Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2009

01-10-2009 | Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences: Identifying Opportunities to Promote Implementation

Authors: F. C. Wright, MD, MEd, N. Lookhong, MSc, MD, D. Urbach, MSc, MD, D. Davis, MD, R. S. McLeod, MSc, MD, A. R. Gagliardi, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Cancer care is complex and multimodal therapy is now considered the standard of care. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) offer a venue to prospectively discuss cancer patients and plan treatment. MCCs are believed to improve patient outcomes and consequently have been internationally adopted. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of MCCs in Ontario and identify individual and organizational barriers to their adoption.

Methods

A cross-sectional, mailed questionnaire of general surgeons in Ontario, Canada who care for patients with cancer was used to assess prevalence, and organizational and individual barriers to MCC implementation. Responses were summarized overall, by hospital, and by academic status.

Results

The response rate was 44.2% (170/385). Respondents worked at 57 unique hospitals, of which 29 (52%) were reported to have MCCs, including all academic hospitals (7/7) and 22 of 50 (44%) community hospitals. Forty-nine MCCs were reported at 29 hospitals. MCCs occurred weekly at academic centers and biweekly or monthly at community hospitals. Few MCCs (28%) had a designated coordinator. Surgeons perceived that MCCs helped them to incorporate multidisciplinary opinions into their patient care plans, improved collegiality, and provided opportunity for continuing professional development.

Conclusions

Despite the perceived benefits expressed by respondents, administrative support for MCCs may be minimal. In particular, surgeons at community hospitals may have limited access to multidisciplinary patient care planning. This information will be utilized to shape a provincial strategy for implementing MCCs. However, further research is required to understand barriers and enablers to establish and maintain MCCs, especially in community practice.
Literature
1.
Gouveia J, Coleman MP, Haward R, et al. Improving cancer control in the European union: conclusions from the Lisbon round-table under the Portuguese EU presidency, 2007. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:1457–62.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H, et al. The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer. 2001;91:1231–7.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Newman EA, Guest AB, Helvie MA, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer. 2006;107:2346–51.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Burton S, Brown G, Daniels IR, et al. MRI directed multidisciplinary team preoperative treatment strategy: the way to eliminate positive circumferential margins? Br J Cancer. 2006;94:351–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Abraham NS, Gossey JT, Davila JA, Al-Oudat S, Kramer JK. Receipt of recommended therapy by patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:1320–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Scholnik AP, Arnold DJ, Gordon DC, Wiggins JD, Voorhees EG. A new mechanism for physician participation in a tumor board. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1986;216:337–43.PubMed
7.
Lutterbach J, Pagenstecher A, Spreer J, et al. The brain tumor board: lessons to be learned from an interdisciplinary conference. Onkologie. 2005;28:22–6.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Petty JK, Vetto JT. Beyond doughnuts: tumor board recommendations influence patient care. J Cancer Educ. 2002;17:97–100.PubMed
9.
Smith DE, Davis S, Polissar L. The hospital cancer program: its impact on care of the rural cancer patient. Am Surg. 1979;45:730–7.PubMed
10.
Wright FC, De Vito C, Langer B, Hunter A, Expert Panel on Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference Standards. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: a systematic review and development of practice standards. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1002–10.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gagliardi AR, Wright FC, Davis D, McLeod RS, Urbach DR. Challenges in multidisciplinary cancer care among general surgeons in Canada. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:59.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Gagliardi AR, Wright FC, Anderson MA, Davis D. The role of collegial interaction in continuing professional development. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2007;27:214–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Delaney G, Jacob S, Iedema R, Winters M, Barton M. Comparison of face-to-face and videoconferenced multidisciplinary clinical meetings. Australas Radiol. 2004;48:487–92.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Bauman G, Winquist E, Chin J. A pilot study of regional participation in a videoconferenced multidisciplinary genitourinary tumor board. Can J Urol. 2005;12:2532–6.PubMed
15.
Kunkler IH, Rafferty P, Hill D, Henry M, Foreman D. A pilot study of tele-oncology in Scotland. J Telemed Telecare. 1998;4:113–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Qaddoumi I, Mansour A, Musharbash A, et al. Impact of telemedicine on pediatric neuro-oncology in a developing country: the Jordanian-Canadian experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;48:39–43.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Fielding RG, Macnab M, Swann S, et al. Attitudes of breast cancer professionals to conventional and telemedicine-delivered multidisciplinary breast meetings. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11(Suppl 2):S29–34.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Dickson-Witmer D. A statewide community cancer center videoconferencing program. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15:3058–64.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Urbach DR, Simunovic M, Schultz SE. Cancer Surgery in Ontario ICES Atlas. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences: Toronto, Canada; 2008.
21.
Gagliardi A, Smith A, Goel V, DePetrillo D. Feasibility study of multidisciplinary oncology rounds by videoconference for surgeons in remote locales. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2003;3:7.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Haward R, Amir Z, Borrill C, et al. Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectiveness. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:15–22.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Loughrey GJ, Carrington BM, Anderson H, Dobson MJ, Lo Ying Ping F. The value of specialist oncological radiology review of cross-sectional imaging. Clin Radiol. 1999;54:149–54; discussion 154–5.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kane B, Luz S, O’Briain DS, McDermott R. Multidisciplinary team meetings and their impact on workflow in radiology and pathology departments. BMC Med. 2007;5:15.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Van Belle S. How to implement the multidisciplinary approach in prostate cancer management: the Belgian model. BJU Int. 2008;101(Suppl 2):2–4.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Bradley EH, Holmboe ES, Mattera JA, Roumanis SA, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM. A qualitative study of increasing beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction: why do some hospitals succeed? JAMA. 2001;285:2604–11.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Helfrich CD, Weiner BJ, McKinney MM, Minasian L. Determinants of implementation effectiveness: adapting a framework for complex innovations. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64:279–303.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Kelly MJ, Lloyd TDR, Marshall D, Garcea G, Sutton CD, Beach M. Original article: a snapshot of MDT working and patient mapping in the UK colorectal cancer centres in 2002. Colorectal Dis. 2003;5:577–81.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Acher PL, Young AJ, Etherington-Foy R, McCahy PJ, Deane AM. Improving outcomes in urological cancers: the impact of “multidisciplinary team meetings.” Int J Surg. 2005;3:121–3.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20:61–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences: Identifying Opportunities to Promote Implementation
Authors
F. C. Wright, MD, MEd
N. Lookhong, MSc, MD
D. Urbach, MSc, MD
D. Davis, MD
R. S. McLeod, MSc, MD
A. R. Gagliardi, PhD
Publication date
01-10-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2009
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0639-6

Other articles of this Issue 10/2009

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2009 Go to the issue

Translational Research and Biomarkers

Mitochondrial Genomic Instability in Colorectal Cancer: No Correlation to Nuclear Microsatellite Instability and Allelic Deletion of hMSH2, hMLH1, and p53 Genes, but Prediction of Better Survival for Dukes’ Stage C Disease

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Clinical Impact of Positive Surgical Margin Status on Gastric Cancer Patients Undergoing Gastrectomy

Melanomas

In Reply: Cost-Effectiveness of Sentinel Node Biopsy for Melanoma

Gynecologic Oncology

The Risk of Lymph Node Metastasis Based on Myometrial Invasion and Tumor Grade in Endometrioid Uterine Cancers: A Multicenter, Retrospective Korean Study

Breast Oncology

Mastectomies on the Rise for Breast Cancer: “The Tide Is Changing”

Breast Oncology

Obtaining Adequate Surgical Margins in Breast-Conserving Therapy for Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Current Modalities and Future Directions