Dataset Information

Tumor Board Conferences for Multidisciplinary Skin Cancer Management: A Survey of US Cancer Centers.

ABSTRACT: Background: Tumor board conferences (TBCs) are used by oncologic specialists to review patient cases, exchange knowledge, and discuss options for cancer management. These multidisciplinary meetings are often a cornerstone of treatment at leading cancer centers and are required for accreditation by certain groups, such as the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer. Little is known regarding skin cancer TBCs. The objective of this study was to characterize the structure, function, and impact of existing skin cancer TBCs in the United States. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to physician leaders of skin cancer TBCs at NCI-designated Comprehensive and Clinical Cancer Centers. Results: Of the 59 centers successfully contacted, 14 (24%) reported not having a conference where skin cancer cases were discussed, and 45 (76%) identified 53 physician leaders. A total of 38 physicians (72%) completed the survey. Half of the meeting leaders were medical and/or surgical oncologists, and dermatologists led one-third of meetings. TBCs had a moderate to significant impact on patient care according to 97% of respondents. All respondents indicated that the meetings enhanced communication among physicians and provided an opportunity for involved specialists and professionals to discuss cases. The most frequently cited barrier to organizing TBCs was determining a common available date and time for attendees (62%). The most common suggestion for improvement was to increase attendance, specialists, and/or motivation. Conclusions: Results showed overall consistency in meeting structure but variability in function, which may be a reflection of institutional resources and investment in the conference. Future directions include defining metrics to evaluate changes in diagnosis or management plan after tumor board discussion, attendance, clinical trial enrollment, and cost analysis. Results of this survey may aid other institutions striving to develop and refine skin cancer TBCs.

SUBMITTER: Mori S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6446238 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tumor Board Conferences for Multidisciplinary Skin Cancer Management: A Survey of US Cancer Centers.

Mori Shoko S Navarrete-Dechent Cristian C Petukhova Tatyana A TA Lee Erica H EH Rossi Anthony M AM Postow Michael A MA Dunn Lara A LA Roman Benjamin R BR Yin Vivian T VT Coit Daniel G DG Hollmann Travis J TJ Busam Klaus J KJ Nehal Kishwer S KS Barker Christopher A CA

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN 20181001 10

<b>Background:</b> Tumor board conferences (TBCs) are used by oncologic specialists to review patient cases, exchange knowledge, and discuss options for cancer management. These multidisciplinary meetings are often a cornerstone of treatment at leading cancer centers and are required for accreditation by certain groups, such as the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer. Little is known regarding skin cancer TBCs. The objective of this study was to characterize the structure, functio ...[more]

PMID: 30323091

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the international endorsement of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) for breast cancer care, implementation is suboptimal worldwide, and evidence regarding their effectiveness in developing countries is lacking. We assessed the impact on survival and the cost-effectiveness of implementing an MTB in Mozambique, sub-Saharan Africa.Materials and methodsThis prospective cohort study included 205 patients with breast cancer diagnosed between January 2015 and August 2017 (98 before and 107 after MTB implementation), followed to November 2019. Pre- and post-MTB implementation subcohorts were compared for clinical characteristics, treatments, and overall survival. We used hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI), computed by Cox proportional hazards regression. The impact of MTB implementation on the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was estimated from the provider perspective.ResultsWe found no significant differences between pre- and post-MTB subcohorts regarding clinical characteristics or treatments received. Among patients with early breast cancer (stage 0-III; n = 163), the 3-year overall survival was 48.0% (95% CI, 35.9-59.1) in the pre-MTB and 73.0% (95% CI, 61.3-81.6) in the post-MTB subcohort; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27-0.81). The absolute 3-year mean cost increase was $119.83 per patient, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $802.96 per QALY, corresponding to 1.6 times the gross domestic product of Mozambique.ConclusionThe implementation of a MTB in Mozambique led to a 53% mortality decrease among patients with early breast cancer, and it was cost-effective. These findings highlight the feasibility of implementing this strategy and the need for scaling-up MTBs in developing countries, as a way to improve patient outcomes.Implications for practiceCurrently, more than half of the deaths from breast cancer in the world occur in developing countries. Strategies that optimize care and that are adjusted for available resources are needed to improve the outcomes of patients with breast cancer in these regions. The discussion of cases at multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) may improve survival outcomes, but implementation is suboptimal worldwide, and evidence regarding their effectiveness in developing countries is lacking. This study evaluated the impact of implementing an MTB on the care and survival of patients with breast cancer in Mozambique, sub-Saharan Africa and its cost-effectiveness in this low-income setting.

