Search

Site-specific multidisciplinary team (MDT) tumor boards are valuable resources for medical students, enabling them to familiarize themselves with the latest evidence-based cancer management strategies and observe effective teamwork in action. In this study, we looked at the awareness and perceptions of medical students about incorporating MDT tumor boards in the medical curriculum. A cross-sectional study was conducted among medical students from year 1 to year 5 at the Aga Khan University after exemption from ethical review committee. A 20-item self-administered questionnaire was used to evaluate the awareness and perceptions of medical students regarding MDT tumor boards. A total of 285 medical students participated in this study, with their mean age (± standard deviation) being 21.91 ± 1.67 years. A majority of 183 (64.2%) had no prior knowledge of the existence of a site-specific MDT tumor board for cancer management. Of the 285 students, 252 (88.4%) demonstrated sufficient awareness of the effectiveness of MDT tumor boards; similarly, 232 (81.4%) responded positively to the idea of mandatory tumor board rotations being incorporated into the undergraduate curriculum. No significant association was found between the student's year of study (χ2 = 6.03, p = 0.20) or gender (χ2 = 35, p = 0.84) and their perceptions of the effectiveness of MDT tumor boards. However, it was found that students who had prior knowledge of their existence had a stronger association with sufficient awareness (χ2 = 4.2, p = 0.04). The results indicate that while the majority of the medical students have no prior attendance or knowledge regarding MDT tumor boards, there is an overwhelming willingness among students to incorporate them into the medical curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The multidisciplinary team meeting has become a fundamental component of cancer care across most of Europe, North America, and Australia. In certain institutions, it holds a mandatory role in the treatment planning of all patients with cancer. Although the multidisciplinary team meeting has demonstrated improved adherence to clinical protocols in the oncology field and serves as a valuable educational tool for clinicians, it is difficult to truly gauge its impact on clinical outcomes due to the wide heterogeneity in interinstitutional meeting practices and the varied data reporting clinical outcomes. This literature review will provide an overview of the history and contextual role of the multidisciplinary team meeting in cancer management and discuss the barriers to its implementation, offering means to navigate these barriers. This review will also explore the barriers to adherence to treatment recommendations offered by the multidisciplinary team meeting in cancer care, through the lens of the patient and health care provider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inequity in cancer care access among LATAM countries is huge. Experience with gastrointestinal tumors in Latin America has shown care disparities can be reduced by equalizing access to high-quality medical knowledge in a context of a multidisciplinary environment for medical discussions.Here, we describe our experience of working with virtual genitourinary multidisciplinary tumor boards (vGUMDT), including how the virtual board has helped with clinical decision-making.We describe vGUMDT ́s experience and the importance of basing clinical decision-making in the consultant’s own center, reducing the need for referrals.In total, 345 cases were presented. The majority were prostate cancer cases, and the median age of patients was 64 years. Five participating centers were in Buenos Aires, 7 were in other cities in Argentina (Neuquén, Mendoza, Formosa, Salta, Santa Fé, Entre Ríos, Córdoba), and 3 centers were located in other countries in South America (Perú, Colombia, and Paraguay). Median distance from treating center to vGUMDT headquarters was 1289.8 km. A few patients (n = 60, 17.3%) were referred to the Alexander Fleming Cancer Institute or tertiary health care centers for surgery or systemic therapy, and a minority of cases were referred for radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary virtual experiences, such as vGUMDT, should be carefully addressed by health care decision-makers, given their popularity and their demonstrated cost-effectiveness.

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]

Background: Tumor boards (TB) are synonymous with quality of care but have been occasionally misunderstood and underutilized. This survey aimed to evaluate health professionals' perceptions of TBs in Brazil. Materials & methods: The survey was sent electronically. Results: Of 206 respondents, 67.8% attended TBs at least once and 82.4% dedicated at least 1 h weekly to them; 64.2% preferred a more &educational' model over case discussions only; 63.1% had institutional leadership capable of promoting multidisciplinarity; 21.1 and 32.7% of the physicians and nonphysicians, respectively, felt intimidated to express their opinions; 91.6% believed that TBs improve cancer outcomes. Postpandemic, 52.7% preferred a hybrid (virtual/face-to-face) model. Conclusion: This study provides a glimpse of the reality of TBs in Brazil, with potential implications for clinical practice. This survey study of 206 oncology healthcare professionals addressed their perceptions of tumor boards in Brazil. It produced results that have potential implications for the practice of multidisciplinary oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Current sessions of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) have several limitations, including increased costs and duration, as well as limited discussion time for each case. To address these issues, we have developed a computer application called OCTOPUS, which helps manage the patients' list for MDMs. The application allows for the generation of automatic MDM decisions based on predetermined criteria filled in by the patient's doctor and algorithms that comply with the latest oncology guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. These decisions must be validated by the MDM faculty members. In cases of nonagreement or complex cases, the application proposes a “face‐to‐face MDM.” The internal mailing system connects all members and allows for the request of a second opinion regarding pathology or imaging results. Initial results suggest that this ergonomic tool provides more flexibility in time management and improved uniformity in selecting cases that would most benefit from face‐to‐face MDMs.

