Multidisciplinary cancer conferences for gastrointestinal malignancies result in measureable treatment changes: a prospective study of 149 consecutive patients

Effectiveness of Standard Treatment for Stage 4 Colorectal Cancer: Traditional Management with Surgery, Radiation, and Chemotherapy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States comprising 7.9% of all new cancer diagnoses and 8.6% of all cancer deaths. The combined 5-year relative survival rate for all stages is 65.1% but in its most aggressive form, stage 4 CRC has a 5-year relative survival rate of just 15.1%. For most with stage 4 CRC, treatment is palliative not curative, with the goal to prolong overall survival and maintain an acceptable quality of life. The identification of unique cancer genomic and biologic markers allows patient-specific treatment options. Treatment of stage 4 CRC consists of systemic therapy with chemotherapeutic agents, surgical resection if feasible, potentially including resection of metastasis, palliative radiation in select settings, and targeted therapy toward growth factors. Despite advances in surgical and medical management, metastatic CRC remains a challenging clinical problem associated with poor prognosis and low overall survival.

Contemporary Surgical Management of Colorectal Liver Metastases

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States and the second most common cause of cancer-related death. Approximately 20-30% of patients will develop hepatic metastasis in the form of synchronous or metachronous disease. The treatment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) has evolved into a multidisciplinary approach, with chemotherapy and a variety of locoregional treatments, such as ablation and portal vein embolization, playing a crucial role. However, resection remains a core tenet of management, serving as the gold standard for a curative-intent therapy. As such, the input of a dedicated hepatobiliary surgeon is paramount for appropriate patient selection and choice of surgical approach, as significant advances in the field have made management decisions extremely nuanced and complex. We herein aim to review the contemporary surgical management of colorectal liver metastasis with respect to both perioperative and operative considerations.

The role of the multidisciplinary tumor board after endoscopic resection of malignant tumors: is it worth it?

OBJECTIVES

The value of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer patients is well known. Most of the current evidence focuses on advanced cancer cases, whereas little is known about the effect of MTBs on early tumors, especially after endoscopic resection. The aim of our study is to evaluate the value of the MTB after endoscopic resection of malignant tumors of the gastrointestinal tract.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all endoscopically resected malignant tumors in our department between 2011 and 2019, focusing on the existence of an MDT recommendation after endoscopic resection, the MDT adherence to the current guidelines, and the implementation of the recommendation by the patients.

RESULTS

We identified 198 patients fulfilling our inclusion criteria, of whom 168 (85%) were discussed in the MDT after endoscopic resection. In total, 155 of the recommendations (92%) were in accordance with the current guidelines, and 147 (88%) of them were implemented by the patients. The MDT discussion itself did not influence the overall survival, whereas the implementation of the MTB recommendation was associated with a significantly better prognosis. Deviations of the MDT recommendation from the guidelines had no effect on the overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The discussion of endoscopically resected malignant tumors in the MTB is crucial for the treatment of patients with this type of cancer, since the implementation of the MTB recommendation, even if it deviates from the current guidelines, improves the prognosis.

Unravelling oligometastatic disease from the perspective of radiation and medical oncology. Part II: prostate cancer and colorectal cancer

Oligometastatic disease (OMD) defines a status of cancer that is intermediate between localized and widely spread metastatic disease, and can be treated with curative intent. While imaging diagnostic tools have considerably improved in recent years, unidentified micrometastases can still escape from current detection techniques allowing disease to progress. The variety of OMD scenarios are mainly defined by the number of metastases, the biological and molecular tumour profiles, and the timing of the development of metastases. Increasing knowledge has contributed to the earlier and improved detection of OMD, underlining the importance of an early disease control. Based on increasing detection rates of OMD in the current real clinical practice and the lack of standardized evidence-based guidelines to treat this cancer status, a board of experts from the Spanish Societies of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) and Medical Oncology (SEOM) organized a series of sessions to update the current state-of-the-art on OMD from a multidisciplinary perspective, and to discuss how results from clinical studies may translate into promising treatment options. This experts' review series summarizes what is known and what it is pending clarification in the context of OMD in the scenarios of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Breast Cancer (Part I), and Prostate Cancer and Colorectal Cancer (Part II), aiming to offer specialists a pragmatic framework that might contribute to the improved management of patients.

