117 referrals from 102 patients were received in 8 months, all providers received recommendations within 24 hours, 100% of surveyed providers used the recommendations, and 74% changed patient management based on IR-tox team recommendations. Referrals were for suspected irAEs (n=106; 91%) and suitability to treat with ICIs (n=11; 10%). In referred patients, median age was 64 years, 54% were men, 13% had prior autoimmunity, and 46% received ICI combinations versus monotherapy (54%). The most commonly referred toxicities were pneumonitis (23%), arthritis (16%), and dermatitis (15%); 15% of patients had multisystem toxicities. Multiple referrals were more common in those treated with combination ICIs (odds ratio [OR], 6.0; P=.035) or with multisystem toxicities (OR, 8.1; P=.005). The IR-tox team provided a new multidisciplinary forum to assist providers in diagnosing and managing complex irAEs. This model identifies educational and service needs, and patients with irAEs for whom multidisciplinary care is most sought.

CONCLUSIONS

A virtual multidisciplinary toxicity team for irAEs was a feasible and used service, and facilitated toxicity identification and management.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards in Dermatologic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities have made oncologic care ever more challenging, and multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are increasingly being used as a forum to discuss and coordinate care for complex oncology patients. Literature on the use of MTBs specific to cutaneous oncology and dermatologic surgery remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To share our experiences with cutaneous oncology MTBs at the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC).

METHODS

We describe the formation, timing, participation, clinical discussion, case follow-up, and coordination of care of our MTBs.

RESULTS

A log of all cases discussed at cutaneous oncology MTBs from August 2018 to August 2019 is presented as an example. Five specific cases are described in further detail to demonstrate critical components of multidisciplinary care.

CONCLUSION

The MTBs at UVMMC has created a collaborative environment for providers in multiple specialties to jointly formulate and coordinate optimal treatment plans for difficult cases, particularly when treatment guidelines do not exist or are insufficient. Furthermore, MTBs can serve as an educational forum for all participants.

The 2016-2019 ImmunoTOX assessment board report of collaborative management of immune-related adverse events, an observational clinical study

PURPOSE

We investigated the activities of an ImmunoTOX board, an academic, multidisciplinary group of oncologists and organ specialists that adopts a real-life, case-by-case approach in the management of patients with immune-related adverse events (irAEs).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The ImmunoTOX assessment board was set up in 2016 at Gustave Roussy in France. It meets every 2 weeks to discuss the case-by-case management of patients presenting with irAEs. Here, we describe the ImmunoTOX board's activities between 2016 and 2019.

RESULTS

Over study period, 398 requests (concerning 356 patients) were submitted to the ImmunoTOX board. Most of the requests concerned the putative causal link between immunotherapy and the irAE (n = 148, 37%), followed by possible retreatment after temporary withdrawal because of an adverse event (n = 109, 27%), the clinical management of complex situations (n = 100, 25%) and the initiation of immunotherapy in patients with pre-existing comorbidities (n = 41, 10%). The ImmunoTOX board discerned 273 irAEs. The five organ systems most frequently involved by irAEs were lung (n = 58, 21%), gastrointestinal tract (n = 36, 13%), liver or biliary tract (n = 33, 12%), musculoskeletal system (n = 27, 10%), and nervous system (n = 23, 8%). The time to occurrence was shorter for severe irAEs (grade III and VI) than for mild irAEs (grades I and II), with medians of 47 and 91 days, respectively (p = 0.0216).

CONCLUSION

The main medical needs in the management of irAEs involved the lung organ. Severe irAEs were expected to occur earlier than mild irAEs. This real-life study can help to better estimate medical needs and therefore help to assess the management of irAEs.

Practice patterns of multidisciplinary team meetings in Korean cancer care and patient satisfaction with this approach

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach is a cornerstone of clinical oncology. This study investigated the current state of MDT care, including patient satisfaction, in Korea.

METHODS

We obtained the annual number of cancer patients who have received MDT care since 2014 from the registry of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). In addition, patients who received MDT care from August 2014 to May 2017 at four university hospitals were further characterized, and patient satisfaction was measured prospectively using a patient-reported questionnaire.

RESULTS

The total number of patients who received MDT care increased from 2014 to 2016 (2,113 to 9,998 patients, respectively) in the HIRA Cohort. The type of cancer that most often required MDT was breast cancer (23.8%), followed by colorectal cancer (19.1%). In the Representative Cohort (n = 1,032), MDT was requested by the surgeon more than half the time (55.7%). The main focus of MDT was decision making for further treatment planning (99.0%). The number of doctors participating in the MDT was usually five (70.0%). After initiating an MDT approach, the treatment plan changed for 17.4% of patients. Among these patients, 359 completed a prospective satisfaction survey regarding their MDT care. The overall satisfaction with the MDT approach was very high, with an average score of 9.6 out of 10 points.

