Dataset Information

INNV-27. AN INNOVATIVE VIRTUAL MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL, MULTIDISCIPLINARY NEURO-ONCOLOGY TUMOR BOARD: THE NIH-NOB EXPERIENCE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

ABSTRACT: Abstract

BACKGROUND

The American Academy of Neurology Institute and Society for Neuro-Oncology recommend multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) meetings as a quality metric in neuro-oncology. With the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in travel restrictions, we expanded our existing MTB by transitioning to a virtual format that maintained our commitment to providing consultation for primary CNS tumor cases. This transition permitted participation by neuro-oncology teams from over 30 Brain Tumor Trials Collaborative (BTTC)/National Cancer Institute-Comprehensive Oncology Network Evaluating Rare CNS Tumors (NCI-CONNECT) centers across the United States. Here, we describe results from opening our MTB remotely to these teams.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed records from remote MTB meetings held between April 2020 and March 2021. To gauge the impact of our MTB on clinical management, we administered a brief survey querying BTTC members.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight providers presented 41 cases during 24 virtual MTB meetings (range: 1-4 cases per meeting). Two cases (5%) were presented only for educational value. Approximately half (54%) of the cases discussed dealt with diagnosis/management of an NCI-CONNECT rare CNS tumor. During MTB discussions of the 39 cases seeking diagnosis/management recommendations, 32% received clinical trial recommendations, 10% were suggested to enroll in the NCI Neuro-Oncology Branch (NOB) Natural History Study (NCT02851706), 17% received a recommendation to obtain central neuropathology review, and 100% received recommendations for further disease management. Most BTTC survey respondents (83%) found these recommendations impactful in the management/treatment of their presented case or generally useful/informative for their clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

We describe the feasibility and utility of an innovative virtual multi-institutional MTB. These novel remote meetings allowed for discussion of complex neuro-oncology cases and recommendations from experts, particularly important for those with rare CNS tumors. Our study’s findings during the COVID-19 pandemic of the value of providing remote access to MTBs should apply post-pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Rogers J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8598475 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Traditionally, the poor outcome for patients with malignant brain tumours led to therapeutic nihilism. In turn, this resulted in lack of interest in neurosurgical oncology subspecialisation, and less than ideal patient pathways. One problem of concern was the low rate of tumour resection. Between 1997 and 2006, 685 treated glioblastomas were identified. In the first four years only 40% of patients underwent tumour resection, rising to 55% in the last four years. Before revision of the pathway, the median length of hospital stay was 8 days, and 35% of patients received the results of their histology outside of a clinic setting. A pathway of care was established, in which all patients were discussed pre-operatively in an MDT meeting and then directed into a new surgical neuro-oncology clinic providing first point of contact. This limited the number of surgeons operating on adult glioma patients and aided recruitment into research studies. Now, three consultant neurosurgeons run this service, easily fulfilling IOG requirement to spend >50% of programmed activities in neuro-oncology. Nursing support has been critical to provide an integrated service. This model has allowed increased recruitment to clinical trials. The introduction of this service led to an increase in patients discussed pre-operatively in an MDT (66% rising to 87%; P=0.027), an increase in the rate of surgical resection (from 40% to 80%) and more patients being admitted electively (from 25% to 80%; P<0.001). There was a reduction in the median length of stay (8 days reduced to 4.5 days; P<0.001). For the cohort of GBM patients that went on to have chemoradiotherapy we improved median survival to 18 months, with 35% of patients alive at two years, comparable to international outcomes. Implementing a specialist neurosurgical oncology service begins with understanding the patient care pathway. Our patients have benefitted from the culture of subspecialisation and the excellent inter-disciplinary working relationships that have been developed.

Project description:BackgroundInstitutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency, delay, and bias, suggesting an opportunity for quality improvement. To aid such quality improvement, this study aimed at determining IRB members' and investigators' priorities regarding IRB review at 10 Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs.Methods680 anonymous internet surveys were sent to 252 IRB members and staff, and 428 principal investigators and project coordinators at 9 VA Medical Centers and the VA Central IRB. Surveys included 27 statements adapted from Koocher and Kieth-Spiegel's IRB-RAT describing IRB activities or functions (e.g., "An IRB that is open to reversing its earlier decisions"). Respondents indicated how each statement described both their "ideal" and "actual" IRBs. The difference between the ratings of the actual and ideal IRBs was calculated for each item along with estimated 95% confidence intervals. Ratings outside those intervals indicated activities or functions with relatively good or poor performance compared to the ideal IRB.Results390 (57.4%) responses from 165 IRB members and staff (65.5%) and 225 investigators and project coordinators (52.6%) demonstrated that these IRBs were closest to the ideal when protecting human subjects, treating investigators with respect, and taking appropriate action for alleged scientific misconduct. The IRBs were furthest from the ideal regarding duplicative forms, timeliness of review, and provision of complete rationales for decisions. Although IRB members reported near-ideal willingness to reverse earlier decisions, investigators rated this capacity far from ideal. Investigators rated IRB members' knowledge about procedures and policy as nearly ideal, but IRB members themselves rated this aspect far from ideal. Noteworthy site-level differences in the ratings of IRB functions and activities were also identified.ConclusionsAlthough these VA IRBs perform well in some areas, these data support the need for ongoing quality improvement. The described method of administering and analyzing the IRB-RAT may help identify and monitor site- and activity- specific initiatives for quality improvement.