Transition to a virtual multidisciplinary tumor board during the COVID-19 pandemic: University of Pittsburgh experience

Multidisciplinary approach to treating complex immune dysregulation disorders: an adaptive model for institutional implementation

Patients with immune dysregulation may present with varying combinations of autoimmunity, autoinflammation, immunodeficiency, atopy, lymphoproliferation, and/or malignancy, often with multisystem involvement. Recognizing specific patterns of immune dysregulation, coordinating and interpreting complex diagnostic testing, and choosing initial (often empiric) treatment can be challenging. Centers are increasingly assembling multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) to standardize evaluation and optimize treatment of patients with complex immune dysregulation (immune dysregulation MDTs [immMDTs]). However, published information on the composition and function of immMDTs is sparse, and there is little guidance for those seeking to establish or optimize an immMDT. To inform this review, we assembled a panel of 24 pediatric providers from multiple specialties who actively participate in immMDTs to provide expert opinion. We also conducted a search of the available information on pediatric immMDTs from PubMed. Based on these insights, we summarize the structure and function of active immMDTs across the United States and focus on best practices and context-dependent solutions that may enable institutions with varying goals, patient populations, and resources to establish an immMDT.

Quality Improvement of Single-Institution Craniofacial Center Multidisciplinary Meetings Using Standardized Meeting Guides

Objectives

The American Cleft Palate Association-Craniofacial Association (ACPA-CPF) recommends regular multidisciplinary team meetings for comprehensive craniofacial patient care, yet standardized meeting guidelines are lacking. Lack of standardization may result in varying quality of care within and between institutions, as well as difficulty in creation of new multidisciplinary craniofacial teams at institutions without one. This study sought to assess craniofacial multidisciplinary team meetings and determine the utility of a meeting guidance tool in such meetings. It was set in a single institution's craniofacial center, and participants included multidisciplinary team members.

Methods

This project used the Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement method, completed in two phases. In the project's first phase, craniofacial team members assessed their current meetings with an evaluation instrument previously created. The evaluation results identified areas needing improvement, and a new meeting guide was created and implemented over four meetings. Team members also completed a survey comparing historical versus new meeting structures.

Results

Initial meeting quality was perceived positively, but evaluation with a standardized instrument revealed deficiencies, particularly in case presentation topics. Implementing a custom guide improved the provision of current and historical patient information and treatment plan summarization, although excessive repetition persisted. Adjustments to the custom meeting guide led to further quality enhancement, particularly in case presentation efficiency and meeting effectiveness.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary team meetings are vital for comprehensive craniofacial care, but ensuring consistent quality is challenging. Our study demonstrates the value of utilizing standardized meeting guides to evaluate and create custom guides leading to quality improvement. Ongoing refinement is essential to address persisting issues and optimize patient outcomes.

Level of Evidence

5.

Use of telehealth to improve healthcare access and outcomes in surgical oncology

The dimensions of healthcare access includes availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, and accessibility. Many patients face significant barriers to accessing oncologic care and subsequently, health outcomes are suboptimal. Telehealth offers an opportunity to mitigate many of these barriers to improve health access and outcomes. This review discusses how telehealth can be leveraged to improve healthcare access in surgical oncology while also highlighting important challenges to realizing the full potential of this mode of healthcare delivery.

Understanding the effectiveness and quality of virtual cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs): a systematic scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Cancer multi-disciplinary team meetings (MDTM) assemble clinical experts to make diagnostic and treatment recommendations. MDTMs can take place in person, virtually, or in a hybrid format. Virtual and hybrid MDTMs have been in use for over two decades. This systematic scoping review aims to map the evidence on virtual and hybrid MDTM formats over time, providing insights into their quality, and the facilitators and barriers to their effective delivery.

METHODS

The PRISMA scoping review checklist has been followed. A systematic search of PubMed, PsychINFO, and Embase between 1990-2023 identified 9399 records. These were independently screened by two researchers to identify primary research of any design that assessed quality or effectiveness of cancer VMDTMs. Results were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

Eight quantitative, two qualitative and three mixed-methods studies were included. All were observational and most were retrospective (n = 8). Varied outcome measures were used to evaluate meeting quality, including treatment recommendations, survival, time from diagnosis, and overall attendance. VMDTMs were superior (N = 6) or sometimes equivalent (N = 4) to face-to-face meetings. Studies identified implementation factors critical to their effective delivery, including internet-stability and chairing.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneous literature suggests VMDTMs offer some benefits over face-to-face meetings. Training and infrastructure are key to prevent risks to patient safety. A definitive comparative evaluation is needed to inform best practice.

Surgical management of rare hepatobiliary sarcomas in a regional teaching hospital: a collaborative model for optimal care with case studies

Sarcomas are challenging and conventionally referred to sarcoma specialist centres. In select cases with required surgical expertise, collaboration with a quaternary sarcoma centre rather than an upfront transfer of care may reduce logistic challenges without compromising patient care.We present a case series of three rare tumours of hepatobiliary origin-two cases of undifferentiated embryonal liver sarcoma in adults and one case of follicular dendritic sarcoma of the cystic lymph node.All three patients underwent surgery in a non-sarcoma specialist centre by hepatobiliary specialist surgeons with concurrent remote referrals to a sarcoma specialist quaternary centre. Both centres belong to the same cluster. R0 resection and no significant postoperative morbidity were achieved. All three patients currently remain disease-free.The unique and integrated healthcare systems within Singapore render cross-institution management possible. This case series suggests that an established setup for cross-centre collaboration facilitates wholistic patient care with good outcomes.

Interdisciplinary Pain Board for Managing Patients with Palliative Care Needs and Substance Use Disorder: A Pilot Study

Context: Patients with cancer-related pain and concurrent substance use disorder (SUD) present a unique set of challenges for palliative care clinicians. A structured forum for interdisciplinary collaboration is needed to effectively manage this complex population. Objectives: Describe the feasibility and acceptability of a palliative care Complex Pain Board (CPB), an interdisciplinary team meeting to provide concrete care recommendations for patients with cancer-related pain and concurrent SUD and/or psychosocial complexity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of cases presented at CPB between May 2021 and June 2022 and a cross-sectional analysis of CBP participant surveys. Results: Among 28 cases included for analysis, gastrointestinal cancers (n = 7, 25.9%) and multiple myeloma (n = 5, 18.5%) were the most frequent cancer diagnoses. Primary reasons for referral were SUD (n = 22, 78.6%) and provider/team distress (n = 13, 46.4%). The most frequent recommendations made at CBP were encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration (n = 18, 64.3%), maintaining healthy boundaries (n = 15, 53.6%), and SUD management (n = 13, 46.4%). Of 14 scheduled meetings, most meetings involved the presentation of ≥1 cases (n = 12, 86%). Among 40 CBP participant surveys, most attendees (n = 38, 95%) were likely or highly likely to continue to attend. Conclusion: CPB is a feasible and acceptable intervention that allows for palliative care clinicians to collaborate and receive interdisciplinary team feedback and peer support on the management of patients with cancer-related pain and concurrent SUD and/or psychosocial complexity in the ambulatory care setting. Key Message: A regular, interdisciplinary team meeting (CPB) is a feasible and acceptable intervention to help palliative care clinicians manage challenging cases involving patients with cancer and concurrent SUD and/or psychosocial complexity.