Abstract 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.

Purpose: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (TB) are the standard for discussing complex head and neck cancer cases. During TB, imaging and microscopic pathology is reviewed, but there is typically no visualization of the resected cancer., Methods: A pilot study was conducted to investigate the utility of visual pathology reports at weekly TB for 10 consecutive weeks. Faculty-level participants completed a pre-survey and post-survey to assess understanding of resected cancer specimens., Results: Providers (n = 25) across seven medical specialties completed pre-survey and post-survey. Following intervention, providers reported significant improvement in understanding of anatomic orientation of the specimen and sites of margin sampling (mean 47.4-96.1, p < 0.001), ability to locate the site of a positive margin (mean 69.5-91.1, p < 0.001), and confidence in treatment plans created (mean 69.5-89.2, p < 0.001) with the addition of visual pathology reports., Conclusions: Visual pathology reports improve provider understanding of resected cancer specimens at multidisciplinary TB., (© 2024 The Author(s). Head & Neck published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

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]

Computed tomographic (CT) imaging at third lumbar vertebra (L3), routinely used by oncologists, represents a reliable tool to quantify muscle mass. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy of CT scan to define muscle mass as a prognostic marker in gastric cancer (GC) patients undergoing gastrectomy and/or chemotherapy. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and the secondary outcomes included postoperative length of hospital stay (P-LOS), total and severe complications in GC patients undergoing gastrectomy. Three electronic bibliographic databases — MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - were used to conduct a systematic literature search based on fixed inclusion and exclusion criteria, until April 2019. The adjusted and unadjusted hazard ratio (HR), odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to analyse the dichotomous variables (OS, RFS, total and severe complications) and continuous variables (P-LOS). Random- and fixed effects models were used according to the heterogeneity. A total of 5610 GC patients from 20 studies were identified. Low muscle mass at diagnosis was found in 32.7% of GC patients and was significantly associated with poorer OS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.71–2.38, p < 0.00001, I2 = 47%) and worse RFS (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.71–2.26, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Meta-analysis of adjusted HR from multivariable analyses confirmed the association between OS and low muscle mass (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.68–2.12, p < 0.00001, I2 = 36%). Furthermore, low muscle mass and poorer OS were significantly associated in metastatic GC patients exclusively undergoing chemotherapy (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23–2.11, p < 0.0006, I2 = 18%). Moreover, preoperative low muscle mass was significantly associated with longer P-LOS (MD 1.19, 95% CI 0.68–1.71, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), higher risk of postoperative complications (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.17–2.66, p = 0.007, I2 = 77%) and severe complications (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.03–2.29, p = 0.04, I2 = 49%) in GC patients undergoing gastrectomy. Low muscle mass, assessed by L3 CT-scan, affects almost 1/3 of GC patients at diagnosis and acts as a negative prognostic marker on many clinical outcomes. Therefore, identifying GC patients with low muscle mass at diagnosis or at follow-up visit should be recommendable. Clinical nutritionists should be part of tumor boards meetings to screen low muscle mass in order to prompt personalized nutritional support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multidisciplinary oncology team meetings (MDMs) or tumor boards, like other MDMs in healthcare, facilitate the incorporation of diverse clinical expertise into treatment planning for patients. Decision-making (DM) in relation to treatment planning in MDMs is carried out repeatedly until all patients put forward for discussion have been reviewed. Despite continuing financial pressure and staff shortages, the workload of cancer MDMs, and therefore meeting duration continue to increase (up to 5 h) with patients often receiving less than 2 min of team input. This begs the question as to whether the current set-up is conducive to achieve optimal DM, which these multi-specialty teams were set out to achieve in the first place. Much of what it is known, however, about the effects of prolonged cognitive activity comes from various subfields of science, leaving a gap in applied knowledge relating to complex healthcare environments. The objective of this review was thus to synthesize theory, evidence and clinical practice in order to bring the current understanding of prolonged, repeated DM into the context of cancer MDMs. We explore how and why time spent on a task affects performance in such settings, and what strategies can be employed by cancer teams to counteract negative effects and improve quality and safety. In the process, we propose a pragmatic framework of repeated DM that encompasses the strength, the process and the cost-benefit models of self-control as applied to real-world contexts of cancer MDMs. We also highlight promising research avenues for closing the research-to-practice gap. Theoretical and empirical evidence reviewed in this paper suggests that over prolonged time spent on a task, repeated DM is cognitively taxing, leading to performance detriments. This deterioration is associated with various cognitive-behavioral pitfalls, including decreased attentional capacity and reduced ability to effectively evaluate choices, as well as less analytical DM and increased reliance on heuristics. As a short to medium term improvement for ensuring safety, consistently high quality of care for all patients, and the clinician wellbeing, future research and interventions in cancer MDMs should address time-on-task effects with a combination of evidence-based cognitive strategies. We propose in this review multiple measures that range from food intake, short breaks, rewards, and mental exercises. As a long term imperative, however, capacity within cancer services needs to be reviewed as well as how best to plan workforce development and service delivery models to achieve population coverage whilst maintaining safety and quality of care. Hence the performance detriments that arise in healthcare workers as a result of the intensity (time spent on a task) and complexity of the workload require not only more research, but also wider regulatory focus and recognition.

