Search

Introduction: Major national and international oncological societies generally recommend treating a significant proportion of oncological patients in clinical trials to improve therapy strategies for cancer patients. At cancer centers, the recommendation about the appropriate therapy for the individual tumor patient is usually made in interdisciplinary case discussions in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT). In this study, we examined the impact of MDTs for the inclusion of patients in therapy trials. Methodology: A prospective, explorative study of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich (CCCM) was conducted at both university hospitals in 2019. In the first phase, various MDTs' case discussions about oncological situations and their decisions regarding possible therapy trials were recorded in a structured manner. In the second phase, the actual inclusion rates of patients in therapy trials and reasons for non-inclusion were examined. Finally, the data of the respective university hospitals were anonymized, pooled and analyzed. Results: A total of 1797 case discussions were reviewed. Therapy recommendations were made in 1527 case presentations. 38 (2.5%) of 1527 patients were already included in a therapy trial at the time of case presentation. The MDTs recommended inclusion of an additional 107 cases (7%), for a therapy trial. Of these patients, 41 were finally enrolled in a therapy trial which resulted in a total recruitment rate of 5.2%. Despite MDTs' recommendations, 66 patients were not included in a therapy trial. The main reason for non-inclusion was insufficient inclusion or existing exclusion criteria (n = 18, 28%). In 48% of all cases (n = 31), the reason for non-inclusion could not be determined. Conclusion: The potential of MDTs as an instrument for the inclusion of patients in therapy trials is high. To increase the enrollment of patients in oncological therapy trials, structural measures such as the central use of trial administration and MTB software in addition to standardized tumor board discussions must be established to ensure a seamless flow of information about actual recruiting trials and the current status of trial participation of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuro-oncology is a branch of medicine focused on the diagnosis and treatment of primary and secondary tumors of the nervous system as well as the neurologic complications of cancer and cancer treatments. In practice, neuro-oncologists require an intimate knowledge of the neurologic presentation and management of central nervous system tumors, including gliomas, meningiomas, primary central nervous system lymphoma, metastases to the nervous system, and others. The mainstays of treatment for most nervous system tumors include surgical intervention, radiation therapy, and medical treatment with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or targeted therapy. Interdisciplinary collaboration is thus critical to neuro-oncology. The prognosis for many central nervous system tumors, including gliomas and brain metastases, is often poor despite the advent of novel medical therapies. Efforts to develop more effective therapies are ongoing, and patient enrollment in clinical trials assessing the efficacy of new treatments is crucial to improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare has entered the information age. This will deliver huge opportunities for healthcare providers to deliver more individualized treatments for patients, and as such improve outcomes. Nowhere is the prospect greater than in cancer care. Healthcare providers now need to manage the challenge of how to best capture, interpret and exploit insights from real-world clinical data. A significant aspect of cancer care is the challenge of preparing and conducting tumor boards. Currently, data are distributed across multiple systems and cannot be easily aggregated or integrated. In recognition that no suitable solution existed, the University of Missouri School of Medicine, in partnership with Roche, have co-developed and co-implemented a digital tumor board solution. This article describes the development process and the enablers and barriers for adoption from a clinician's perspective. In addition, it reflects on some of the key factors for success and some of the future opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: There is increasing emphasis in cancer care globally for care to be reviewed and managed by multidisciplinary teams (ie, in tumor boards). Evidence and recommendations suggest that the complexity of each patient case needs to be considered as care is planned; however, no tool currently exists for cancer teams to do so. We report the development and early validation of such a tool. Methods: We used a mixed‐methods approach involving psychometric evaluation and expert review to develop the Measure of case‐Discussion Complexity (MeDiC) between May 2014 and November 2016. The study ran in six phases and included ethnographic interviews, observations, surveys, feasibility and reliability testing, expert consensus, and multiple expert‐team reviews. Results: Phase‐1: case complexity factors identified through literature review and expert interviews; Phase‐2: 51 factors subjected to iterative review and content validation by nine cancer teams across four England Trusts with nine further items identified; Phase 3: 60 items subjected to expert review distilled to the most relevant; Phase 4: item weighing and further content validation through a national UK survey; Phases 5 and 6: excellent interassessor reliability between clinical and nonclinical observers, and adequate validity on 903 video case discussions achieved. A final set of 27 factors, measuring clinical and logistical complexities were integrated into MeDiC. Conclusions: MeDiC is an evidence‐based and expert‐driven tool that gauges the complexity of cancer cases. MeDiC may be used as a clinical quality assurance and screening tool for tumor board consideration through case selection and prioritization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We describe a prototype implementation of a platform that could underlie a Precision Oncology Rapid Learning system. Results: We describe the prototype platform, and examine some important issues and details. In the Appendix we provide a complete walk-through of the prototype platform. Conclusions: The design choices made in this implementation rest upon ten constitutive hypotheses, which, taken together, define a particular view of how a rapid learning medical platform might be defined, organized, and implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT) provide an opportunity for experts from different specialties and expertise to pool and complement each other's experience and inputs. Several factors impact the MDT discussions, including the meeting's structure, time management, and expert leadership. The process of MDT, their utilization, and efficacy need continuous assessment and improvement. A retrospective study was conducted to review the process of thoracic MDT, their plans of therapy, and changes in diagnosis and treatment plans for patients with cancer at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) over the period of one year. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients presented at the thoracic MDT who had a change in their treatment plan after the presentation. A total of 214 cases were scheduled for thoracic MDT during the study period. The majority, 132 (61.7%) did not have a treatment plan before presenting in the MDT. Of the 195 cases presented, only 43 (22.0%) did not have a change in their plan, while 88 (45.2%) of the cases presented had a change in their treatment plan. A total of 64 (32.8%) cases consisted of discussion of the diagnosis during MDT with either confirmation or modification of the patients' diagnosis. Of the 195 cases that were presented, the majority, 170 (87.2%), had their recommended treatment plan implemented after the MDT discussion. There was an association between the stage of cancer at the time of presentation and requesting additional tests (P=0.021), but there was no association between the stage of cancer and change in treatment plan (P=0.177) nor with implementation of recommendation (P=0.217). MDT are used to make upfront management decisions. In addition to considering change in management plans as an indicator of the benefit of MDT, it is suggested that making upfront multidisciplinary plans shall be considered an additional component of indicators of the benefit of MDT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The management of colorectal cancer increasingly involves multidisciplinary tumor boards. In cases where these occur, the quality can be variable. Despite this, there are no uniform measures to evaluate them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of colorectal cancer tumor boards, via real-time prospective observation. Methods: An observational tool, termed Colorectal Multidisciplinary Team Metric for Observation of Decision-Making (cMDT-MODe), was used to assess decision-making in 267 cases. The presentation of case history, radiological and pathological information, as well as contributions to decision making of the various team members were analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-tests. Interobserver agreement was assessed using intraclasscorrelation coefficients. Results: Tumor board meetings lasted 76 min, were attended by approximately 16 specialists each, and reviewed an average of 24 cancer cases (3 min per case review). Regarding the quality of presented information to the team, case history information was rated the highest (mean 4.57), followed by radiological information (mean 4.22) and pathological information (mean 3.81). Regarding each team-member's contribution to discussion, surgeons were scored the highest (mean 4.81), followed by radiologists (mean 4.41) and meeting chairs (mean 4.13)-all team members except the board coordinators were scored highly. Overall scoring reliability was good (0.79). Conclusions: The cMDT-MODe instrument can be reliably used to prospectively assess decision making in the multidisciplinary management of colorectal patients. By systematically quantifying the quality of a colorectal cancer tumor board, we can identify areas for improving practice so as to optimize decision making for cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Although the role of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT) in thoracic oncology is well established, its real impact on decisional process is not well known yet. The aim of this paper is to quantify the MDT impact on the decisional clinical pathway, assessing the modification rate of the initial out-patient evaluation. Our results show a mean modification rate of 10.6%; the clinical settings "solitary pulmonary nodule" and "proven or suspected recurrence" disclosed higher modification rates (14.6% and 13.3%, respectively). When histology is available at out-patient evaluation, "pulmonary carcinoid" is the group with the lowest modification rate when compared to other histologies. In the light of our results, we suggest multidisciplinary discussion even in departments where MDT is not always routinely performed. Moreover, when discussing clinical perspectives with patients belonging to groups with a higher modification rate, physicians should emphasize the possible decisional variability in order to prevent patients' disorientation or controversies. Background: the aim of this paper is to quantify multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) impact on the decisional clinical pathway of thoracic cancer patients, assessing the modification rate of the initial out-patient evaluation. Methods: the impact of MDT was classified as follows: confirmation: same conclusions as out-patient hypothesis; modification: change of out-patient hypothesis; implementation: definition of a clear clinical track/conclusion for patients that did not receive any clinical hypothesis; further exams required: the findings that emerged in the MDT meeting require further exams. Results: one thousand consecutive patients evaluated at MDT meetings were enrolled. Clinical settings of patients were: early stage lung cancer (17.4%); locally advanced lung cancer (27.4%); stage IV lung cancer (9.8%); mesothelioma (1%); metastases to the lung from other primary tumors (4%); histologically proven or suspected recurrence from previous lung cancer (15%); solitary pulmonary nodule (19.2%); mediastinal tumors (3.4%); other settings (2.8%). Conclusions: MDT meetings impact patient management in oncologic thoracic surgery by modifying the out-patient clinical hypothesis in 10.6% of cases; the clinical settings with the highest decisional modification rates are "solitary pulmonary nodule" and "proven or suspected recurrence" with modification rates of 14.6% and 13.3%, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]