Fostering a High-Functioning Team in Cancer Care Using the 4R Oncology Model: Assessment in a Large Health System and a Blueprint for Other Institutions

PURPOSE

Delivering cancer care by high-functioning multidisciplinary teams promises to address care fragmentation, which threatens care quality, affects patient outcomes, and strains the oncology workforce. We assessed whether the 4R Oncology model for team-based interdependent care delivery and patient self-management affected team functioning in a large community-based health system.

METHODS

4R was deployed at four locations in breast and lung cancers and assessed along four characteristics of high-functioning teams: recognition as a team internally and externally; commitment to an explicit shared goal; enablement of interdependent work to achieve the goal; and engagement in regular reflection to adapt objectives and processes.

RESULTS

We formed an internally and externally recognized team of 24 specialties committed to a shared goal of delivering multidisciplinary care at the optimal time and sequence from a patient-centric viewpoint. The team conducted 40 optimizations of interdependent care (22 for breast, seven for lung, and 11 for both cancers) at four points in the care continuum and established an ongoing teamwork adaptation process. Half of the optimizations entailed low effort, while 30% required high level of effort; 78% resulted in improved process efficiency.

CONCLUSION

4R facilitated development of a large high-functioning team and enabled 40 optimizations of interdependent care along the cancer care continuum in a feasible way. 4R may be an effective approach for fostering high-functioning teams, which could contribute to improving viability of the oncology workforce. Our intervention and taxonomy of results serve as a blueprint for other institutions motivated to strengthen teamwork to improve patient-centered care.

Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Current Surgical Management Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases

Simple Summary

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancer diagnoses in the world. At least half of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer will develop metastatic disease, with most being identified in the liver. Surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is potentially curative. Surgical resection of CRLM, however, remains underutilized despite the continued expansion of operative strategies available. This is likely due to differing views on resectability. Resectability is a surgical assessment, and the classification of CRLM as unresectable should only be made by an experienced hepatobiliary surgeon. Obtaining a surgical evaluation at the time of liver metastasis discovery may help mitigate the challenge of assessing resectability and the determination of potential operative time windows within current multimodal management strategies. The aim of this review is to help facilitate discussions surrounding resectability as well as the timing and sequencing of both surgical and non-surgical therapies.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer diagnosis in the world, and the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths. Despite significant progress in management strategies for colorectal cancer over the last several decades, metastatic disease remains difficult to treat and is often considered incurable. However, for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), surgical resection offers the best opportunity for survival, can be curative, and remains the gold standard. Unfortunately, surgical treatment options are underutilized. Misperceptions regarding resectable and unresectable CRLM likely play a role in this. The assessment of factors that impact resectability status like medical fitness, technical considerations, and disease biology can be difficult, necessitating careful multidisciplinary input and discussion. The identification of ideal operative time windows that align with the multimodal management of these patients can also be perplexing. For all patients with CRLM it may therefore be advantageous to obtain surgical evaluation at the time of discovering liver metastases to mitigate these challenges and minimize the risk of undertreatment. In this review we summarize current surgical management strategies for CRLM and discuss factors to be considered when determining resectability.

The Impact of Establishing a Dedicated Liver Surgery Program at a University-affiliated Hospital on Workforce, Workload, Surgical Outcomes, and Trainee Surgical Autonomy and Academic Output

Objective

To detail the implementation of a dedicated liver surgery program at a university-affiliated hospital and to analyze its impact on the community, workforce, workload, complexity of cases, the short-term outcomes, and residents and young faculties progression toward technical autonomy and academic production.

Background

Due to the increased burden of liver tumors worldwide, there is an increased need for liver centers to better serve the community and facilitate the education of trainees in this field.

