Multidisciplinary team meetings and their impact on survival in rectal cancer. Population-based analysis in Catalonia (Spain)

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) are considered a pillar of cancer care; however, evidence of the independent benefit of MTMs on survival in rectal cancer is controversial.

METHODS

This population-based cohort analysis included patients undergoing surgery for primary rectal cancer with curative intent. We drew data derived from three clinical audits conducted in Catalonia from 2011 to 2020. The primary outcome was 2-year survival. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to assess the hazard ratio for death in patients whose cases were versus were not discussed in a preoperative MTM.

RESULTS

A total of 5249 patients were included (66.1 % male, 58.3 % aged 60-79 years, 63.2 % receiving anterior resection): 4096 cases were discussed in a preoperative MTM, and 1153 were not. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed that the MTM group had better survival than those with no preoperative MTM (hazard ratio 1.22, 95 % confidence interval 1.02-1.48), after adjusting for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative MTM may be associated with improved survival in patients with rectal cancer in Catalonia. Efforts to ensure universal access to MTMs for all newly diagnosed patients should be supported.

The influence of multidisciplinary team meetings on treatment decisions in advanced bladder cancer

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the role of specialised genitourinary multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) in decision-making and identify factors that influence the probability of receiving a treatment plan with curative intent for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data relating to patients with cT2-4aN0/X-1 M0 urothelial cell carcinoma, diagnosed between November 2017 and October 2019, were selected from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry ('BlaZIB study'). Curative treatment options were defined as radical cystectomy (RC) with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, chemoradiation or brachytherapy. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between MDTM factors and curative treatment advice and how this advice was followed.

RESULTS

Of the 2321 patients, 2048 (88.2%) were discussed in a genitourinary MDTM. Advanced age (>80 years) and poorer World Health Organization performance status (score 1-2 vs 0) were associated with no discussion (P < 0.001). Being discussed was associated with undergoing treatment with curative intent (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-4.9), as was the involvement of a RC hospital (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.09-2.65). Involvement of an academic centre was associated with higher rates of bladder-sparing treatment (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.31-3.21). Patient preference was the main reason for non-adherence to treatment advice.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with MIBC, the probability of being discussed in a MDTM was associated with age, performance status and receiving treatment with curative intent, especially if a representative of a RC hospital was present. Future studies should focus on the impact of MDTM advice on survival data.

Breast Cancer Treatment in Integrated Care Process in Andalusia: The Challenge of Multidisciplinarity

Despite the increasing trend in the incidence of breast cancer in recent decades, mortality has decreased in developed countries. The general objective of the study is to analyse the functioning and organisation of the care process for breast cancer treatment in Andalusia (Spain) in order to identify possible barriers and facilitators that may be affecting its effectiveness and, therefore, the survival of the disease. A qualitative method was adopted based on 19 semi-structured interviews with health professionals from different specialities in two Andalusian provinces: Huelva (mortality rate higher than the national average) and Granada (mortality rate similar to the national average). Results show the existence of barriers (seasonal delays, low frequency of multidisciplinary meetings, lack of human and technical resources, difficulties in accessing treatment in certain populations, etc.) and facilitators (creation of multidisciplinary units and committees for breast pathology, standardisation of treatments, assignment of professionals with preferential attention to breast pathology, etc.) in the care process of breast cancer treatment. The combination of these barriers can have an impact on the accessibility, quality, and efficacy of the treatment, and in the long term, on survival from the disease.

Clinical variation in the organization of clinical pathways in esophagogastric cancer, a mixed method multiple case study

Background

Among esophagogastric cancer patients, the probability of having undergone treatment with curative intent has been shown to vary, depending on the hospital of diagnosis. However, little is known about the factors that contribute to this variation. In this study, we sought to understand the organization of clinical pathways and their association with variation in practice.

Methods

A mixed-method study using quantitative and qualitative data was conducted. Quantitative data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (e.g., outpatient clinic consultations and diagnostic procedures). For qualitative data, thematic content analysis was performed using semi-structured interviews (n = 30), observations of outpatient clinic consultations (n = 26), and multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM, n = 16) in eight hospitals, to assess clinicians’ perspectives regarding the clinical pathways.

Results

Quantitative analyses showed that patients more often underwent surgical consultation prior to the MDTM in hospitals associated with a high probability of receiving treatment with curative intent, but more often consulted with a geriatrician in hospitals associated with a low probability of such treatment. The organization of clinical pathways was analyzed quantitatively at three levels: regional, local, and patient levels. At a regional level, hospitals differed in terms of the number of patients discussed during the MDTM. At the local level, the revision of radiological images and restaging after neoadjuvant treatment varied. At the patient level, some hospitals routinely conduct fitness tests, whereas others estimated the patient’s physical fitness during an outpatient clinic consultation. Few clinicians performed a standard geriatric consultation in older patients to assess their mental fitness and frailty.

Conclusion

Surgical consultation prior to MDTM was more often conducted in hospitals associated with a high probability of receiving treatment with curative intent, whereas a geriatrician was consulted more often in hospitals associated with a low probability of receiving such treatment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07845-2.

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.

Implementing multidisciplinary tumor boards in oncology: a narrative review

The healthcare industry compares unfavorably with other ultra-safe industries such as aviation and nuclear power plants, which address complexity by reducing the vulnerability of a single person and promoting teams and strong systems. A multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) is an evidence-based organizational approach to implementing a more effective concept in oncology practice. Studies addressing the correlation between MTBs and cancer outcomes show promising results, and other potential benefits are also addressed. The objectives of this article are to define and characterize MTBs in modern oncology practice, review the current literature on MTBs effectiveness and address challenges to the implementation and maintenance of MTBs. In this commentary-type narrative review, the authors present their opinions and, whenever possible, substantiate recommendations by citing supportive literature.

Multidisciplinary team meetings: are all patients presented and does it impact quality of care and survival - a registry-based study

Background

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are part of the standard cancer care process in many European countries. In France, they are a mandatory condition in the authorization system for cancer care administration, with the goal to ensure that all new patients diagnosed with cancer are presented in MDTMs.

Aim

Identify the factors associated with non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs, and study the impact of presentation in MDTMs on quality of care and survival in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

3999 CRC patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 in the area covered by the “Calvados Registry of Digestive Tumours” were included. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with presentation in MDTMs. Univariate analyses were performed to study the impact of MDTMs on quality of care. Multivariate Cox model and the Log-Rank test were used to assess the impact of MDTMs on survival.

Results

Non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs were associated with higher age at diagnosis, dying within 3 months after diagnosis, unknown metastatic status, non-metastatic cancer and colon cancer. Non-presentation was associated with a diagnosis after 2010. Unknown presentation was associated with a diagnosis before 2007 and a longer travel time to the reference care centres. Presentation in MDTMs was associated with more chemotherapy administration for patients with metastatic cancer and more adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. After excluding poor prognosis patients, lower survival was significantly associated with higher age at diagnosis, unknown metastatic status or metastatic cancer, presence of comorbidities, rectal cancer and non-presentation in MDTMs (HR = 1.5 [1.1–2.0], p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Elderly and poor prognosis patients were less presented in MDTMs. Geriatric assessments before presentation in MDTMs were shown to improve care plan establishment. The 100% objective is not coherent if MDTMs are only to discuss diagnosis and curative cares. They could also be a place to discuss therapeutic limitations. MDTMs were associated with better treatment and longer survival. We must ensure that there is no inequity in presentation in MDTMs that could lead to a loss of chance for patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07022-x.

Outcomes following major resection for colorectal cancer in patients aged 65+ years: a population-based study in Queensland, Australia

BACKGROUND

The risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) increases with increasing age. As surgery is the primary treatment for CRC, our aim was to examine outcomes following major resection for CRC in a cohort of individuals aged ≥65 years.

METHODS

This population-based retrospective study included 18 339 patients aged ≥65 years diagnosed with CRC from 2007 to 2016. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with the likelihood of having major resection, 30-day mortality and laparoscopic surgical procedure. Cox proportional hazards was used to examine factors associated with risk of death at 2 years post-surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 77.8% (n = 14 274) of patients had a major resection. Males and patients ≥75 years were significantly less likely to have a major resection (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Thirty-day mortality was 3.1% and 2-year overall survival was 78.7%. After adjustment, factors such as increasing age (≥75 years), ≥2 comorbidities, emergency admission, open surgical procedure and treatment in a public hospital were all independently and significantly associated with poorer outcomes. The likelihood a patient had a laparoscopic procedure was significantly lower for those from a disadvantaged area (P < 0.001), emergency admission (P < 0.001) as well as for those treated in a public versus private hospital (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Post-operative mortality increased, and 2-year survival decreased after age 75 years. The finding of significantly lower rates of laparoscopic surgery for patients from disadvantaged areas and those treated in a public hospital requires further investigation.

The impact of Heart Team discussion on decision making for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Revascularization guidelines support routine Heart Team (HT) discussion of appropriate patients. The effect of HT on decision making and clinical outcomes has not been explored. The aim of our study is to investigate the impact of the HT on the mode and delay to revascularization.

METHODS

We compared data from a prospective cohort of consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) referred for HT discussion between 2016 and 2017 (HT group) with a historic control group of patients matched according to clinical and angiographic characteristics treated between 2005 and 2015 (No HT group).

RESULTS

There were 93 patients in each group. The HT group and the No HT groups had a similar rate of ACS as well as cardiovascular risk factors and significant left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. No difference was observed in the mean Society of Thoracic Surgery score (2.5 ± 3 vs 3 ± 3; P = .32) and the mean SYNTAX score was low and similar in both groups (21 ± 6 vs 19 ± 6; P = .59). The treatment recommendations changed greatly, with 63% of patients being referred for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after HT discussion but only 23% in the No HT group (P < .01). HT discussion led to a significant delay to PCI (8 ± 5 vs 1.8 ± 4 days; P = .02), while surgical revascularization times were not affected.

CONCLUSION

HT discussion in patients with multivessel CAD was associated with an increased referral to CABG but led to a significant delay in revascularization by angioplasty. The impact of these findings on patient satisfaction and outcome should be further investigated.

Key elements for the education and counselling of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs

PURPOSE

The process of education and counselling of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs, aimed to achieve adequate self-management, involves different stakeholders (i.e. physicians, oncology nurses, pharmacists) from primary and secondary care. However, currently no guiding principles exist on how to organize and perform education and counselling for these patients. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and build consensus on key elements for the education and counselling in patients on oral anticancer drugs.

METHODS

A multi-method approach combining a literature search, semi-structured interviews with patients and healthcare professionals, and input from experts were used to develop an initial list of key elements. Subsequently, consensus was built in a two-round Delphi-study, involving patients and healthcare professionals from primary and secondary care. Key elements were retained if at least 80% of respondents in all groups considered the element as important or if in at least one group 90% consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The initial list contained 110 key elements, divided in 7 themes: coordination of care, patient contacts: style and content, medication counselling at the start of the treatment and during follow-up, psychosocial support, and involvement of family and friends. After the first Delphi round, 80% consensus was reached for 23 elements; 6 new key elements were added. After the second round, 80% consensus was reached for 51 out of 116 elements; 31 elements were added following the 90%-rule, yielding a list of 82 elements.

CONCLUSION

The final list of 82 key elements, obtained in this study, could be used to develop clinical pathways that guide adequate education and counselling of patients on oral anticancer drugs. Due to the open description, the implementation of these elements can be adapted to the specific context and composition of the oncology team.

Outcomes After Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Population-Based Study Using Quality Indicators

Quality indicators are increasingly being used to measure the safety of cancer treatments. We examined factors associated with poorer outcomes after major resection for rectal cancer over time. We linked population-based cancer registry and cancer-related procedure data for rectal cancer cases over a 15-year period. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality, and overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier survival function. The study included 9,222 patients who had major resection for invasive rectal cancer. Thirty-day and 90-day mortality were 2.1% and 3.8%, respectively. Risk of 30-day mortality was elevated in older patients (p < .001); patients with ≥2 comorbidities (p < .001); and those admitted as an emergency (p < .001). An approximate 45% reduction in 30-day mortality (p = .01) was observed over time. Two-year OS was 81.5%, again with significant improvements observed over time (p < .001). No significant association was observed between hospital volume and mortality or 2-year survival. A reduction in rates of postoperative mortality and improved 2-year OS were observed over time. Quality indicators are a valuable tool to monitor clinical outcomes over time and as a means of improving clinical care for all patients.