Development and Validation of a Short Version of the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: MODe-Lite

When teams disagree: Investigating the incidence and causes of dissent occurring in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings

AIM

Multidisciplinary teams (MDT) are commonly involved in the care of patients with cancer. How frequently dissent occurs within MDT has not been studied. This study aimed to determine how frequently dissent was documented in cancer MDT meetings at our institution, the reasons for this, and the opinions of MDT members on how dissent should be documented and communicated.

METHODS

A retrospective review of records from cancer MDT meetings at our institution from 2016 to 2020 was performed to identify cases where dissent was documented and the reasons for this. MDT members were invited to complete an online survey assessing their perceptions of how frequently dissent occurred, how comfortable they felt voicing dissenting opinions, and their opinions on how dissent should be documented and communicated.

RESULTS

Dissent was recorded in 30 of 7737 MDT case discussions (0.39%). The incidence of dissent varied from 0 to 1.2% between cancer streams. The most common reason for dissent involved the role of surgery. 27% of survey respondents felt either very or somewhat uncomfortable voicing dissenting opinions. Only 3% felt that dissent should not be documented, and none that it should not be communicated in some way, although there were wide ranging of views on how this should occur.

CONCLUSION

Dissent was rarely documented within cancer MDT meetings at our institution, likely due to underreporting. Measuring the incidence of dissent within an MDT may be a useful performance metric. MDT should develop policies for how dissent should be managed, documented, and communicated.

Whole slide imaging (WSI) scanner differences influence optical and computed properties of digitized prostate cancer histology

Purpose

Digital pathology is becoming an increasingly popular area of advancement in both research and clinically. Pathologists are now able to manage and interpret slides digitally, as well as collaborate with external pathologists with digital copies of slides. Differences in slide scanners include variation in resolution, image contrast, and optical properties, which may influence downstream image processing. This study tested the hypothesis that varying slide scanners would result in differences in computed pathomic features on prostate cancer whole mount slides.

Design

This study collected 192 unique tissue slides from 30 patients following prostatectomy. Tissue samples were paraffin-embedded, stained for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), and digitized using 3 different scanning microscopes at the highest available magnification rate, for a total of 3 digitized slides per tissue slide. These scanners included a (S1) Nikon microscope equipped with an automated sliding stage, an (S2) Olympus VS120 slide scanner, and a (S3) Huron TissueScope LE scanner. A color deconvolution algorithm was then used to optimize contrast by projecting the RGB image into color channels representing optical stain density. The resulting intensity standardized images were then computationally processed to segment tissue and calculate pathomic features including lumen, stroma, epithelium, and epithelial cell density, as well as second-order features including lumen area and roundness; epithelial area, roundness, and wall thickness; and cell fraction. For each tested feature, mean values of that feature per digitized slide were collected and compared across slide scanners using mixed effect models, fit to compare differences in the tested feature associated with all slide scanners for each slide, including a random effect of subject with a nested random effect of slide to account for repeated measures. Similar models were also computed for tissue densities to examine how differences in scanner impact downstream processing.

Results

Each mean color channel intensity (i.e., Red, Green, Blue) differed between slide scanners (all P<.001). Of the color deconvolved images, only the hematoxylin channel was similar in all 3 scanners (all P>.05). Lumen and stroma densities between S3 and S1 slides, and epithelial cell density between S3 and S2 (P>.05) were comparable but all other comparisons were significantly different (P<.05). The second-order features were found to be comparable for all scanner comparisons, except for lumen area and epithelium area.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that both optical and computed properties of digitized histological samples are impacted by slide scanner differences. Future research is warranted to better understand which scanner properties influence the tissue segmentation process and to develop harmonization techniques for comparing data across multiple slide scanners.

Quality and efficacy of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) quality assessment tools and discussion checklists: a systematic review

Background

MDT discussion is the gold standard for cancer care in the UK. With the incidence of cancer on the rise, demand for MDT discussion is increasing. The need for efficiency, whilst maintaining high standards, is therefore clear. Paper-based MDT quality assessment tools and discussion checklists may represent a practical method of monitoring and improving MDT practice. This reviews aims to describe and appraise these tools, as well as consider their value to quality improvement.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo were searched using pre-defined terms. The PRISMA model was followed throughout. Studies were included if they described the development of a relevant tool, or if an element of the methodology further informed tool quality assessment. To investigate efficacy, studies using a tool as a method of quality improvement in MDT practice were also included. Study quality was appraised using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on study type.

Results

The search returned 7930 results. 18 studies were included. In total 7 tools were identified. Overall, methodological quality in tool development was adequate to very good for assessed aspects of validity and reliability. Clinician feedback was positive. In one study, the introduction of a discussion checklist improved MDT ability to reach a decision from 82.2 to 92.7%. Improvement was also noted in the quality of information presented and the quality of teamwork.

Conclusions

Several tools for assessment and guidance of MDTs are available. Although limited, current evidence indicates sufficient rigour in their development and their potential for quality improvement.

Trial registration

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021234326.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09369-8.

The cancer multidisciplinary team meeting: in need of change? History, challenges and future perspectives

Two decades since their inception, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are widely regarded as the 'gold standard' of cancer care delivery. Benefits of MDT working include improved patient outcomes, adherence to guidelines, and even economic benefits. Benefits to MDT members have also been demonstrated. An increasing body of evidence supports the use of MDTs and provides guidance on best practise. The system of MDTs in cancer care has come under increasing pressure of late, due to the increasing incidence of cancer, the popularity of MDT working, and financial pressures. This pressure has resulted in recommendations by national bodies to implement streamlining to reduce workload and improve efficiency. In the present review we examine the historical evidence for MDT working, and the scientific developments that dictate best practise. We also explore how streamlining can be safely and effectively undertaken. Finally, we discuss the future of MDT working including the integration of artificial intelligence and decision support systems and propose a new model for improving patient centredness.