Methods

The implementation of the program is described. The 3 domains of workload, research, and teaching were compared between 2-year periods before and after the implementation of the new program. The severity of disease, complexity of procedures, and subsequent morbidity and mortality were compared.

Results

Compared with the 2-year period before the implementation of the new program, the number of liver resections increased by 36% within 2 years. The number of highly complex resections, the number of liver resections performed by residents and young faculties, and the number of publications increased 5.5-, 40-, and 6-fold, respectively. This was achieved by operating on more severe patients and performing more complex procedures, at the cost of a significant increase in morbidity but not mortality. Nevertheless, operations during the second period did not emerge as an independent predictor of severe morbidity.

Conclusions

A new liver surgery program can fill the gap between the demand for and supply of liver surgeries, benefiting the community and the development of the next generation of liver surgeons.

Impact of optional multidisciplinary tumor board meeting on the mortality of patients with gastrointestinal cancer: A retrospective observational study

Background

Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings (MDTs) have shown a positive effect on patient care and play a role in the planning of care. However, there is limited evidence of the association between MDTs and patient mortality and in‐hospital morbidity for mixed cases of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer.

Aim

To evaluate the influence of optional MDTs on care of patients with cancer to determine potential associations between MDTs and patient mortality and morbidity.

Methods and results

This was a retrospective observational study at the referral center of King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Among all adult patients diagnosed with GI cancer from January 2017 to June 2019, 130 patients were included. We categorized patients into two groups: 66 in the control group (non‐MDT) and 64 in the MDT group. The main outcome measure was overall mortality, measured by survival analysis. The follow‐up was 100% complete. Four patients in the MDT group and 13 in the non‐MDT group died (P = .04). The median follow‐up duration was 294 days (interquartile range [IQR], 140‐434) in the non‐MDT group compared with 176 days (IQR, 103‐466) in the MDT group (P = .20). There were no differences in intensive care unit or hospital length‐of‐stay or admission rates. The overall mortality at 2 years was 13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐0.66) in the MDT group and 38% (95% CI, 0.10‐0.39) in the non‐MDT group (P = .08). The MDT group showed a 72% (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08‐0.90; P = .03) decrease in mortality over time compared with the non‐MDT group.

Conclusions

MDTs were associated with decreased mortality over time. Thus, MDTs have a positive influence on patient care by improving survival and should be incorporated into care.

Multidisciplinary Team Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Is Standard of Care

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality, but unlike other leading causes of cancer death, HCC is increasing in mortality and burden of management. Management of HCC is unique because it usually arises in a diseased liver, which itself may be a driver of mortality. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) for the management of complex diseases are becoming more common, but are especially needed in the management of patients with HCC. Liver cancer MDTs are used in most centers providing comprehensive care for patients with HCC, and should be considered the standard of care for these patients.

Colorectal liver metastases: Current management and future perspectives

The liver is the commonest site of metastatic disease for patients with colorectal cancer, with at least 25% developing colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) during the course of their illness. The management of CRLM has evolved into a complex field requiring input from experienced members of a multi-disciplinary team involving radiology (cross sectional, nuclear medicine and interventional), Oncology, Liver surgery, Colorectal surgery, and Histopathology. Patient management is based on assessment of sophisticated clinical, radiological and biomarker information. Despite incomplete evidence in this very heterogeneous patient group, maximising resection of CRLM using all available techniques remains a key objective and provides the best chance of long-term survival and cure. To this end, liver resection is maximised by the use of downsizing chemotherapy, optimisation of liver remnant by portal vein embolization, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and combining resection with ablation, in the context of improvements in the functional assessment of the future remnant liver. Liver resection may safely be carried out laparoscopically or open, and synchronously with, or before, colorectal surgery in selected patients. For unresectable patients, treatment options including systemic chemotherapy, targeted biological agents, intra-arterial infusion or bead delivered chemotherapy, tumour ablation, stereotactic radiotherapy, and selective internal radiotherapy contribute to improve survival and may convert initially unresectable patients to operability. Currently evolving areas include biomarker characterisation of tumours, the development of novel systemic agents targeting specific oncogenic pathways, and the potential re-emergence of radical surgical options such as liver transplantation.

