Analysis and impact of a multidisciplinary lymphoma virtual tumor board.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Habermann TM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8682150 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) facilitate decision-making among subspecialists in the care of oncology patients, but the mechanisms by which they enhance outcomes remain incompletely understood. Our aim was to measure the agreement between sarcoma MTBs and radiology reports' disease assessment and management recommendations. This single-center IRB-approved retrospective study evaluated cases presented at a weekly sarcoma MTB from 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2021. Cases without clinical notes, imaging studies, or radiology reports were excluded. The data collected included the patient's clinical status at the time of the MTB, the treatment response assessment by the MTB and radiologists (stable disease; partial response; complete response; progressive disease/recurrence), and the recommendations of the radiology reports and of the MTB. The agreement between the initial radiologist review and MTB on disease assessment and recommendations was analyzed using kappa statistics. In total, 283 cases met the inclusion criteria. Radiology reports provided recommendations in 34.3% of cases, which were adhered to by the ordering providers in 73.2% of cases. The agreement between MTBs and radiology reports was moderate in disease assessment (86.2% agreement; κ = 0.78; p < 0.0001) and negligible in recommendations (36% agreement; κ = 0.18; p < 0.0001). Radiologists were more likely to assign progressive disease/recurrence than MTBs (54.4% vs. 44.4%; p < 0.001) and to recommend short-term imaging follow-up more commonly than MTBs (46.4% vs. 21.7%; p < 0.001). At a tertiary care center, radiologists' isolated interpretations of imaging findings and management recommendations frequently differ from the MTB's consensus, reflecting the value of multidisciplinary discussions incorporating the patient's clinical status and the available treatment options into the final radiographic assessment.
| S-EPMC11311895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The established standard to ensure state-of-the-art cancer treatment is through multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs), although resource- and time-intensive. In this validation study, the multiple myeloma (MM)-TB was reexamined, aiming to validate our previous (2012-2014) results, now using the TB data from March 2020 to February 2021. We assessed MM-TB protocols, physicians' documentation, patient, disease, remission status, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) as left-truncated survival times. Moreover, TB-adherence, level of evidence according to grade criteria, time requirements, study inclusion rates, and referral satisfaction were determined. Within a 1-year period, 312 discussed patients were documented in 439 TB protocols. Patient and disease characteristics were typical for comprehensive cancer centers. The percentages of patients discussed at initial diagnosis (ID), with disease recurrence or in need of interdisciplinary advice, were 39%, 28%, and 33%, respectively. Reasons for the MM-TB presentation were therapeutic challenges in 80% or staging/ID-defining questions in 20%. The numbers of presentations were mostly one in 73%, two in 20%, and three or more in 7%. The TB adherence rate was 93%. Reasons for non-adherence were related to patients' decisions or challenging inclusion criteria for clinical trials. Additionally, we demonstrate that with the initiation of TBs, that the number of interdisciplinarily discussed patients increased, that TB-questions involve advice on the best treatment, and that levels of compliance and evidence can be as high as ≥ 90%. Advantages of TBs are that they may also improve patients', referrers', and physicians' satisfaction, inclusion into clinical trials, and advance interdisciplinary projects, thereby encouraging cancer specialists to engage in them.
| S-EPMC9734518 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8598475 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8176970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsMultidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs) are an integral part of ensuring high-quality, evidence-based and personalized cancer care. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the adherence to and implementation of MDT recommendations in patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD).MethodsWe screened all oncologic positron emission tomography (PET) scans conducted at a single comprehensive cancer center in 2020. Patients were included if they had evidence of imaging-based OMD from a solid organ malignancy on the index scans, had their OMD case discussed at an MDT, and were treated and followed up at the same center. A switch away from the MDT-recommended treatment modalities was classified as a major deviation; non-MDT-mandated adjustments to a recommended treatment modality were coded as minor deviation. Clinical data was obtained via chart review; statistical calculations were computed using the R software.ResultsAfter review of PET and/or concurrent brain scans, 787 cases of OMD were identified. Thereof, 347 (44.1 %) cases were discussed at MDT, of which 331 (42.1 %) were therapeutically managed and subsequently followed. The three most commonly recommended therapies were systemic therapy (35.6 %), multimodality treatment including definitive local therapy (17.8 %), and radiotherapy (13.9 %). A major deviation was recorded in 16.3 % of cases (most commonly: none of the MDT-recommended treatment modalities were performed: 19 (35.2 %); not all MDT-planned treatment modalities were performed: 12 (22.2 %); and additional treatment modality was performed: 11 (20.3 %). A minor deviation was found in 1.5 % of cases. On multivariable regression, number of distant metastases (n > 1) was associated with a major deviation (OR: 1.85; 95 % CI, 1.0-3.52). Major deviations were associated with a significantly worse OS (p = 0.0034).ConclusionsAdherence to and implementation of MDT recommendations in OMD patients was generally high (83.7%). Major deviations might be further reduced by more careful and elaborate discussions of OMD patient characteristics s and patient preferences.
