Addressing clinical trials: can the multidisciplinary Tumor Board improve participation? A study from an academic women's cancer program.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kuroki L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5550766 | biostudies-other | 2010 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:The aim is to prospectively evaluate the impact of a multidisciplinary lymphoma virtual tumor board. The utility of multi-site interactive lymphoma-specific tumor boards has not been reported. The Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board is a component of the International Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN). The format includes the clinical case presentation, presentation of radiology and hematopathology findings by the appropriate subspecialist, proposed treatment options, review of the literature pertinent to the case, pharmacy contributions, and discussion followed by recommendations. Three hundred and nine consecutive highly selected real-time cases with a diagnosis of lymphoma were presented at the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board from January 2014 to June 2018 and decisions were prospectively tracked to assess its impact on the treatment decisions. A total of 309 cases were prospectively evaluated. One hundred and forty (45.3%) cases had some changes made or recommended. The total changes suggested were 179, as some cases had more than one recommendation. There were 93 (30%) clinical management recommendations, 45 (14.6%) additional testing recommendations, 29 (9.4%) pathology changes, and 6 (1.9%) radiology changes. In an electronic evaluation process, 93% of the responders reported an improvement in knowledge and competence, and 100% recommended no change in format of the board. A multidisciplinary lymphoma tumor board approach was found to have a meaningful impact on lymphoma patients while enhancing interdisciplinary interactions and education for multiple levels of the clinical care team.
| S-EPMC8682150 | 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: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: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: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: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:Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change-in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices-provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women's participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures (n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women's participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.
| S-EPMC7533847 | 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