"Primum Non Nocere" in Interventional Oncology for Liver Cancer: How to Reduce the Risk for Complications?

Interventional oncology represents a relatively new clinical discipline based upon minimally invasive therapies applicable to almost every human organ and disease. Over the last several decades, rapidly evolving research developments have introduced a newer generation of treatment devices, reagents, and image-guidance systems to expand the armamentarium of interventional oncology across a wide spectrum of disease sites, offering potential cure, control, or palliative care for many types of cancer patients. Due to the widespread use of locoregional procedures, a comprehensive review of the methodologic and technical considerations to optimize patient selection with the aim of performing a safe procedure is mandatory. This article summarizes the expert discussion and report from the Mediterranean Interventional Oncology Live Congress (MIOLive 2020) held in Rome, Italy, integrating evidence-reported literature and experience-based perceptions as a means for providing guidance on prudent ways to reduce complications. The aim of the paper is to provide an updated guiding tool not only to residents and fellows but also to colleagues approaching locoregional treatments.

Oncologic Benefit of Adjuvant Chemoradiation after D2 Gastrectomy: A Stepwise Hierarchical Pooled Analysis and Systematic Review

Our study aimed to evaluate the benefits of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after D2 gastrectomy, as compared to adjuvant chemotherapy, alone. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. We applied stepwise analyses that enabled the evaluation of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), balanced studies, and all studies separately and in a hierarchical manner. Thirteen controlled studies, including six RCTs involving 2603 patients, were included. Overall pooled analysis revealed a disease-free survival benefit of CRT (odds ratio (OR): 1.264, p = 0.053), which was more evident in the subgroup analysis of RCTs (OR: 1.440, p = 0.006) and balanced studies (OR: 1.417, p < 0.001). Overall survival was insignificantly different in the overall pooled analysis (OR: 1.124, p = 0.347). However, the difference was marginally significant in the subgroup analysis of balanced studies (OR: 1.279, p = 0.055) and significant in the subgroup analysis of studies involving stage ≥III patients only (OR: 1.663, p = 0.005). Locoregional recurrence (LRR) reduction was noted in the overall pooled analysis (OR: 0.559, p = 0.012; pooled rate: 11.3% vs. 18.1%) and was more robust in the subgroup analyses. Grade ≥3 leukopenia was higher in the CRT arm (OR: 1.387, p = 0.004; pooled rate: 26.4% vs. 15.7%). CRT after D2 gastrectomy should be applied for patients with high risk of LRR (e.g., stage ≥ III), along with efforts to reduce leukopenia.

Transarterial chemoembolisation of colorectal liver metastases with irinotecan-loaded beads: What every interventional radiologist should know

The last decade has seen important developments in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In this scenario, interventional locoregional treatments could play an expanding role offering safe and effective integrated options in the continuum-of-care offering curative as well as palliative approaches. Based on ESMO guidelines, the toolbox of ablative treatments also includes intra-arterial palliative options, like chemoembolization, that can be offered as an alternative option in patients failing the available chemotherapeutic regimens. However, to date, there is still a limited use of chemoembolization in clinical practice. Based on this background, a comprehensive review of the methodologic and technical considerations as well as clinical indications and future perspectives seems to be useful with the aim to demonstrate the field's value of the procedure, highlight their advantages, and ensure an increased role in treatment management of patients with colorectal liver metastases.

The results of pancreatic operations after the implementation of multidisciplinary team conference (MDT): A quality improvement study

BACKGROUND

Centralization has improved the outcome of complex operations including cancer surgery. Moreover, the implementation of multidisciplinary team conferences (MDT) has ameliorated the decision making, but the impact on patient outcome is controversial. The aim of the study was to investigate the outcome of pancreatic surgery in the setting of centralization and upfront multidisciplinary decision making.

METHOD

The decisions of MDT from 2010 to 2016 and the outcome of operations were compared with operations from 2003 to 2009 before centralization of pancreatic surgery and implementation of MDT. Data were drawn from the department's database and from hospital's electronic patient files.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2016, 7.015 patients were evaluated at the MDT. In 72.6% of patients a treatment plan followed the first evaluation, the referral diagnosis was changed in 12.4% of cases. Of 3.362 solid neoplasms, 1.680 (50.0%) were evaluated as resectable and 1.080 (32.1%) patients were operated. The annual resection rate of operated patients was78.3%-88.5% (median 80.0%) compared to 21.4% to 80.% (median 68.6%, p = 0.0001) from 2003 to 2009 with 279 operated patients. The post-operative 30 - and 90-days mortality from 2003 to 2009 and 2010 to 2016 was 3.4% vs. 1.8% (NS) and 5.0% vs 3.6% (NS). In the same periods explorative laparotomies and palliative resections decreased from 18.3% to 3.6% (p = 0.0001) and 18.6%-10.2% (p = 0.0002). The median survival of radically resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) from 2003 to 2009 and from 2010 to 2016 was 20.2 and 21.9 months, respectively (p = 0.687).

CONCLUSION

The MDT increased patient flow, improved quality of decision-making and offered more patients surgical treatment without increasing morbidity or mortality. But an impact on the long-term survival of patients with PAC was not found.

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.

Colorectal liver metastases: An update on multidisciplinary approach

Liver metastasis is the commonest form of distant metastasis in colorectal cancer. Selection criteria for surgery and liver-directed therapies have recently been extended. However, resectability remains poorly defined. Tumour biology is increasingly recognized as an important prognostic factor; hence molecular profiling has a growing role in risk stratification and management planning. Surgical resection is the only treatment modality for curative intent. The most appropriate surgical approach is yet to be established. The primary cancer and the hepatic metastasis can be removed simultaneously or in a two-step approach; these two strategies have comparable long-term outcomes. For patients with a limited future liver remnant, portal vein embolization, combined ablation and resection, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy have been advocated, and each has their pros and cons. The role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy is still debated. Targeted biological agents and loco-regional therapies (thermal ablation, intra-arterial chemo- or radio-embolization, and stereotactic radiotherapy) further improve the already favourable results. The recent debate about offering liver transplantation to highly selected patients needs validation from large clinical trials. Evidence-based protocols are missing, and therefore optimal management of hepatic metastasis should be personalized and determined by a multi-disciplinary team.

Multidisciplinary approach of liver metastases from colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) represent most of the causes of death in patients with colorectal cancer. Surgical resection is the only treatment that can provide the possibility of prolonged survival, or even cure, for patients with CRLM. Over the last few decades, survival of these patients has improved dramatically thanks to more effective chemotherapy, extension of surgical indications, and development of new surgical procedures. In particular, patients with initially unresectable CRLM can achieve downsizing of the tumor by using various chemotherapies and the tumor can become resectable. It has been shown that such patients have a 33% 5‐year survival and a 23% 10‐year survival rate after surgery, which is a little bit lower than that of patents with resectable CRLM but significantly higher than patients without surgery. However, a decision‐making strategy for patients with CRLM is difficult because there is a wide variety of treatments and no definitive consensus. As an example, much variation among institutions exists on the resectability rate in patients with unresectable CRLM. Also, it is recommended that all patients with CRLM be managed by a multidisciplinary approach (MDA) to select the best strategy. In the future, new treatment procedures (e.g. immune checkpoint blockade, liver transplantation) may contribute to improve prognosis; hence, the necessity for MDA for the treatment of CRLM will further increase.

Is There a Difference in Staging and Treatment of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Tumors Between Tertiary Care and Community-Based Institutions?

Objective

To characterize the differences in the staging and treatment of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma between a tertiary care center and community‐based practices.

Methods

This study is a retrospective chart review of 943 adult patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer presenting to a tertiary care center between 2008 and 2014 as part of the University of Michigan Head and Neck Cancer Specialized Program of Research Excellence (UM HN‐SPORE) database. Demographic information, diagnostic testing, staging information, and treatment recommendations were recorded.