Project description:IntroductionA central instrument of multidisciplinary care is the multidisciplinary tumour conference (MTC). In MTCs, diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients are discussed, and therapy recommendations are worked out. As we found previously, patients participate in MTCs in some breast cancer centres in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. However, studies on risks and benefits of patient participation have not provided substantiated findings. Therefore, the study's objective is to analyse differences between MTCs with and without patient participation.Methods and analysisThis is an exploratory mixed-methods study. MTCs in six breast and gynaecological cancer centres in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, are examined. MTCs will be conducted with and without patient participation. First, interviews with providers concentrating on the feasibility of patient participation and quality of decision-making will be carried out, transcribed and analysed by means of content analysis. Second, videotaped or audiotaped participatory observations in MTCs will be executed. Video data or transcribed audio data from video and audio recordings will be coded using the established "Observational Assessment Rating Scale" for MTCs and analysed by comparing centres with and without patient participation. Third, all patients will fill out a questionnaire before and after MTC, including questions on psychosocial situation, decision-making and expectations before and experiences after MTC. The questionnaire data will be analysed by means of descriptive and multivariate statistics and pre-post-differences within and between groups.Ethics and disseminationConsultation and a positive vote from the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne have been obtained. For all collected data, relevant data protection regulations will be adhered to. All personal identifiers from patients and providers will be pseudonymised, except video recordings. Dissemination strategies include a discussion with patients and providers in workshops about topics such as feasibility, risks and benefits of patient participation in MTCs.Trial registration numberDRKS00012552.

Project description:Background and aimsA rapid increase in the use of telemedicine for delivering healthcare has occurred since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. There is evidence for using telemedicine to facilitate cancer care delivery for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Examining how telemedicine can be used to communicate multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) recommendations for HCC has not been studied. This study has two specific aims: (1) to evaluate the patient perspective of the MTB review process and identify best strategies for communicating treatment recommendations for HCC and (2) to pilot test a telemedicine intervention following MTB review to assess patient feasibility and satisfaction with using telemedicine to facilitate treatment decision-making and treatment referral.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study. First, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted among patients diagnosed with HCC who were discussed in MTB review at one of three VA Medical Centers (VAMC). We collected information about the MTB process from the patient perspective and identified strategies for improving communication and delivery of care. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to inform intervention development. Using our qualitative data, a MTB telemedicine pilot intervention was developed and implemented to assess the feasibility of using this approach for patients with HCC.ResultsAlmost all patients (94%) in the pilot study would recommend telemedicine to other patients with HCC, and half of the patients (50%) preferred telemedicine over in-person visits. Many patients (81%) found communication through telemedicine an acceptable platform to deliver difficult cancer information. Overall, patients felt they understood their treatment recommendations and found them clear and useful. Further, patients reported that they enjoyed being included in the decision-making process and appreciated being able to have family members easily join them for the telemedicine visit.ConclusionsUsing telemedicine to communicate treatment recommendations following MTB review was found to be feasible and an acceptable alternative to an in-person visit for patient with HCC. Future studies could include expanding this approach for communicating MTB recommendations to patients with other types of cancers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences (MCCs) are increasingly used to guide treatment decisions for patients with cancer, though numerous barriers to optimal MCC decision-making quality have been identified. We aimed to improve the quality of MCC decision making through the use of an implementation bundle titled the KT-MCC Strategy. The Strategy included use of discussion tools (standard case intake tool and a synoptic discussion tool), workshops, MCC team and chair training, and audit and feedback. Implementation strategies were selected using a theoretically-rooted and integrated KT approach, meaning members of the target population (MCC participants) assisted with the design and implementation of the intervention and strategies. We evaluated implementation quality of the KT-MCC Strategy and initial signals of impact on decision making quality. METHODS:This was a before-and-after study design among 4 MCC teams. Baseline data (before-phase) were collected for a period of 2 months to assess the quality of MCC decision making. Study teams selected the intervention strategies they wished to engage with. Post-intervention data (after-phase) were collected for 4 months. Implementation quality outcomes included reach, adherence/fidelity and adaptation. We also evaluated feasibility of data management. Decision making quality was evaluated on a per-case and per-round level using the MTB-MODe and MDT-OARS tools, respectively. RESULTS:There were a total of 149 cases and 23 MCCs observed in the before phase and 260 cases and 35 MCCs observed in the after phase. Teams implemented 3/5 strategies; adherence to selected strategies varied by MCC team. The per-round quality of MCCs improved by 11% (41.0 to 47.3, p?=?<?0.0001). The quality of per-case decision-making did not improve significantly (32.3 to 32.6, p?=?0.781). CONCLUSION:While per round MCC decision making quality improved significantly, per-case decision-making quality did not. We posit that the limited improvements on decision making quality may be attributed to implementation quality gaps, including a lack of uptake of and adherence to theoretically-identified implementation strategies. Our findings highlight the importance of evaluating implementation quality and processes, iterative testing, and engagement of key gatekeepers in the implementation process.

Dataset Information

Tumor Board Conferences for Multidisciplinary Skin Cancer Management: A Survey of US Cancer Centers.

Publications

Tumor Board Conferences for Multidisciplinary Skin Cancer Management: A Survey of US Cancer Centers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure