Dataset Information

Role of Dedicated Subspecialized Radiologists in Multidisciplinary Team Discussions on Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Cancers.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the impact of dedicated subspecialized radiologists in multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions on the management of lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract malignancies.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 244 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 61.7 ± 11.9 years) referred to MDT discussions 249 times (i.e., 249 cases, as five patients were discussed twice for different issues) for lower GI tract malignancy including colorectal cancer, small bowel cancer, GI stromal tumor, and GI neuroendocrine tumor between April 2018 and June 2021 in a prospective database. Before the MDT discussions, dedicated GI radiologists reviewed all imaging studies again besides routine clinical reading. The referring clinician's initial diagnosis, initial treatment plan, change in radiologic interpretation compared with the initial radiology report, and the MDT's consensus recommendations for treatment were collected and compared. Factors associated with changes in treatment plans and the implementation of MDT decisions were analyzed.

Results

Of the 249 cases, radiologic interpretation was changed in 73 cases (29.3%) after a review by dedicated GI radiologists, with 78.1% (57/73) resulting in changes in the treatment plan. The treatment plan was changed in 92 cases (36.9%), and the rate of change in the treatment plan was significantly higher in cases with changes in radiologic interpretation than in those without (78.1% [57/73] vs. 19.9% [35/176], p < 0.001). Follow-up records of patients showed that 91.2% (227/249) of MDT recommendations for treatment were implemented. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the nonsurgical approach (vs. surgical approach) decided through MDT discussion was a significant factor for patients being managed differently than the MDT recommendations (Odds ratio, 4.48; p = 0.017).

Conclusion

MDT discussion involving additional review of radiology examinations by dedicated GI radiologists resulted in a change in the treatment plan in 36.9% of cases. Changes in treatment plans were significantly associated with changes in radiologic interpretation.

SUBMITTER: Jeon SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9240296 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute pulmonary embolism remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Benefit of recently developed multidisciplinary PE response teams (PERT) with higher utilization of advanced therapies has not been established.MethodsTo evaluate patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary PERT we performed a retrospective analysis of 554 patients with acute PE at the university of Virginia between July 2014 and June 2015 (pre-PERT era) and between April 2017 through October 2018 (PERT era). Six-month survival, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), type of PE therapy, and in-hospital bleeding were assessed upon collected data.Results317 consecutive patients were treated for acute PE during an 18-month period following institution of a multidisciplinary PE program; for 120 patients PERT was activated (PA), the remaining 197 patients with acute PE were considered as a separate, contemporary group (NPA). The historical, comparator cohort (PP) was composed of 237 patients. These 3 groups were similar in terms of baseline demographics, comorbidities and risk, as assessed by the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI). Patients in the historical cohort demonstrated worsened survival when compared with patients treated during the PERT era. During the PERT era no statistically significant difference in survival was observed in the PA group when compared to the NPA group despite significantly higher severity of illness among PA patients. Hospital LOS was not different in the PA group when compared to either the NPA or PP group. Hospital costs did not differ among the 3 cohorts. 30-day re-admission rates were significantly lower during the PERT era. Rates of advanced therapies were significantly higher during the PERT era (9.1% vs. 2%) and were concentrated in the PA group (21.7% vs. 1.5%) without any significant rise in in-hospital bleeding complications.ConclusionsAt our institution, all-cause mortality in patients with acute PE has significantly and durably decreased with the adoption of a PERT program without incurring additional hospital costs or protracting hospital LOS. Our data suggest that the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach at some institutions may provide benefit to select patients with acute PE.