Results

Of 943 patients reviewed, 159 had documentation of tumor stage that was assigned by the community‐based practice. Of these, 53% had a tumor staging change made at the tertiary care center, with 43% of patients upstaged and 10% of patients downstaged. Fifty‐one percent received different treatment than had previously been offered at the community‐based practice, although only 31% of these patients had a change in tumor staging.

Conclusion

Over half of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are evaluated at a tertiary care center after the initial evaluation at a community‐based practice have their tumors staged differently, with the majority upstaged. A significant number of these patients also received different treatment than was initially offered at the referring practice. Future studies are required to determine whether these differences have an effect on tumor recurrence and patient survival rates.

Level of Evidence

2c (Outcomes Research).

Less is More: The Impact of Multidisciplinary Thyroid Conference on the Treatment of Well-Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In 2006, a multidisciplinary thyroid conference (MDTC) was implemented to better plan management of thyroid cancer patients at our institution. This study assessed the clinical impact of a MDTC on radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment patterns.

METHODS

A prospective database (2003-2014) collected patient and tumor characteristics, RAI doses, and tumor recurrences. Patients treated with total thyroidectomy for differentiated thyroid carcinoma ≥1 cm were stratified based on American Thyroid Association (ATA) risk classification. RAI regimens were compared before initiation of MDTC (2003-2005, n = 88), after establishment of MDTC (2007-2009, n = 95), and after the release of 2009 ATA guidelines (2011-2014, n = 181). RAI doses were defined as low (≤75 mCi), intermediate (76-150 mCi), and high (>150 mCi).

RESULTS

There was a significant decrease in the number of patients who received high-dose RAI after implementation of MDTC compared to before initiation of MDTC in the intermediate and high-risk patient groups (p = 0.04 and p < 0.01) without an associated increase in tumor recurrence (11 vs. 7%, p = 0.74). On multivariable analysis, presentation of a patient at MDTC was a negative predictor for receiving high-dose RAI (p = 0.002). As might be expected, there was also a significant decrease in use of RAI after the 2009 ATA guidelines were issued compared to after implementation of MDTC (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In conjunction with implementation of a thyroid malignancy multidisciplinary conference, we observed significantly decreased postoperative dosing of RAI without increased tumor recurrence. The 2009 ATA guidelines were associated with a further decrease in RAI administration. Treatment for patients with thyroid carcinoma is optimized by a multidisciplinary approach.

Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Challenges and controversies

Pancreatic cancer is a dismal disease with an increasing incidence. Despite the majority of patients are not candidates for curative surgery, a subgroup of patients classified as borderline resectable pancreatic cancer can be selected in whom a sequential strategy of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery can provide better outcomes. Multidisciplinary approach and surgical pancreatic expertise are essential for successfully treating these patients. However, the lack of consensual definitions and therapies make the results of studies very difficult to interpret and hard to be implemented in some settings. In this article, we review the challenges of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, the complexity of its management and controversies and point out where further research and international cooperation for a consensus strategy is urgently needed.

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

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have developed into standard of care to provide expert opinion and to grant evidence-based recommendations on diagnostics and treatment of cancer. Though MDTMs are associated with a range of benefits, a growing number of cases, complex case discussion and an increasing number of participants raise questions on cost versus benefit. We aimed to determine cost of MDTMs and to define determinants hereof based on observations in Swedish cancer care.

METHODS

Data were collected through observations of 50 MDTMs and from questionnaire data from 206 health professionals that participated in these meetings.

RESULTS

The MDTMs lasted mean 0.88 h and managed mean 12.6 cases with mean 4.2 min per case. Participants were mean 8.2 physicians and 2.9 nurses/other health professionals. Besides the number of cases discussed, meeting duration was also influenced by cancer diagnosis, hospital type and use of video facilities. When preparatory work, participation and post-MDTM work were considered, physicians spent mean 4.1 h per meeting. The cost per case discussion was mean 212 (range 91-595) EUR and the cost per MDTM was mean 2675 (range 1439-4070) EUR.

CONCLUSIONS

We identify considerable variability in resource use for MDTMs in cancer care and demonstrate that 84% of the total cost is derived from physician time. The variability demonstrated underscores the need for regular and structured evaluations to ensure cost effective MDTM services.

Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care

BACKGROUND

Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation.

RESULTS

The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Health professionals' report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.

Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care

BACKGROUND

Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation.

RESULTS

The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Health professionals' report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.

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

Evidence has shown that multidisciplinary tumor board conferences (MTBCs) improve patient management for various cancer types. However, few retrospective studies have investigated MTBC efficacy for patients with gynecologic cancers. Here, we prospectively aimed to evaluate how MTBCs influence patient management in gynecologic oncology. This prospective study included 85 consecutive cases that were presented at gynecologic oncology MTBCs in our tertiary university hospital between January 2015 and April 2016. The primary endpoint was treatment plan change rate, which included both major and minor changes. Major changes were defined as exchange, addition, or subtraction of treatment modality. Minor changes included all other, such as intramodality changes or treatment time changes. The secondary endpoints were the change rates of diagnosis, diagnostic work-up, and radiological and pathological findings.The treatment plan change rate, irrespective of changes in diagnostic work-up, was 27.1%, which included 10.6% major and 16.5% minor changes. Among the treatment plan changes, changes in the treatment plan change rate alone were noted in 16.5% of cases, and changes in diagnosis and radiological findings occurred in 7.1% and 3.5% of cases, respectively. Diagnosis and radiological findings, irrespective of changes in diagnostic work-up, were also changed in 9.4% and 10.6% of cases, respectively. However, there were no changes in pathological findings. Moreover, there was a change of diagnostic method for further work-up in 23.5% of cases. The implementation rate of MTBC-determined treatment changes was 91.8%. Gynecologic oncology MTBCs resulted in considerable changes in treatment plans. Diagnosis, diagnostic work-up, and radiological findings were influenced by MTBCs. The data emphasize the importance of adopting a multidisciplinary team approach for gynecologic cancer management.

Centralization of Liver Cancer Surgery and Impact on Multidisciplinary Teams Working on Stage IV Colorectal Cancer

Surgical resection is the most effective treatment approach for colorectal liver metastases but only a minority of patients is suitable for upfront surgery. The treatment strategies of stage IV colorectal cancer have shifted towards a continuum of care in which medical and surgical treatment combinations are tailored to the clinical setting of the individual patient. The optimization of treatment through appropriate decision-making and multimodal therapy for stage IV colorectal cancer require a joint multidisciplinary meeting in a centralized liver cancer unit.

The Value of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer is rising and most patients with GI malignancies are discussed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). We performed a systematic review to assess whether MDTs for patients with GI malignancies can correctly change diagnosis, tumor stage and subsequent treatment plan, and whether the treatment plan was implemented.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We conducted a search of the PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases, and included studies relating to adults with a GI malignancy discussed by an MDT prior to the start of treatment which described a change of initial diagnosis, stage or treatment plan. Two researchers independently evaluated all retrieved titles and abstracts from the abovementioned databases.

RESULTS

Overall, 16 studies were included; the study quality was rated as fair. Four studies reported that MDTs changed the diagnoses formulated by individual physicians in 18.4-26.9% of evaluated cases; two studies reported that MDTs formulated an accurate diagnosis in 89 and 93.5% of evaluated cases, respectively; nine studies described that the treatment plan was altered in 23.0-41.7% of evaluated cases; and four studies found that MDT decisions were implemented in 90-100% of evaluated cases. The reasons for altering a treatment plan included the patient's wishes, and comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

MDT meetings for patients with a GI malignancy are responsible for changes in diagnoses and management in a significant number of patients. Treatment plans formulated by MDTs are implemented in 90-100% of discussed patients. All patients with a GI malignancy should be discussed by an MDT.

