Analysis of 105.000 patients with cancer: have they been discussed in oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings? A nationwide population-based study in the Netherlands

Contains fulltext : 208965.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)INTRODUCTION: For optimal oncological care, it is recommended to discuss every patient with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM). This is a time consuming and expensive practice, leading to a growing demand to change the current workflow. We aimed to investigate the number of patients discussed in MDTMs and to identify characteristics associated with not being discussed. METHODS: Data of patients with a newly diagnosed solid malignant tumour in 2015 and 2016 were analysed through the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). We clustered tumour types in groups that were frequently discussed within a tumour-specific MDTM. Tumour types without information about MDTMs in the NCR were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyse factors associated with not being discussed. RESULTS: Out of 105.305 patients with cancer, 91% were discussed in a MDTM, varying from 74% to 99% between the different tumour groups. Significantly less frequently discussed were patients aged >/=75 years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6-0.7), patients diagnosed with disease stage I (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.5-0.6), IV (OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.4-0.4) or unknown (OR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.2-0.2) and patients who received no treatment (OR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.3-0.3). Patients who received a multidisciplinary treatment were more likely to be discussed in contrary to a monodisciplinary treatment (OR = 4.6, 95% CI = 4.2-5.1). CONCLUSION: In general, most patients with cancer were actually discussed in a MDTM, although differences were observed between tumour groups. Factors associated with not being discussed may, at least partially, reflect the absence of a multidisciplinary question. These results form a starting point for debate on a more durable and efficient new MDTM strategy

Pneumocystis jiroveci infectie tijdens behandeling met ruxolitinib voor primaire myelofibrose.

Item does not contain fulltex

Pros and cons of streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems to future-proof oncological multidisciplinary team meetings.

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays nearly every patient with cancer is discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) to determine an optimal treatment plan. The growth in the number of patients to be discussed is unsustainable. Streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are two major ways to restructure MDTMs. Streamlining is the process of selecting the patients who need to be discussed and in which type of MDTM. Using CCDSSs, patient data is automatically loaded into the minutes and a guideline-based treatment proposal is generated. We aimed to identify the pros and cons of streamlining and CCDSSs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch MDTM participants. With purposive sampling we maximised variation in participants' characteristics. Interview data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-five interviews were analysed. All interviewees agreed on the need to change the current MDTM workflow. Streamlining suggestions were thematised based on standard and complex cases and the location of the MDTM (i.e. local, regional or nationwide). Interviewees suggested easing the pressure on MDTMs by discussing standard cases briefly, not at all, or outside the MDTM with only two to three specialists. Complex cases should be discussed in tumour-type-specific regional MDTMs and highly complex cases by regional/nationwide expert teams. Categorizing patients as standard or complex was found to be the greatest challenge of streamlining. CCDSSs were recognised as promising, although none of the interviewees had made use of them. The assumed advantage was their capacity to generate protocolised treatment proposals based on automatically uploaded patient data, to unify treatment proposals and to facilitate research. However, they were thought to limit the freedom to deviate from the treatment advice. CONCLUSION: To make oncological MDTMs sustainable, methods of streamlining should be developed and introduced. Physicians still have doubts about the value of CCDSSs

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

Team dynamics and clinician's experience influence decision-making during Upper-GI multidisciplinary team meetings: A multiple case study

BACKGROUND: The probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent for esophagogastric cancer has been shown to vary considerately between hospitals of diagnosis. Little is known about the factors that attribute to this variation. Since clinical decision making (CDM) partially takes place during an MDTM, the aim of this qualitative study was to assess clinician's perspectives regarding facilitators and barriers associated with CDM during MDTM, and second, to identify factors associated with CDM during an MDTM that may potentially explain differences in hospital practice. METHODS: A multiple case study design was conducted. The thematic content analysis of this qualitative study, focused on 16 MDTM observations, 30 semi-structured interviews with clinicians and seven focus groups with clinicians to complement the collected data. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and coded. RESULTS: Factors regarding team dynamics that were raised as aspects attributing to CDM were clinician's personal characteristics such as ambition and the intention to be innovative. Clinician's convictions regarding a certain treatment and its outcomes and previous experiences with treatment outcomes, and team dynamics within the MDTM influenced CDM. In addition, a continuum was illustrated. At one end of the continuum, teams tended to be more conservative, following the guidelines more strictly, versus the opposite in which hospitals tended towards a more invasive approach maximizing the probability of curation. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the awareness that variation in team dynamics influences CDM during an MDTM