CONCLUSION

The application of MDT care is a rapidly growing trend in clinical oncology, and shows high patient satisfaction. Further research is needed to determine which types of cancer patients could benefit most from MDT, and to enable MDT care to operate more efficiently so that it may expand successfully throughout Korea.

Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists' interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board

Background

Data show that the initial specialist’s image interpretation and final multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) assessment can vary substantially in the pretherapeutic cancer setting. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate the concordance of the specialist’s and MTB’s image interpretations in patients undergoing systematic posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance.

Methods

In the initial prospective study, lung cancer patients who had received curative-intent treatment were randomly assigned to undergo either contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) or integrated 18^F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT). Imaging was performed every 6 months for 2 years, and all imaging studies were finally assessed by our MTB. This post hoc analysis assessed differences between the initial specialist’s image interpretation and the final MTB’s image interpretation.

Results

In 89 patients, 266 imaging studies (129 PET-CT, 137 CE-CT) were analyzed. In 87.2% (88.4, 86.1%) of the studies, complete concordance was found. Out of the 12.8% (11.6, 13.9%) with discordant results, 7.5% (6.9, 8.0%) had implications for alterations in patient management (major disagreements).

Twenty major disagreements were detected in 17 study patients. Retrospectively, in eight out of these 17 (47%) patients, in contrast to the MTB’s view, the specialist’s interpretation was more appropriate, whereas in nine out of 17 patients (53%), the MTB’s interpretation was more accurate.

Conclusions

In an experienced MTB, the agreement between imaging specialists and the rest of the MTB with regard to the interpretation of images is high in a setting of posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance. It seems that in cases of disagreements, the rates of more accurate interpretation are well balanced between imaging specialists and the MTB.

Trial registration

ISRCTN16281786, Date 23. February 2017.

Multidisciplinary Approach to HCC Management: How Can This Be Done?

Multidisciplinary tumor boards have evolved to address the increasing complexity of cancer care management. Given that hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often arises in the setting of underlying cirrhosis, expert input from hepatologists alongside hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, radiation oncologists, interventional and body radiologists, and medical oncologists has become increasingly important in order to offer patients appropriate cancer treatments. The MDLTB structure has evolved since the early 2000s to bring these specialists together at regularly scheduled meetings to develop a therapeutic treatment plan for HCC management. MDLTBs have reduced the time to treatment and improved patient satisfaction. Standardized documentation with common data elements has been recommended to ensure adequate communication from MDLTB to referring healthcare providers. Retrospective studies consistently highlight the frequency of changes in treatment plans after MDLTB review to better adhere to guideline recommended care. Despite several decades of MDLTBs implementation, few studies describe clinical outcomes associated with MDLTBs such as patient survival and cost benefits. More research is needed in this area to further justify the heavy use of resources that are needed to maintain MDLTBs. Development and use of a centralized database to store such information may assist with future studies of clinical outcomes and inform quality improvement projects.

An evidence-based medicine approach for case presentations by trainees

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a key aspect of medical training that can be challenging for trainees to learn. Tumour boards (TBs) are multidisciplinary meetings that are often opportunities for trainees to deliver patient case presentations, which is another integral part of medical education; however, TBs are time intensive, typically lack academic structure and may fail to emphasise EBM.

OBJECTIVE

To design a systematic approach to improve both trainee satisfaction and the level of evidence cited at typical academic TBs.

METHODS

From 2017 to 2018, Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology was used to develop a systematic approach for medical oncology trainees towards TBs. Statistical testing was used to assess which characteristics of a patient case made it more difficult to apply EBM. Anonymous surveys were distributed to trainees before and after the intervention to assess the educational utility.

RESULTS

We developed a shared voluntary case database, so that references with higher levels of evidence could be rapidly recalled and applied to similar cases. We then developed EBM-focused review sessions to highlight database trends. Both the database and the review sessions had high participation rates (>90% cases had voluntary data entry), and each were reported to have educational value by trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

A two-step implementation of an easy-to-use case database followed by review sessions focused on high-yield sources of evidence improved trainee satisfaction for TBs, but did not significantly improve the strength of the evidence cited.

Multidisciplinary care in the hematology clinic: Implementation of geriatric oncology

Multidisciplinary care is believed to provide benefits to patients with cancer. Tumor board conferences as well aspalliative care or psycho-oncological services have not only become common in oncology, but also in hematology clinics dedicated to the treatment of hematological cancers. Malignant hematological diseases are highly prevalent among older persons. Demographic changes in many countries worldwide are prompting the integration of geriatric principles, methodology, and expertise into existing procedures and infrastructure of multidisciplinary care in hematology clinics. Achieving this goal requires the close collaboration or even incorporation of multiple new professions in the hematology clinic in order to meet the needs of older patients with hematological malignancies who also have comorbidities and functional impairments. We here review the rationale, current evidence, and practical approaches of integrating geriatric oncology into multidisciplinary care in the hematology clinic.