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Improving Prevention and Survivorship

Pancreatic cancer is a growing problem in oncology, given slowly rising incidence and continued suboptimal outcomes. A concerted effort to reverse this tide will require prevention, early diagnosis, and improved systemic therapy for curable disease. We focus on these aspects in detail in this study. Hereditary pancreatic cancer is an underappreciated area. With the growing use of genomics (both somatic and germline) in cancer care, there is increasing recognition of hereditary pancreatic cancer cases: around 10% of all pancreatic cancer may be related to familial syndromes, such as familial atypical multiple mole and melanoma (FAMMM) syndrome, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Screening and surveillance guidelines by various expert groups are discussed. Management of resectable pancreatic cancer is evolving; the use of multiagent systemic therapies, in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings, is discussed. Current and emerging data, along with ongoing clinical trials addressing important questions in this area, are described. Surveillance recommendations based on latest ASCO guidelines are also discussed. Finally, the multimodality management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is discussed. The various clinicoanatomic definitions of this entity, followed by consensus definitions, are described. Then, we focus on current opinions and practices around neoadjuvant therapy, discussing chemotherapy and radiation aspects, and the role of surgical resection.

Collaborative case conferences in rectal cancer: case series in a tertiary care centre

BACKGROUND

In many hospitals, resource barriers preclude the use of preoperative multidisciplinary cancer conferences (mccs) for consecutive patients with cancer. Collaborative cancer conferences (cccs) are modified mccs that might overcome such barriers.

METHODS

We established a ccc at an academic tertiary care centre to review preoperative plans for patients with rectal cancer. Attendees included only surgeons who perform colorectal cancer procedures and a radiologist with expertise in cross-sectional imaging. Individual reviews began with the primary surgeon presenting the case information and initial treatment recommendations. Cross-sectional images were then reviewed, the case was discussed, and consensus on ccc-treatment recommendations was achieved. Outcomes for the present study were changes in treatment recommendations defined as "major" (that is, redirection of patient to preoperative radiation from straight-to-surgery or uncertain plan, or redirection of the patient to straight-to-surgery from preoperative radiation or plan uncertain) or as "minor" (that is, referral to a multidisciplinary cancer clinic, request additional tests, change type of neoadjuvant therapy, change type of surgery). Chart reviews provided relevant patient, tumour, and treatment information.

RESULTS

Between September 2011 and September 2012, 101 rectal cancer patients were discussed at a ccc. Of the 35 management plans (34.7%) that were changed as a result, 8 had major changes, and 27 had minor changes. Available patient and tumour factors did not predict for a change in treatment recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative cccs at a tertiary-care centre changed treatment recommendations for one third of patients with rectal cancer. Given that no specific factor predicted for a treatment plan change, it is likely prudent that all rectal cancer patients undergo some form of collaborative review.

Managing synchronous liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a multidisciplinary international consensus

An international panel of multidisciplinary experts convened to develop recommendations for managing patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous liver metastases (CRCLM). A modified Delphi method was used. CRCLM is defined as liver metastases detected at or before diagnosis of the primary CRC. Early and late metachronous metastases are defined as those detected ⩽12months and >12months after surgery, respectively. To provide information on potential curability, use of high-quality contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) before chemotherapy is recommended. Magnetic resonance imaging is increasingly being used preoperatively to aid detection of subcentimetric metastases, and alongside CT in difficult situations. To evaluate operability, radiology should provide information on: nodule size and number, segmental localization and relationship with major vessels, response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-tumoral liver condition and anticipated remnant liver volume. Pathological evaluation should assess response to preoperative chemotherapy for both the primary tumour and metastases, and provide information on the tumour, margin size and micrometastases. Although the treatment strategy depends on the clinical scenario, the consensus was for chemotherapy before surgery in most cases. When the primary CRC is asymptomatic, liver surgery may be performed first (reverse approach). When CRCLM are unresectable, the goal of preoperative chemotherapy is to downsize tumours to allow resection. Hepatic resection should not be denied to patients with stable disease after optimal chemotherapy, provided an adequate liver remnant with inflow and outflow preservation remains. All patients with synchronous CRCLM should be evaluated by a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary team.