| S-EPMC11367634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionParticipant characteristics are known to affect group discourse and discussion outcomes. In medicine, many decisions are made by group consensus, therefore an understanding of these factors is highly relevant. We aimed to measure the effects of participant characteristics on tumor board discussions.MethodsWe performed a prospective, multi-institution, quantitative study of multi-disciplinary virtual tumor board meetings. Participant characteristics included age, gender, and clinical discipline. Outcomes of interest were speech events, duration, and discourse style. Participant impressions was assessed by a post-hoc survey.ResultsA total of 361 cases were discussed across 32 virtual meetings. Of the 283 attendees, 66.4 % were women, and all moderators were men. Women comprised 43 % of the 54 speakers, thus speaking less than male attendees (p < 0.001). No significant differences were detected in the duration or style of speech between men and women. Women participants commented more frequently on cases where the clinical attending was a woman (4.09 comments by women vs. 2.99 comments by men, p < 0.001), and less frequently when the attending was a man (2.48 comments by women vs. 3.20 comments by men, p < 0.001). On post hoc survey, men responded that they introduced ideas, guided discussions, and succeeded in influencing decisions significantly more than women reported that they did.ConclusionWomen physicians were underrepresented in tumor boards as moderators, speakers, and attendings of record. Women physicians commented less on men physicians' patients. Women felt less impactful than their men counterparts, despite having the same duration and style of speech. Prompted participation, moderator feedback, talking points, and limiting the number of cases can be used to balance representation in discussions.
| S-EPMC10517280 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6446238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIBM Watson for Oncology (WFO) is a cognitive computing system helping physicians quickly identify key information in a patient's medical record, surface relevant evidence, and explore treatment options. This study assessed the possibility of using WFO for clinical treatment in lung cancer patients.MethodsWe evaluated the level of agreement between WFO and multidisciplinary team (MDT) for lung cancer. From January to December 2018, newly diagnosed lung cancer cases in Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital were retrospectively examined using WFO version 18.4 according to four treatment categories (surgery, radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and palliative care). Treatment recommendations were considered concordant if the MDT recommendations were designated 'recommended' by WFO. Concordance between MDT and WFO was analyzed by Cohen's kappa value.ResultsIn total, 405 (male 340, female 65) cases with different histology (adenocarcinoma 157, squamous cell carcinoma 132, small cell carcinoma 94, others 22 cases) were enrolled. Concordance between MDT and WFO occurred in 92.4% (k=0.881, P<0.001) of all cases, and concordance differed according to clinical stages. The strength of agreement was very good in stage IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) (100%, k=1.000) and extensive disease small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) (100%, k=1.000). In stage I NSCLC, the agreement strength was good (92.4%, k=0.855). The concordance was moderate in stage III NSCLC (80.8%, k=0.622) and relatively low in stage II NSCLC (83.3%, k=0.556) and limited disease SCLC (84.6%, k=0.435). There were discordant cases in surgery (7/57, 12.3%), radiotherapy (2/12, 16.7%), and chemoradiotherapy (15/129, 11.6%), but no discordance in metastatic disease patients.ConclusionsTreatment recommendations made by WFO and MDT were highly concordant for lung cancer cases especially in metastatic stage. However, WFO was just an assisting tool in stage I-III NSCLC and limited disease SCLC; so, patient-doctor relationship and shared decision making may be more important in this stage.
| S-EPMC7354125 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: Curing all children with brain tumors will require an understanding of how each subtype responds to conventional treatments and how best to combine existing and novel therapies. It is extremely challenging to acquire this knowledge in the clinic alone, especially among patients with rare tumors. Therefore, we developed a preclinical brain tumor platform to test combinations of conventional and novel therapies in a manner that closely recapitulates clinic trials.Experimental Design: A multidisciplinary team was established to design and conduct neurosurgical, fractionated radiotherapy and chemotherapy studies, alone or in combination, in accurate mouse models of supratentorial ependymoma (SEP) subtypes and choroid plexus carcinoma (CPC). Extensive drug repurposing screens, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and efficacy studies were used to triage active compounds for combination preclinical trials with "standard-of-care" surgery and radiotherapy.Results: Mouse models displayed distinct patterns of response to surgery, irradiation, and chemotherapy that varied with tumor subtype. Repurposing screens identified 3-hour infusions of gemcitabine as a relatively nontoxic and efficacious treatment of SEP and CPC. Combination neurosurgery, fractionated irradiation, and gemcitabine proved significantly more effective than surgery and irradiation alone, curing one half of all animals with aggressive forms of SEP.Conclusions: We report a comprehensive preclinical trial platform to assess the therapeutic activity of conventional and novel treatments among rare brain tumor subtypes. It also enables the development of complex, combination treatment regimens that should deliver optimal trial designs for clinical testing. Postirradiation gemcitabine infusion should be tested as new treatments of SEP and CPC. Clin Cancer Res; 24(7); 1654-66. ©2018 AACR.
| S-EPMC5884708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) are becoming increasingly common as the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors expands into more tumor types and treatment settings. Although the majority of IRAEs are mild and can be managed in the outpatient setting by the medical oncologist, severe IRAEs can be life threatening and often require complex care coordination among multiple providers. These providers include a variety of non-oncology specialists who have interest and expertise in managing IRAEs. Multiple systems-based solutions have been proposed in the literature, but these need to be tailored to the needs and resources of each practice setting. In this article, we highlight the challenges of IRAE care by presenting an illustrative case from our institution. We then describe the format and structure of the IRAE Tumor Board established at the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance/Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Finally, we discuss how this tumor board attempts to address clinical issues related to complex IRAE presentations and provide IRAE education.
| S-EPMC7489785 | biostudies-literature