Multidisciplinary oncology team meetings (MDMs) or tumor boards, like other MDMs in healthcare, facilitate the incorporation of diverse clinical expertise into treatment planning for patients. Decision-making (DM) in relation to treatment planning in MDMs is carried out repeatedly until all patients put forward for discussion have been reviewed. Despite continuing financial pressure and staff shortages, the workload of cancer MDMs, and therefore meeting duration continue to increase (up to 5 h) with patients often receiving less than 2 min of team input. This begs the question as to whether the current set-up is conducive to achieve optimal DM, which these multi-specialty teams were set out to achieve in the first place. Much of what it is known, however, about the effects of prolonged cognitive activity comes from various subfields of science, leaving a gap in applied knowledge relating to complex healthcare environments. The objective of this review was thus to synthesize theory, evidence and clinical practice in order to bring the current understanding of prolonged, repeated DM into the context of cancer MDMs. We explore how and why time spent on a task affects performance in such settings, and what strategies can be employed by cancer teams to counteract negative effects and improve quality and safety. In the process, we propose a pragmatic framework of repeated DM that encompasses the strength, the process and the cost-benefit models of self-control as applied to real-world contexts of cancer MDMs. We also highlight promising research avenues for closing the research-to-practice gap. Theoretical and empirical evidence reviewed in this paper suggests that over prolonged time spent on a task, repeated DM is cognitively taxing, leading to performance detriments. This deterioration is associated with various cognitive-behavioral pitfalls, including decreased attentional capacity and reduced ability to effectively evaluate choices, as well as less analytical DM and increased reliance on heuristics. As a short to medium term improvement for ensuring safety, consistently high quality of care for all patients, and the clinician wellbeing, future research and interventions in cancer MDMs should address time-on-task effects with a combination of evidence-based cognitive strategies. We propose in this review multiple measures that range from food intake, short breaks, rewards, and mental exercises. As a long term imperative, however, capacity within cancer services needs to be reviewed as well as how best to plan workforce development and service delivery models to achieve population coverage whilst maintaining safety and quality of care. Hence the performance detriments that arise in healthcare workers as a result of the intensity (time spent on a task) and complexity of the workload require not only more research, but also wider regulatory focus and recognition. [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]

Current sessions of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) have several limitations, including increased costs and duration, as well as limited discussion time for each case. To address these issues, we have developed a computer application called OCTOPUS, which helps manage the patients' list for MDMs. The application allows for the generation of automatic MDM decisions based on predetermined criteria filled in by the patient's doctor and algorithms that comply with the latest oncology guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. These decisions must be validated by the MDM faculty members. In cases of nonagreement or complex cases, the application proposes a "face-to-face MDM." The internal mailing system connects all members and allows for the request of a second opinion regarding pathology or imaging results. Initial results suggest that this ergonomic tool provides more flexibility in time management and improved uniformity in selecting cases that would most benefit from face-to-face MDMs., Competing Interests: The software used for the development of this application is the original version (with license) belonging to the computer engineering department of the Faculty of Science and Technology, University Sidi Mohammed BenAbdellah, Fez, Morocco., (© 2023 The Authors. OTO Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Otolaryngology‐Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

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]

Introduction: For tumor boards, the networking of different medical disciplines' expertise continues to gain importance. However, interdisciplinary tumor boards spread across several institutions are rarely supported by information technology tools today. The aim of this paper is to point out an approach for a tumor board management system prototype. Methods: For analyzing the requirements, an incremental process was used. The requirements were surveyed using Informal Conversational Interview and documented with Use Case Diagrams defined by the Unified Modeling Language (UML). Analyses of current EHR standards were conducted to evaluate technical requirements. Result: Functional and technical requirements of clinical conference applications were evaluated and documented. In several steps, workflows were derived and application mockups were created. Conclusion: Although there is a vast amount of common understanding concerning how clinical conferences should be conducted and how their workflows should be structured, these are hardly standardized, neither on a functional nor on a technical level. This results in drawbacks for participants and patients. Using modern EHR technologies based on profiles such as IHE Cross Enterprise document sharing (XDS), these deficits could be overcome. [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]

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., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020, Spandidos Publications.)

Copyright of Der Onkologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Onkologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Expert knowledge is often shared among multidisciplinary academic teams at tumor boards (TBs) across the country, but these conversations exist in silos and do not reach the wider oncology community., Objective: Using an oncologist-only question and answer (Q&A) website, we sought to document expert insights from TBs at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (NCI-CCCs) to provide educational benefits to the oncology community., Methods: We designed a process with the NCI-CCCs to document and share discussions from the TBs focused on areas of practice variation on theMednet, an interactive Q&A website of over 13,000 US oncologists. The faculty translated the TB discussions into concise, non-case-based Q&As on theMednet. Answers were peer reviewed and disseminated in email newsletters to registered oncologists. Reach and engagement were measured. Following each Q&A, a survey question asked how the TB Q&As impacted the readers' practice., Results: A total of 23 breast, thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary programs from 16 NCI-CCC sites participated. Between December 2016 and July 2021, the faculty highlighted 368 questions from their TBs. Q&As were viewed 147,661 times by 7381 oncologists at 3515 institutions from all 50 states. A total of 277 (75%) Q&As were viewed every month. Of the 1063 responses to a survey question on how the Q&A affected clinicians' practices, 646 (61%) reported that it confirmed their current practice, 163 (20%) indicated that a Q&A would change their future practice, and 214 (15%) reported learning something new., Conclusions: Through an online Q&A platform, academics at the NCI-CCCs share knowledge outside the walls of academia with oncologists across the United States. Access to up-to-date expert knowledge can reassure clinicians' practices, significantly impact patient care in community practices, and be a source of new knowledge and education., (©Maitri Kalra, Elizabeth Henry, Kelly McCann, Meghan S Karuturi, Jean G Bustamante Alvarez, Amanda Parkes, Robert Wesolowski, Mei Wei, Sarah S Mougalian, Gregory Durm, Angel Qin, Caitlin Schonewolf, Meghna Trivedi, Avan J Armaghani, Frederick H Wilson, Wade T Iams, Anita A Turk, Praveen Vikas, Michael Cecchini, Sam Lubner, Priyadarshini Pathak, Kristen Spencer, Vadim S Koshkin, Matthew K Labriola, Catherine H Marshall, Katy E Beckermann, theMednet.org NCI-CCC Tumor Board Program Collaborative Group, Marina N Sharifi, Anthony C Bejjani, Varsha Hotchandani, Samir Housri, Nadine Housri. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 19.05.2022.)

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]

Purpose: To review the impact of a weekly multidisciplinary neuroradiology imaging review on the management of patients undergoing radiotherapy., Methods: A prospective study of the management of 118 patients (30=head and neck, 40=skull base, central nervous system=48) was conducted over a 12-month period from January 2018 through January 2019. After review of each patient's history and relevant imaging, a radiation oncologist completed a form detailing the changes that were made in diagnosis and management. Imaging source (external and internal examinations), availability of outside reports, report timeliness, the value of reports, changes in interpretation, changes in clinical management, and changes in prognosis were documented. Changes in interpretation and management were designated as major or minor depending on the significance of the change. The managing radiation oncologist indicated whether the imaging review conference substituted for a peer-to-peer consultation with a neuroradiologist., Results: Nearly half (47%) of all patients had a change in interpretation. Of those, 32% of patients had a major change in interpretation, while 14% had a minor change in interpretation. The existence of the multidisciplinary imaging review conference prevented a peer-to-peer consultation (interruption) by the radiation oncologists to the neuroradiologists in 90% of the cases presented. Further analysis was performed., Conclusion: The involvement of neuroradiologists in a joint radiation oncology imaging review conference resulted in changes in diagnostic imaging interpretation that led to significant changes in management, expected prognosis, and workflow., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2019, Rao et al.)

Tumors of the CNS are the most common solid tumors diagnosed in childhood. As technology and research in cancer care are advancing, more specialties are involved in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of children with brain tumors. Multidisciplinary clinics have become the standard of care for cancer care throughout the USA, and specialty clinics focused on particular cancer types are gaining attention in improving the patient outcomes and satisfaction. We will discuss the role of multidisciplinary clinics, in an attempt to create preliminary guidelines on establishing and maintaining a multidisciplinary brain tumor clinic in order to optimize the care of the patients and their families.

Head and neck cancer remains a significant cause of morbidity worldwide. Multimodality treatment is often the only way to achieve improved function, quality of life, and survival, calling for a multidisciplinary team approach, particularly in view of the rapid advances being made in various fields. The roles of the head and neck surgeon and reconstructive surgeon are discussed, together with the input afforded by specialists in areas such as diagnostic imaging, radiation therapy, medical oncology, and gene therapy. Telemedicine is of importance in centers where multidisciplinary expertise is not available.