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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 8/2016

Open Access 01-08-2016 | Gastrointestinal Oncology

Is there a Benefit of Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings for Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies?

Authors: Yara L. Basta, MD, Onno L. Baur, MSc, Susan van Dieren, PhD, Jean H. G. Klinkenbijl, MD, PhD, Paul Fockens, MD, PhD, Kristien M. A. J. Tytgat, MD, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 8/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Multidisciplinary cancer team meetings are intended to optimize the diagnosis of a patient with a malignancy. The aim of this study was to assess the number of correct diagnoses formulated by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) and whether MDT decisions were implemented.

Methods

In a prospective study, data of consecutive patients discussed at gastrointestinal oncology MDT meetings were studied, and MDT diagnoses were validated with pathology or follow-up. Factors of influence on the correct diagnosis were identified by use of a Poisson regression model. Electronic patient records were used to assess whether MDT decisions were implemented, and reasons to deviate from these decisions were hand-searched within these records.

Results

In 74 MDT meetings, 551 patients were discussed a total of 691 times. The MDTs formulated a correct diagnosis for 515/551 patients (93.4 %), and for 120/551 (21.8 %) patients the MDT changed the referral diagnosis. Of the MDT diagnoses, 451/515 (87.6 %) were validated with pathology. Patients presented to the MDT by their treating physician were 20 % more likely to receive a correct diagnosis [relative risk (RR) 1.2, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.1–1.5], while the number of patients discussed or the duration of the meeting had no influence on this (RR 1.0, 95 % CI 0.99–1.0; RR 1.0, 95 % CI 0.9–1.1; resp.). MDT decisions were implemented in 94.4 % of cases. Deviations of MDT decisions occurred when a patient’s wishes or physical condition were not taken into account.

Conclusions

MDTs rectify 20 % of the referral diagnoses. The presence of the treating physician is the most important factor to ensure a correct diagnosis and adherence to the treatment plan.
Literature
1.
Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Taylor C, Vincent C, Green JS. Multidisciplinary team working across different tumour types: analysis of a national survey. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(5):1293–1300.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Mostafid H, Vincent C, Green JS. Quality improvement in multidisciplinary cancer teams: an investigation of teamwork and clinical decision-making and cross-validation of assessments. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(13):3535–3543.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Lamb BW, Brown KF, Nagpal K, Vincent C, Green JS, Sevdalis N. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(8):2116–2125.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kurpad R, Kim W, Rathmell WK, et al. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of urologic malignancies: does it influence diagnostic and treatment decisions? Urol Oncol. 2011;29(4):378–382.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Signaleringscommissie Kanker van KWF Kankerbestrijding. Kanker in Nederland, Trends, prognoses en implicaties voor zorgvraag [Signalling Comittee Cancer of the Dutch Cancer Society. Cancer in the Netherlands: Trends, prognosis and implications for the demand for care]. Amsterdam: Report of the Dutch Cancer Society; 2004.
6.
Department of Health. Manual for cancer services 2004. London: Department of Health;2004.
7.
Kesson EM, Allardice GM, George WD, Burns HJ, Morrison DS. Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 women. BMJ. 2012;344:e2718.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Stephens MR, Lewis WG, Brewster AE, et al. Multidisciplinary team management is associated with improved outcomes after surgery for esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2006;19(3):164–171.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Lamb BW, Green JS, Benn J, Brown KF, Vincent CA, Sevdalis N. Improving decision making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: prospective longitudinal evaluation of a multicomponent intervention for 1,421 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(3):412–420.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hong NJL, Gagliardi AR, Bronskill SE, Paszat LF, Wright FC. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: exploring obstacles and facilitators to their implementation. J Oncol Pract. 2010;6(2):61–68.CrossRef
11.
Blazeby JM, Wilson L, Metcalfe C, Nicklin J, English R, Donovan JL. Analysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teams. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(3):457–460.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Lamb B, Green JS, Vincent C, Sevdalis N. Decision making in surgical oncology. Surg Oncol. 2011;20(3):163–168.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Lanceley A, Savage J, Menon U, Jacobs I. Influences on multidisciplinary team decision-making. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(2):215–222.CrossRefPubMed
14.
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(10):2346–2351.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Sundi D, Cohen JE, Cole AP, et al. Establishment of a new prostate cancer multidisciplinary clinic: format and initial experience. Prostate. 2015;75(2):191–199.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Fleissig A, Jenkins V, Catt S, Fallowfield L. Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK? Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(11):935–943.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Jalil R, Ahmed M, Green JS, Sevdalis N. Factors that can make an impact on decision-making and decision implementation in cancer multidisciplinary teams: an interview study of the provider perspective. Int J Surg. 2013;11(5):389–394.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Ngwenyama O, Guergachi A, McLaren T. Using the learning curve to maximize IT productivity: A decision analysis model for timing software upgrades. Int J Prod Econ. 2007;105(2):524–535.CrossRef
19.
Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702–706.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Davies AR, Deans DA, Penman I, et al. The multidisciplinary team meeting improves staging accuracy and treatment selection for gastro-esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2006;19(6):496–503.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, et al. Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ. 2010;340:c951.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zhang J, Mavros MN, Cosgrove D, et al. Impact of a single-day multidisciplinary clinic on the management of patients with liver tumours. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(2):e123–131.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Pawlik TM, Laheru D, Hruban RH, et al. Evaluating the impact of a single-day multidisciplinary clinic on the management of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(8):2081–2088.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Is there a Benefit of Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings for Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies?
Authors
Yara L. Basta, MD
Onno L. Baur, MSc
Susan van Dieren, PhD
Jean H. G. Klinkenbijl, MD, PhD
Paul Fockens, MD, PhD
Kristien M. A. J. Tytgat, MD, PhD
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5178-3

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 8/2016 Go to the issue

Thoracic Oncology

Outcomes of Surgical Resection of T1bN0 Esophageal Cancer and Assessment of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Identifying Low-Risk Cancers Appropriate for Endoscopic Therapy

Breast Oncology

Late Axillary Recurrence After Negative Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy is Uncommon

Endocrine Tumors

Racial Disparities in Initial Presentation of Benign Thyroid Disease for Resection

Colorectal Cancer

KRAS and Combined KRAS/TP53 Mutations in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer are Independently Associated with Decreased Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy

Breast Oncology

Post-mastectomy Radiation: Should Subtype Factor into the Decision?

Thoracic Oncology

Waiting Time from Diagnosis to Treatment has no Impact on Survival in Patients with Esophageal Cancer