Is there a Benefit of Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings for Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies?

Multidisciplinary cancer team meetings are intended to optimize the diagnosis of a patient with a malignancy. The aim of this study was to assess the number of correct diagnoses formulated by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) and whether MDT decisions were implemented. In a prospective study, data of consecutive patients discussed at gastrointestinal oncology MDT meetings were studied, and MDT diagnoses were validated with pathology or follow-up. Factors of influence on the correct diagnosis were identified by use of a Poisson regression model. Electronic patient records were used to assess whether MDT decisions were implemented, and reasons to deviate from these decisions were hand-searched within these records. In 74 MDT meetings, 551 patients were discussed a total of 691 times. The MDTs formulated a correct diagnosis for 515/551 patients (93.4 %), and for 120/551 (21.8 %) patients the MDT changed the referral diagnosis. Of the MDT diagnoses, 451/515 (87.6 %) were validated with pathology. Patients presented to the MDT by their treating physician were 20 % more likely to receive a correct diagnosis [relative risk (RR) 1.2, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.5], while the number of patients discussed or the duration of the meeting had no influence on this (RR 1.0, 95 % CI 0.99-1.0; RR 1.0, 95 % CI 0.9-1.1; resp.). MDT decisions were implemented in 94.4 % of cases. Deviations of MDT decisions occurred when a patient's wishes or physical condition were not taken into account. MDTs rectify 20 % of the referral diagnoses. The presence of the treating physician is the most important factor to ensure a correct diagnosis and adherence to the treatment pla

Osteochondral Autograft: Proceedings of the International Consensus Meeting on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle

Background: Treatment guidelines for cartilage lesions of the talus have been based on both low quality and low levels of evidence. Therefore, an international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions on key topics regarding cartilage lesions of the talus. The purpose of this consensus article is to explain the process and delineate the consensus statements derived from this consensus meeting on the use of “osteochondral autograft” for osteochondral lesions of the talus. Methods: Seventy-five international experts in cartilage repair of the ankle representing 25 countries and 1 territory were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Questions and statements were drafted within 11 working groups focusing on specific topics within cartilage repair of the ankle, after which a comprehensive literature review was performed and the available evidence for each statement was graded. Discussion and debate occurred in cases where statements were not agreed upon in unanimous fashion within the working groups. A final vote was then held, and the strength of consensus was characterized as follows: consensus, 51% to 74%; strong consensus, 75% to 99%; and unanimous, 100%. Results: A total of 14 statements on osteochondral autograft reached consensus during the 2017 International Consensus Meeting on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle. Two achieved unanimous support, 11 reached strong consensus (greater than 75% agreement), and 1 achieved consensus. All statements reached at least 67% agreement. Conclusions: This international consensus derived from leaders in the field will assist clinicians with osteochondral autograft as a treatment strategy for osteochondral lesions of the talus

Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study

Background: Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak. Methods: PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342). Findings: Between March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6·3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5·7–7·1), PEEP was 14·0 cm H2O (IQR 11·0–15·0), and driving pressure was 14·0 cm H2O (11·2–16·0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31·9 mL/cm H2O (26·0–39·9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0–15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation. Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. Funding: Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center