Improving Craniofacial Team Collaboration: A Multicenter Interview Study of Effective Team Meetings

Objective

In the USA, the American Cleft Palate Association-Craniofacial Association (ACPA-CPF) specifies guidelines to ensure craniofacial teams function in a multidisciplinary fashion to provide care in a sequence that mirrors the patient's needs. Among these guidelines is the expectation that teams hold regular multidisciplinary team meetings to discuss patient care. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that contribute to optimal team functioning during these meetings. The impact of the virtual format on meetings was also evaluated.

Design

One-hour semi-structured interviews of craniofacial team members, queried on current and ideal team meetings, were conducted from December 2020 - January 2021. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify common themes until thematic saturation was achieved.

Setting/Participants

Sixteen team members from three major American craniofacial centers were interviewed virtually.

Results

Three major categories were identified as integral to successful meetings: (1) meeting content, (2) meeting processes, and (3) team dynamics. Within these categories are several factors that participants reported as important to optimize their multidisciplinary meetings: key content for discussions, integration of patient perspective, recognition of collaboration in determining proper sequence of treatments, an attentive discussion leader promoting equitable discussions, managing absences, and team diversity. Participants also identified benefits and pitfalls of hosting meetings in the virtual setting, including lack of engagement and awkward communication.

Conclusion

Diverse groups of disciplines are expected to come together during craniofacial multidisciplinary meetings to formulate intricate care plans for complex patients. In this study, craniofacial team members have identified several key factors to optimize these meetings. The research group used these factors to propose a self-evaluation instrument for meeting quality improvement, provided in printable format. Further studies should evaluate how implementation of these factors affects meetings and ultimately guides patient care.

Mixed Reality as a Digital Visualisation Solution for the Head and Neck Tumour Board: Application Creation and Implementation Study

The preparation and implementation of interdisciplinary oncological case reviews are time-consuming and complex. The variety of clinical and radiological information must be presented in a clear and comprehensible manner. Only if all relevant patient-specific information is demonstrated in a short time frame can well-founded treatment decisions be made on this basis. Mixed reality (MR) technology as a multimodal interactive user interface could enhance understanding in multidisciplinary collaboration by visualising radiological or clinical data. The aim of the work was to develop an MR-based software prototype for a head and neck tumour board (HNTB) to support clinical decision-making. The article describes the development phases and workflows in the planning and creation of a MR-based software prototype that were required to meet the multidisciplinary characteristics of a HNTB.

The Use of Tele-Education in Medicine, During and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Commentary

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged initially as an isolated illness in December 2019 and later progressed to a global pandemic. Hard-hit areas were lockdown, massively disrupting medical education activities. Tele-education, previously used as a means of long-distance education emerged as a solution in the field of medical education. Tele-rotations for medical students, journal clubs and lectures via Microsoft teams, medical conferences via zoom, residency, and fellowship interviews online, all emerged during this pandemic. Some medical students and trainees found it enjoyable, cost-effective, time saving, feasible, unbiased, and preferred mode of education. Challenges related to supervision, availability, affordability, diminished communication, disturbance of streaming, or distractions due to environment. Tele-education has had a boom in the era of COVID-19. Research is needed further on effective mentoring and supervision of trainees via tele educational teaching models.

Education Research: Virtual Patient Management Conference for Epilepsy Surgery in the Post-COVID-19 Era: An Educational Perspective

Background and Objectives

The primary objective of this study was to assess the potential educational value of a virtual patient management conference (PMC) with the introduction of inclusive anonymous polling at a comprehensive epilepsy center. The secondary objective was to evaluate differences between faculty and trainee polling results.

Methods

Two online surveys were sent 1 year apart seeking opinions about a transition to virtual PMC and completed by virtual PMC faculty participants (including representatives from neurology, neurosurgery, and neuropsychology). One online survey was sent to trainees (medical students, residents, and fellows) to assess the educational value of the conference. Anonymous electronic polls surveying treatment options were completed by both faculty and trainees after each virtual PMC presentation but before discussing the case. The results were collected and analyzed over 16 months, including over the course of 1 academic year. The degree of consensus was determined by the maximum percentage of votes that a single choice received.

Results

Eleven faculty and 22 trainees responded to their respective surveys. The initial faculty survey revealed that 60.0% of faculty had an "excellent" or "very good" experience with virtual PMC; 1 year later, this proportion increased to 100.0% while trainees reported 90.9%. Each virtual PMC component, including perceived standard of care, was found to be "excellent" or "very good" by most faculty and trainees, and most (91% faculty, 63.7% trainees) were equally comfortable or more comfortable expressing opinions during the virtual discussion. During virtual PMC polls, faculty members were significantly more likely to vote for vagus nerve stimulation as a treatment option, while trainees were more likely to opt for responsive neurostimulation. Linear regression over the course of the academic year showed stable consensus over time for both faculty and trainees; however, the match between faculty and trainee consensus significantly increased over the academic year.

Discussion

Our results demonstrate that the virtual PMC constitutes an effective educational experience as an alternative to in-person conferences for the management of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Presumptive Diagnosis in Tele-Health Laryngology: A Multi-Center Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient visits were adapted for the virtual setting, forcing laryngologists to presume certain diagnoses without the aid of laryngoscopy, solely based on history and the limited physical exam available via video visit. This study aims to examine the accuracy of presumptive diagnoses made via telemedicine, compared to subsequent in-person follow up, where endoscopic examination could confirm or refute suspected diagnoses.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of 38 patients evaluated for voice-related issues at NYU Langone Health and the University of California-San Francisco. Presumptive diagnoses at the initial telemedicine encounter were noted, along with diagnostic cues used for clinical reasoning and recommended treatment plans. These presumptive diagnoses were compared to diagnoses and plans established following laryngoscopy at follow-up in-person visits.

RESULTS

After laryngoscopy at the first in-person visit, 38% of presumptive diagnoses changed, as did 37% of treatment plans. The accuracy varied among conditions. Muscle tension dysphonia and Reinke's edema were accurately diagnosed without laryngoscopy, but other conditions, including vocal fold paralysis and subglottic stenosis, were not initially suspected, relying on laryngoscopy for diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

While some laryngologic conditions may be reasonably identified without in-person examination, laryngoscopy remains central to definitive diagnosis and treatment. Telemedicine can increase access to care, but it may provide more utility as a screening tool, triaging which patients should present more urgently for in-person laryngoscopy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

How well does the virtual format of oncology multidisciplinary team meetings work? An assessment of participants' perspectives and limitations: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Virtual multidisciplinary team meetings (VMDTM) provide a standard of care that is not limited by physical distance or social restrictions. And so, when the COVID-19 pandemic imposed irrefutable social restrictions and made in-person meetings impossible, many hospitals switched to the VMDTMs. Although the pandemic might have highlighted the ease of VMDTMs, these virtual meetings have existed over the past decade, albeit less in importance. Despite their recent importance, no review has previously assessed the feasibility of VMDTMs through the eyes of the participants, the barriers participants face, nor their comparison with the in-person format. We undertook this scoping review to map existing literature and assess the perspectives of VMDTM participants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from inception till July 1st, 2023 to select studies that evaluated the perspectives of participants of VMDTMs regarding the core components that make up a VMDMT. Four authors, independently, extracted data from all included studies. Two authors separated data into major themes and sub-themes.

RESULTS

We identified six core, intrinsic aspects of a VMDTM that are essential to its structure: (1) organization, (2) case discussion and decision-making, (3) teamwork and communication, (4) training and education, (5) technology, and (6) patient-related aspect. VMDTMs have a high overall satisfaction rating amongst participants. The preference, however, is for a hybrid model of multidisciplinary teams. VMDTMs offer support to isolated physicians, help address complex cases, and offer information that may not be available elsewhere. The periodical nature of VMDTMs is appropriate for their consideration as CMEs. Adequate technology is paramount to the sustenance of the format.

CONCLUSION

VMDTMs are efficient and offer a multidisciplinary consensus without geographical limitations. Despite certain technical and social limitations, VMDTM participants are highly satisfied with the format, although the preference lies with a hybrid model.

Pivoting to telemedicine in a single-day multidisciplinary liver tumor clinic during COVID-19: the Texas Liver Tumor Center experience

Cancer guidelines recommend that all patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have an evaluation by a multidisciplinary team to assess liver health, stage the cancer, and discuss treatment and palliative care options. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had a catastrophic impact on patients with cancer resulting in increased disease burden due to late diagnosis and treatment delays. Late diagnosis has highlighted the need for the early intervention of palliative care for patients with HCC. Conversion to telemedicine has been essential to caring for patients with all stages of cancer without added delays. Texas Liver Tumor Center (TLTC) offers patients with liver cancer at any stage a single-day multidisciplinary evaluation with tumor board review facilitating the early integration of treatment and palliative care services. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines support increasing and improving access to palliative care. TLTC allows for the early integration of palliative care within a 1-day clinic model with an incorporated tumor board. This unique model of patient care decreases the burden of separate patient visits, may expedite the time from diagnosis to first treatment, facilitates the early intervention of palliative care specialists, and allows for optimal screening for clinical trials. In this review, we will provide an overview of the current multidisciplinary models of care for HCC and describe the successful pivot of TLTC from a fully in-person single-day multidisciplinary clinic with a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) to a fully virtual experience, thereby maintaining access to this unique clinical model of patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ability to pivot from in-person clinical visits to completely virtual visits increases patient access to care and enables more physicians to participate. Areas for future study include the impact on patient experience, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of this high-resource model.

Multidisciplinary tumor board for head and neck cancer from the perspective of medical oncologists-optimizing its effectiveness

Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary, and patient characteristics vary. Therefore, a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) is essential in clinical practice. This review provides insights into the benefits and tips for improving head and neck MTB from the perspective of medical oncologists. The MTB is a platform to discuss the optimal application of the standard of care to each case, reach a consensus, and establish a recommendation to support patients' decision-making. A productive and educational MTB also provides an opportunity to share information on ongoing clinical trials with physicians. Case presentations should be systematic to discuss all new and challenging cases before, during, and after the treatment. Human resource development, particularly of head and neck medical oncologists, is crucial. The type of multidisciplinary network between medical staff and the extent of patient intervention differs among MTB teams. Subsequently, a virtual MTB can establish a medical network between institutions that will contribute to the equalization and centralization of head and neck oncologic care.

[Extended Reality (XR) - Applications in Thoracic Surgery]

Extended reality (XR) includes the sub-terms of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) and describes interactive and immersive technologies that replace the real world with digital elements or seamlessly extend it with such approaches. XR thus offers a very wide range of possible applications in medicine. In surgery, and thoracic surgery in particular, XR technologies can be harnessed for treatment planning, navigation, training, and patient information. Such applications are increasingly being tested and need to be evaluated. We provide an overview of the status quo of technical development, current surgical applications of XR, and look into the future of the medical XR landscape with integration of artificial intelligence (AI).

Changing from face-to-face to virtual meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic: protocol for a mixed-methods study exploring the impact on cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings

INTRODUCTION

In the UK, the National Cancer Plan (2000) requires every cancer patient's care to be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Since the introduction of these guidelines, MDTs have faced escalating demands with increasing numbers and complexity of cases. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented MDTs with the challenge of running MDT meetings virtually rather than face-to-face.This study aims to explore how the change from face-to-face to virtual MDT meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the effectiveness of decision-making in cancer MDT meetings and to make recommendations to improve future cancer MDT working based on the findings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed-methods study with three parallel phases:Semistructured remote qualitative interviews with ≤40 cancer MDT members.A national cross-sectional online survey of cancer MDT members in England, using a validated questionnaire with both multiple-choice and free-text questions.Live observations of ≥6 virtual/hybrid cancer MDT meetings at four NHS Trusts.Participants will be recruited from Cancer Alliances in England. Data collection tools have been developed in consultation with stakeholders, based on a conceptual framework devised from decision-making models and MDT guidelines. Quantitative data will be summarised descriptively, and χ² tests run to explore associations. Qualitative data will be analysed using applied thematic analysis. Using a convergent design, mixed-methods data will be triangulated guided by the conceptual framework.The study has been approved by NHS Research Ethics Committee (London-Hampstead) (22/HRA/0177). The results will be shared through peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences. A report summarising key findings will be used to develop a resource pack for MDTs to translate learnings from this study into improved effectiveness of virtual MDT meetings.The study has been registered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D2NHW).

Establishing a Multicenter Network for Patients With Thyroid Nodules and Cancer: Effects on Referral Patterns

OBJECTIVE

To perform a qualitative evaluation of the Thyroid Network, with a quantitative analysis of second opinion referrals for patients in the southwestern part of the Netherlands who have thyroid nodules and cancer.

METHODS

This prospective observational study registered all patients with thyroid nodules and cancer who were referred to the academic hospital from 2 years before and 4 years after the foundation of the Thyroid Network. We implemented biweekly regional multidisciplinary tumor boards using video conference and a regional patient care pathway for patients with thyroid nodules and cancer. For qualitative evaluation, interviews were conducted with a broad selection of stakeholders via maximum variation sampling. The primary outcome was the change in second opinions after the foundation of the Thyroid Network.

RESULTS

Second opinions from Thyroid Network hospitals to the academic hospital decreased from 10 (30%) to 2 (7%) two years after the start of the Thyroid Network (P = .001), while patient referrals remained stable (n = 108 to 106). Qualitative evaluation indicated that the uniform care pathway and the regional multidisciplinary tumor board were valued high.

DISCUSSION

Establishing a regional network, including multidisciplinary tumor boards and a care pathway for patients with thyroid nodules and cancer, resulted in a decrease in second opinions of in-network hospitals and high satisfaction of participating specialists.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The concept of the Thyroid Network could spread to other regions as well as to other specialties in health care. Future steps would be to assess the effect of regional collaboration on quality of care and patient satisfaction.

Virtual versus in-person multidisciplinary musculoskeletal tumor conferences in times of COVID-19

Introduction

Multidisciplinary tumor conferences are a fundamental component in the treatment of oncological patients. The COVID-19 pandemic and its resulting social distancing restrictions offered the opportunity to compare in-person to virtual multidisciplinary tumor conferences.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of first-time presentations in tumor conferences at a university musculoskeletal tumor center in the time periods from September 2019 to February 2020 (in-person) and May 2020 to October 2020 (virtual).

Results

A total of 209 patients were first-time discussed in one of 52 analyzed musculoskeletal multidisciplinary tumor conferences (105 patients in 25 in-person, and 104 patients 27 virtual meetings). The total number of participants was slightly lower with virtual meetings (p < .001) and more disciplines were represented in virtual tumor conferences (p < .001). With median six consultants present in either, the level of available expertise did not differ between the conference formats (p  =  .606). Compared to in-person tumor meetings, the patients were discussed earlier in the virtual conferences (p  =  .028). The interval between first presentation to biopsy was significantly shorter after virtual tumor conferences (median 4 vs. 7 days, p < .001). There was no significant difference in the interval between initial presentation and resection (p  =  .544) among the two conference formats.

Conclusions

The implementation of virtual tumor conferences appears to have had a positive effect on timely diagnosis and multidisciplinarity during tumor conferences. This may result in better decision-making and treatment of patients with musculoskeletal tumors and could be routinely implemented into cancer care.

Regionalization of Head and Neck Oncology Tumor Boards: Perspectives of Collaborating Physicians

Objectives

To survey academic and community physician preferences regarding the virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) for further improvement and expansion.

Study Design

This anonymous 14-question survey was sent to individuals that participated in the head and neck virtual MTBs. The survey was sent via email beginning August 3, 2021, through October 5, 2021.

Setting

The University of Maryland Medical Center and regional practices in the state of Maryland.

Methods

Survey responses were recorded and presented as percentages. Subset analysis was performed to obtain frequency distributions by facility and provider type.

Results

There were 50 survey responses obtained with a response rate of 56%. Survey participants included 11 surgeons (22%), 19 radiation oncologists (38%), and 8 medical oncologists (16%), amongst others. More than 96% of participants found the virtual MTB to be useful when discussing complex cases and impactful to future patient care. A majority of respondents perceived a reduction in time to adjuvant care (64%). Community and academic physician responses strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improved communication (82% vs 73%), provided patient-specific information for cancer care (82% vs 73%), and improved access to other specialties (66% vs 64%). Academic physicians, more so than community physicians, strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improves access to clinical trial enrollment (64% vs 29%) and can be useful in obtaining CME (64% vs 55%).

Conclusion

Academic and community physicians view the virtual MTB favorably. This platform can be adapted regionally and further expanded to improve communication between physicians and improve multidisciplinary care for patients.

The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mortality of Patients Hospitalized in Surgical Services in Romania: A Cross-Sectional Study of a National Survey

Surgical practice worldwide has changed rapidly in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The study aimed to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality, in hospitalized patients, in Romanian surgical services. We have developed our research on a national survey of the consecutive records of hospitalizations, surgical interventions and deaths performed in Romania between March and August 2020. Results show that 47 surgical departments responded to the request. The admissions in the period March–August 2020 represented 52% of that from the similar period of 2019. In the studied period, the share of surgical interventions in patients admitted to non-COVID-19 centres was 98.7%, respectively 78.2% in COVID-19 support hospitals (p < 0.05), and emergency interventions of 43.4% in non-COVID-19 hospitals, respectively 84.8% in COVID-19 support hospitals (p < 0.05). Overall mortality in this period was 5.82%, compared to 3.28% in a similar period in 2019, (p < 0.05). Postoperative mortality in COVID-19-positive patients was 19%. In conclusion, in the hospitals in Romania included in the survey, the overall mortality in the studied period was higher than in a similar period in 2019. In patients with COVID-19 positive, the recorded postoperative mortality was higher than overall mortality.

Impact of thoracic multidisciplinary tumor boards on the management of patients with cancer: A retrospective study at the American university of Beirut medical center

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT) provide an opportunity for experts from different specialties and expertise to pool and complement each other's experience and inputs. Several factors impact the MDT discussions, including the meeting's structure, time management, and expert leadership. The process of MDT, their utilization, and efficacy need continuous assessment and improvement. A retrospective study was conducted to review the process of thoracic MDT, their plans of therapy, and changes in diagnosis and treatment plans for patients with cancer at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) over the period of one year. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients presented at the thoracic MDT who had a change in their treatment plan after the presentation. A total of 214 cases were scheduled for thoracic MDT during the study period. The majority, 132 (61.7%) did not have a treatment plan before presenting in the MDT. Of the 195 cases presented, only 43 (22.0%) did not have a change in their plan, while 88 (45.2%) of the cases presented had a change in their treatment plan. A total of 64 (32.8%) cases consisted of discussion of the diagnosis during MDT with either confirmation or modification of the patients' diagnosis. Of the 195 cases that were presented, the majority, 170 (87.2%), had their recommended treatment plan implemented after the MDT discussion. There was an association between the stage of cancer at the time of presentation and requesting additional tests (P=0.021), but there was no association between the stage of cancer and change in treatment plan (P=0.177) nor with implementation of recommendation (P=0.217). MDT are used to make upfront management decisions. In addition to considering change in management plans as an indicator of the benefit of MDT, it is suggested that making upfront multidisciplinary plans shall be considered an additional component of indicators of the benefit of MDT.

Telemedizin in der HNO-Heilkunde – wirklich ein Allheilmittel?

Die Digitalisierung im Gesundheitswesen hat in den letzten Jahren und insbesondere auch durch die COVID-19-Pandemie erheblich an Bedeutung gewonnen. Die Pandemie hat unbestritten die menschlichen Interaktionen stark eingeschränkt. Im Hinblick auf das Infektionsrisiko und auch in Anbetracht der sinkenden Zahl an ärztlichen Konsultationen durch Patienten aufgrund der Angst vor einer Infektion musste die Ärzteschaft neue Plattformen für Arzt-Patienten-Interaktion und -Kommunikation suchen und erreichte diese Ziele vorwiegend durch eine beschleunigte Entwicklung der Digitalisierungsprozesse und der Telemedizin. In der HNO-Heilkunde ist mit dem Begriff der Telemedizin in der Regel eine Videosprechstunde (VS) bzw. Telekonsultation gemeint. Prinzipiell gehören HNO-Ärzte zu der Facharztgruppe, die Videosprechstunden durchführen und abrechnen dürfen. Der Datenschutz und juristische Aspekte stellen die größten Herausforderungen für das Angebot telemedizinischer Leistungen dar. Unter ethischen Gesichtspunkten muss vor jeder telemedizinischen Beratung auch zwingend eine Aufklärung über Risiken und Nachteile dieses Verfahrens erfolgen, wobei die Haftungsgrundlage hier grundsätzlich ebenfalls geklärt werden muss. Die Telemedizin wird sich auch in Anbetracht der Evidenz behaupten müssen. So sollten zumindest von universitärer Seite bei dem Angebot neuer telemedizinischer Verfahren begleitende Studien initiiert werden, um entsprechende Vor- und Nachteile wissenschaftlich gestützt zu evaluieren. Berufspolitisch sollte stets darauf geachtet werden, dass Telemedizin nur von Akteuren im Gesundheitswesen angeboten wird, welche auch eine persönliche Behandlung des telemedizinisch beurteilten Patienten erbringen können.

Bridging therapeutic opportunities: a survey by the Italian molecular tumor board workgroup of Alliance Against Cancer

BACKGROUND

Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) match molecular alterations with targeted anticancer drugs upon failure of the available therapeutic options. Special and local needs are most likely to emerge through the comparative analysis of MTB networks, but these are rarely reported. This manuscript summarizes the state-of-art of 16 active Italian MTBs, as it emerges from an online survey curated by Alliance Against Cancer (ACC).

MAIN TEXT

Most MTBs (13/16) are exclusively supported through local Institutional grants and meet regularly. All but one adopts a fully virtual or a mixed face-to-face/virtual calling/attendance meeting model. It appears that the ACC MTB initiative is shaping a hub-and-spoke virtual MTB network reminiscent of non-redundant, cost-effective healthcare organization models. Unfortunately, public awareness of MTB opportunities presently remains insufficient. Only one center has a website. Dedicated e-mail addresses are for the exclusive use of the MTB staff. More than half of ACC members consider a miscellanea of most or all solid and hematological malignancies, and more than one-third consider neoplasms arising at any anatomical location. The average number of Staff Members in MTBs is 9. More than 10 staff members simultaneously attend MTB meetings in 13 MTBs. A medical oncologist is invariably present and is in charge of introducing the clinical case either with (45%) or without previous discussion in organ-specific multidisciplinary Boards. All but two MTBs take charge of not only patients with no standard-of-care (SoC) therapy option, but also cases receiving NGS profiling in SoC settings, implying a larger number of yearly cases. All MTBs run targeted NGS panels. Three run whole-exome and/or RNAseq approaches. ESCAT-ESMO and/or Onco-KB levels of evidence are similarly used for diagnostic reporting. Most MTBs (11) provide a written diagnostic report within 15 days. Conclusions are invariably communicated to the patient by the medical oncologist.

CONCLUSIONS

MTB networking is crucial not only for molecular diagnosis and therapy assignment, but also for healthcare governance. Survey results show that MTBs review therapeutic opportunities at the crossover between standard-of-care with off-label, the former task being much beyond their scope. Societal and scientific implications of this beyond-the-scope MTB function may be relevant for healthcare in Italy and abroad.

Virtual Tumor Board Increases Provider Attendance and Case Presentations

PURPOSE:

Many cancer centers engage in multidisciplinary tumor board meetings to determine the optimal approach to complex cancer care. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions changed the format of these meetings from in-person to virtual. The aim of this study was to determine if the change to a virtual meeting format had an impact on attendance and cases presented.

METHODS:

Tumor board records were analyzed to obtain attendance and case presentation information at a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Twelve-month in-person tumor board data were compared with 12-month virtual tumor board data to assess for difference in attendance and case presentation patterns.

RESULTS:

Seven separate weekly tumor board meetings at the beginning of the study (breast, GI, gynecology, liver, lung, melanoma, and urology) were expanded to nine meetings on the virtual platform (+endocrine and pancreas). Overall attendance increased by 46% on the virtual platform compared with in-person meetings (4,030 virtual attendances v 2,753 in-person, P < .001). Increased attendance was present across all specialties on the virtual platform. In addition, the number of patient cases discussed increased from 2,127 in in-person meeting to 2,656 on the virtual platform (a 20% increase, P < .001).

CONCLUSION:

A significant increase was observed in overall tumor board attendance and in case presentations per meeting, requiring the expansion of additional weekly meetings. Furthermore, in a major cancer center with multiple community affiliates, virtual tumor boards may encourage increased participation from remote sites with the benefit of obtaining expert specialist advice as compared with geographically challenging in-person meetings.

Choosing Wisely Africa: Insights from the front lines of clinical care

BACKGROUND

A multidisciplinary Task Force of African oncologists and patient representatives published the Choosing Wisely Africa (CWA) recommendations in 2020. These top 10 recommendations identify low-value, unnecessary, or harmful practices that are frequently used in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In this study, we describe agreement and concordance with the recommendations from front-line oncologists across SSA.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed to members of the African Organization for Research & Training in Cancer (AORTIC) and oncology groups within SSA using a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their personal networks. The survey captured information about awareness of the CWA list, agreement with recommendations, and concordance with clinical practice. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study results.

RESULTS

52 individuals responded to the survey; 64% (33/52) were female and 58% (30/52) were clinical oncologists. Respondents represented 15 countries in SSA; 69% (36/52) practiced exclusively in the public system. Only 46% (24/52) were aware of the CWA list and 89% (46/52) agreed it would be helpful if the list was displayed in their clinic. There was generally a high agreement with the recommendations (range 84-98%); the highest agreement was related to staging/defining treatment intent (98%). The proportion of oncologists who implemented these recommendations in routine practice was somewhat lower (range 68-100%). Lowest rates of concordance related to: the use of shorter schedules of radiotherapy (67%); discussion of active surveillance forlow-risk prostate cancer (67%); only performing breast surgery for a mass that was proven to be malignant (70%); and seeking multidisciplinary input for curative intent treatment plans (73%).

CONCLUSION

While most frontline SSA oncologists agree with CWA recommendations, efforts are needed to disseminate the list. Agreement with the recommendations is high but there are gaps in implementation in routine practice. Further work is needed to understand the barriers and enablers of implementation.

The Emergence of Virtual Tumor Boards in Neuro-Oncology: Opportunities and Challenges

Background

Virtual tumor board (VTB) platforms are an important aspect of cancer management. They enable easier access to a multidisciplinary team of experts. To deliver high-quality cancer care, it is necessary to coordinate numerous therapies and providers, share technical knowledge, and maintain open lines of communication among all professionals involved. The VTB is an essential tool in the diagnosis and treatment of brain cancer. For patients with glioma and brain metastases, multidisciplinary tumor board guidelines should guide diagnosis and therapy throughout the course of the illness. VTBs are an emerging resource across various cancer care networks in the United States.

Methodology

We performed a systematic search of all VTBs incorporating a platform designed for this specific role. We reviewed the records of the Genomet VTB, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) VTB, and Xcures VTB. Summary data examined included the year of launch, demographics, characteristics of cases, average response time, advantages, and how they handle protected health information.

Results

Overall, 30% of VTBs examined were launched in 2017. All had a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant online environment. On a review of Xcures records, the median age of the female patients was 57 years and the median age of the male patients was 55 years. The data showed that 44% (4.4 out of every 10 patients) with a confirmed treatment chose the VTB integrated option. Overall, 76% of patients in the Xcures registry had primary central nervous system tumors, with at least 556 patients in the tumor registry which included 46% glioblastoma cases (96% primary, 4% secondary). In the MUSC VTB project, 112 thoracic tumor cases and nine neuro-oncology cases were reviewed. The tumor board met weekly, and the average response time was within 24 hours of case review and presentation. The Genomet VTB de-identifies all patient information; this is a virtual platform primarily focused on neuro-oncology cases. Cases involved a median of five specialists most commonly neuro-oncologists, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, molecular pathologists, and neuroradiologists. The case review revealed an age range of six months to 84 years (mean age = 44.5 years), with 69.6% males and 30.4% females, 43.5% glioblastomas, 8.7% adenocarcinomas, and 8.7% infratentorial tumors. The average response time observed in all cases was ≤24 hours.

Conclusions

VTBs allow for quicker expert analysis of cases. This has resulted in an accelerated number of cases reviewed with a shortened communication time. More studies are needed to gain additional insights into user engagement metrics.

Real-World Perspectives From Surgeons and Oncologists on Resectability Definition and Multidisciplinary Team Discussion of Stage III NSCLC in People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Macau: A Physician Survey

Introduction

Decision-making in diagnosis and management of stage III NSCLC remains complex owing to disease heterogeneity and diverse treatment options, and often warrants multidisciplinary team discussion. Specifically, the selection of patients for multimodality approaches involving surgical resection presents notable challenges owing to heterogeneity in guideline definitions and the subjective, case-specific nature of evaluating resectability on the basis of preoperative assessments.

Methods

An internet- and paper-based survey was conducted in 2020 among lung cancer specialists in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Macau. This survey captured perspectives on stage III NSCLC on real-world diagnosis/staging practice, definition and evaluation of resectability using case scenarios, and preferred treatment paradigms.

Results

A total of 60 completed responses were obtained (60.0% surgeons; 40.0% oncologists). The surgeons' and oncologists' responses differed most in the assessment of resectability in specific case scenarios despite overall agreement on top factors determining resectability (T stage, lymph node size, and lymph node location). Of the 17 scenarios, specialists agreed (≥80%) on four "resectable" and six "unresectable" scenarios; of the seven scenarios with less than 80% agreement, surgeons and oncologists had diverging responses for six scenarios. Multidisciplinary team discussions were available in most of the respondents' institutions but usually covered only selected (<50%) stage III cases.

Conclusions

This survey used a comprehensive set of stage III NSCLC case scenarios to understand how working definitions of resectability may differ between surgeons and oncologists, and thus, identify types of cases to prioritize for multidisciplinary discussions to maximize limited resources. In parallel, the development of a multidisciplinary expert consensus on treatment approaches could complement local institutional expertise as a reference for decision-making.

Barriers and facilitators to provide multidisciplinary care for breast cancer patients in five Latin American countries: A descriptive-interpretative qualitative study

Background

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) remains a cornerstone for breast cancer management as it is associated with improved quality of care and patient outcomes. However, the adoption of MDC practice is heterogeneous and has been poorly explored in Latin America. The objective was to describe barriers and possible facilitators for providing MDC to breast cancer patients in five Latin American countries.

Methods

A panel of experts with an active clinical practice in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Uruguay was convened to identify barriers and facilitators to MDC. This study is a qualitative synthesis of a structured discussion regarding the state of MDC in the setting of breast cancer.

Findings

Experts recognized that most oncology practices in Latin America do not apply a multidisciplinary approach for breast cancer patients. Predominant barriers for MDC are fragmentation of health services, being understaffed, inadequate infrastructure, and geographic disparities. Access to MDC varies widely in the region, with significant heterogeneity documented within countries. MDC practice was described as being more common in the private sector in Ecuador and Uruguay, while it is more widely implemented in public institutions of Colombia and Bolivia.

Interpretation

Establishing quality MDC remains a challenge for oncology practices in Latin America. Addressing regional issues and identifying specific local needs is warranted to encourage the adoption of an effective multidisciplinary approach and, consequently, improve clinical outcomes. Active involvement of all stakeholders is required to build locally solutions and should involve institutions, health professionals, and patients.

Funding

Research was funded by Productos Roche S.A.

Telehealth, Social Media, Patient Empowerment, and Physician Burnout: Seeking Middle Ground

The digital revolution is an ongoing process that has nevertheless profoundly affected century-old medical practice. Digitalization has many facets, ranging from telehealth to social media and even new instant communication devices, each of which affect both patients' and physicians' realities. Although the benefits of developments such as telehealth and novel applications of social media to medicine are more easily perceived by all stakeholders, they still have their own hurdles and risks, such as coldness and impersonal treatment in telehealth, and misinformation on social media. The widespread digitalization of health records has greatly facilitated patient access to health information, becoming a major patient empowerment tool; however, some forms of unrestricted access, such as to test results-in particular, prior to consultations-have unclear benefits to patients with cancer and have also become a hurdle for care teams. In addition, the advent of instant messaging, which is revolutionizing personal communication in many cultures, is gradually affecting patient-physician communication and, combined with unrestricted patient access to test results, is creating new challenges for physicians. How these transformations are affecting patients themselves and physicians' well-being and mental health are matters addressed in this text. Last, to address potential biases in an article written by two oncologists, and in line with this year's ASCO presidential theme of including a diversity of voices, we decided to give voice to patients with cancer by collecting the opinions of high-profile patient advocates about the controversial topics addressed in this text.

Shared barriers and facilitators to enrollment of adolescents and young adults on cancer clinical trials

Adolescent and young adult (AYA) enrollment in cancer clinical trials (CCT) is suboptimal. Few studies have explored site level barriers and facilitators to AYA enrollment on CCTs and the efficacy of interventions to enhance enrollment. A cross sectional survey was developed by the COG AYA Oncology Discipline Committee Responsible Investigator (RI) Network to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to enrollment, as well as opportunities to improve enrollment. Associations of barriers and facilitators to enrollment with program demographics were assessed. The survey was sent to all AYA RI Network members (n = 143) and quantitative and thematic analyses were conducted. The overall response rate was 42% (n = 60/143). Participants represented diverse institutions based on size, presence or absence of dedicated AYA programs, and proximity and relationship between pediatric and medical oncology practices within the institution. The most frequently cited barriers to enrolling AYAs in CCTs were administrative logistical issues (45%), disparate enrollment practices (42%) and communication issues (27%) between pediatric and medical oncology and perceived limited trial availability (27%). The most frequently reported facilitators to enrollment included having strong communication between pediatric and medical oncology (48%), having a supportive research infrastructure (35%) and the presence of AYA champions (33%). Many barriers and facilitators were similar across institutions and AYA program types. Shared barriers and facilitators to AYA CCT enrollment exist across the landscape of cancer care settings. Interventions aimed at increasing coordination between pediatric and medical oncology clinical trials offices and providers have high potential to improve site-level AYA enrollment.

Lessons for Oncology From the COVID-19 Pandemic: Operationalizing and Scaling Virtual Cancer Care in Health Systems

ABSTRACT

After several decades of slow expansion, the use of virtual care in oncology rapidly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from cancer centers across the country show that most patients and providers were satisfied with components of virtual care, and virtual care may be able to improve access to care. However, the rapid implementation of programs during the pandemic worsened disparities in access to virtual care. Health systems must develop strategies to monitor quality, support patients and providers, promote health equity, and overcome regulatory challenges to successfully deliver care in hybrid systems that combine in-person and virtual care.

Use of Communication Technology to Improve Clinical Trial Participation in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: Consensus Statement From the Children's Oncology Group Adolescent and Young Adult Responsible Investigator Network

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; age 15-39 years) with cancer are under-represented in cancer clinical trials because of patient, provider, and institutional barriers. Health care technology is increasingly available to and highly used among AYAs and has the potential to improve cancer care delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic forced institutions to rapidly adopt novel approaches for enrollment and monitoring of patients on cancer clinical trials, many of which have the potential for improving AYA trial participation overall. This consensus statement from the Children's Oncology Group AYA Oncology Discipline Committee reviews opportunities to use technology to optimize AYA trial enrollment and study conduct, as well as considerations for widespread implementation of these practices. The use of remote patient eligibility screening, electronic informed consent, virtual tumor boards, remote study visits, and remote patient monitoring are recommended to increase AYA access to trials and decrease the burden of participation. Widespread adoption of these strategies will require new policies focusing on reimbursement for telehealth, license portability, facile communication between electronic health record systems and advanced safeguards to maintain patient privacy and security. Studies are needed to determine optimal approaches to further incorporate technology at every stage of the clinical trial process, from enrollment through study completion.

Learning through a Pandemic: The Current State of Knowledge on COVID-19 and Cancer

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has left patients with current or past history of cancer facing disparate consequences at every stage of the cancer trajectory. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the literature on COVID-19 and cancer, including the immune response to COVID-19, risk factors for severe disease, and impact of anticancer therapies. We also review the latest data on treatment of COVID-19 and vaccination safety and efficacy in patients with cancer, as well as the impact of the pandemic on cancer care, including the urgent need for rapid evidence generation and real-world study designs. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients with cancer have faced severe consequences at every stage of the cancer journey due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the field regarding COVID-19 and cancer. We cover the immune response, risk factors for severe disease, and implications for vaccination in patients with cancer, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care delivery. Overall, this review provides an in-depth summary of the key issues facing patients with cancer during this unprecedented health crisis.

Lessons learned and keys to success: Provider experiences during the implementation of virtual oncology tumor boards in the era of COVID-19

Background and Objectives

The COVID‐19 pandemic required rapid adaptation of multidisciplinary tumor board conferences to a virtual setting; however, there are little data describing the benefits and challenges of using such a platform.

Methods

An anonymous quality improvement survey was sent to participants of tumor board meetings at a large academic institution. Participants answered questions pertaining to the relative strengths and weaknesses of in‐person and virtual settings.

Results

A total of 335 responses (23.3% response rate) were recorded, and 253 met inclusion criteria. Respondents represented 25 different tumor board meetings, with colorectal, breast, and liver (18.6%, 17.0%, and 13.0%, respectively) being the most commonly attended. Virtual tumor boards were equivalent to in‐person across 9 of 10 domains queried, while a virtual format was preferred for participation in off‐site tumor boards. The lack of networking opportunities was ranked by physicians to be a significant challenge of the virtual format. Consistent leadership and organization, engaged participation of all attendees, and upgrading technology infrastructure were considered critical for success of virtual meetings.

Conclusions

The implementation of virtual tumor board meetings has been associated with numerous challenges. However, improving several key aspects can improve participant satisfaction and ensure excellent patient care.

OUP accepted manuscript

We define cancer equity as all people having as the same opportunity for cancer prevention, treatment, and survivorship care. However, marginalized populations continue to experience avoidable and unjust disparities in cancer care, access to clinical trials, and cancer survival. Racial and ethnic minorities, and individuals with low socioeconomic status, Medicaid insurance, limited health literacy, disabilities, and mental health disorders are more likely to experience delays to cancer diagnosis and less likely to receive guideline-concordant cancer care. These disparities are impacted by the social determinants of health including structural discrimination, racism, poverty, and inequities in access to healthcare and clinical trials. There is an urgent need to develop and adapt evidence-based interventions in collaboration with community partners that have potential to address the social determinants of health and build capacity for cancer care for underserved populations. We established the Virtual Equity Hub by developing a collaborative network connecting a comprehensive cancer center, academic safety net hospital, and community health centers and affiliates. The Virtual Equity Hub utilizes a virtual tumor board, an evidence-based approach that increases access to multi-specialty cancer care and oncology subspecialty expertise. We adapted the tumor board model by engaging person-centered teams of multi-disciplinary specialists across health systems, addressing the social determinants of health, and applying community-based research principles with a focus on populations with poor cancer survival. The virtual tumor board included monthly videoconferences, case discussion, sharing of expertise, and a focus on addressing barriers to care and trial participation. Specifically, we piloted virtual tumor boards for breast oncology, neuro-oncology, and individuals with cancer and serious mental illness. The Virtual Equity Hub demonstrated promise at building capacity for clinicians to care for patients with complex needs and addressing barriers to care. Research is needed to measure the impact, reach, and sustainability of virtual equity models for patients with cancer.

Benefits and drawbacks of videoconferencing for collaborating multidisciplinary teams in regional oncology networks: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Various forms of videoconferenced collaborations exist in oncology care. In regional oncology networks, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are essential in coordinating care in their region. There is no recent overview of the benefits and drawbacks of videoconferenced collaborations in oncology care networks. This scoping review presents an overview of videoconferencing (VC) in oncology care and summarises its benefits and drawbacks regarding decision-making and care coordination.

DESIGN

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (nursing and allied health) and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2020 for studies that included VC use in discussing treatment plans and coordinating care in oncology networks between teams at different sites. Two reviewers performed data extraction and thematic analyses.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included. Six types of collaboration between teams using VC in oncology care were distinguished, ranging from MDTs collaborating with similar teams or with national or international experts to interactions between palliative care nurses and experts in that field. Patient benefits were less travel for diagnosis, better coordination of care, better access to scarce facilities and treatment in their own community. Benefits for healthcare professionals were optimised treatment plans through multidisciplinary discussion of complex cases, an ability to inform all healthcare professionals simultaneously, enhanced care coordination, less travel and continued medical education. VC added to the regular workload in preparing for discussions and increased administrative preparation.

DISCUSSION

Benefits and drawbacks for collaborating teams were tied to general VC use. VC enabled better use of staff time and reduced the time spent travelling. VC equipment costs and lack of reimbursement were implementation barriers.

CONCLUSION

VC is highly useful for various types of collaboration in oncology networks and improves decision-making over treatment plans and care coordination, with substantial benefits for patients and specialists. Drawbacks are additional time related to administrative preparation.

Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: A Narrative Review Focused on Lung Cancer

To date, the virtual multidisciplinary tumor boards (vMTBs) are increasingly used to achieve high-quality treatment recommendations across health-care regions, which expands and develops the local MTB team to a regional or national expert network. This review describes the process of lung cancer-specific MTBs and the transition process from face-to-face tumor boards to virtual ones. The review also focuses on the project organization's description, advantages, and disadvantages. Semi-structured interviews identified five major themes for MTBs: current practice, attitudes, enablers, barriers, and benefits for the MTB. MTB teams exhibited positive responses to modeled data feedback. Virtualization reduces time spent for travel, allowing easier and timely patient discussions. This process requires a secure web platform to assure the respect of patients' privacy and presents the same unanswered problems. The implementation of vMTB also permits the implementation of networks especially in areas with geographical barriers facilitating interaction between large referral cancer centers and tertiary or community hospitals as well as easier access to clinical trial opportunities. Studies aimed to improve preparations, structure, and conduct of MTBs, research methods to monitor their performance, teamwork, and outcomes are also outlined in this article. Analysis of literature shows that MTB participants discuss 5-8 cases per meeting and that the use of a vMTB for lung cancer and in particular stage III NSCLC and complex stage IV cases is widely accepted by most health professionals. Despite still-existing gaps, overall vMTB represents a unique opportunity to optimize patient management in a patient-centered approach.

Implementing multidisciplinary tumor boards in oncology: a narrative review

The healthcare industry compares unfavorably with other ultra-safe industries such as aviation and nuclear power plants, which address complexity by reducing the vulnerability of a single person and promoting teams and strong systems. A multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) is an evidence-based organizational approach to implementing a more effective concept in oncology practice. Studies addressing the correlation between MTBs and cancer outcomes show promising results, and other potential benefits are also addressed. The objectives of this article are to define and characterize MTBs in modern oncology practice, review the current literature on MTBs effectiveness and address challenges to the implementation and maintenance of MTBs. In this commentary-type narrative review, the authors present their opinions and, whenever possible, substantiate recommendations by citing supportive literature.

Cancer Australia consensus statement on COVID-19 and cancer care: embedding high value changes in practice

Introduction

Driven by the need to reduce risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and optimise use of health system resources, while maximising patient outcomes, the COVID‐19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented changes in cancer care. Some new or modified health care practices adopted during the pandemic will be of long term value in improving the quality and resilience of cancer care in Australia and internationally. The Cancer Australia consensus statement is intended to guide and enhance the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic and in a post‐pandemic environment. This article summarises the full statement, which is available at https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/covid‐19/covid‐19‐recovery‐implications‐cancer‐care.

Main recommendations

The statement is informed by a desktop literature review and input from cancer experts and consumers at a virtual roundtable, held in July 2020, on key elements of cancer care that changed during the pandemic. It describes targeted strategies (at system, service, practitioner and patient levels) to retain, enhance and embed high value changes in practice. Principal strategies include:

implementing innovative models of care that are digitally enabled and underpinned by clear governance, policies and procedures to guide best practice cancer care;

enabling health professionals to deliver evidence‐based best practice and coordinated, person‐centred cancer care; and

empowering patients to improve health literacy and enhancing their ability to engage in informed, shared decision making.

Changes in management as a result of this statement

Widespread adoption of high value health care practices across all levels of the cancer control sector will be of considerable benefit to the delivery of optimal cancer care into the future.

Teleoncology for Veterans: High Patient Satisfaction Coupled With Positive Financial and Environmental Impacts

PURPOSE

There was rapid adoption of teleoncology care in the Veterans Health Administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. One third of 9 million Veterans Health Administration enrolled Veterans live in rural areas. Although digital solutions can expand capacity, enhance care access, and reduce financial burden, they may also exacerbate rural-urban health disparities. Careful evaluation of patients' perceptions and policy tradeoffs are necessary to optimize teleoncology postpandemic.

METHODS

Patients with ≥ 1 teleoncology visit with medical, surgical, or radiation oncology between March 2020 and June 2020 were identified retrospectively. Validated, Likert-type survey assessing patient satisfaction was developed. Follow-up survey was conducted on patients with ≥ 1 teleoncology visit from August 2020 to January 2021. Travel distance, time, cost, and carbon dioxide emissions were calculated based on zip codes.

RESULTS

A hundred surveys were completed (response rate, 62%). Patients overall were satisfied with teleoncology (83% Agree or Strongly Agree) but felt less satisfied than in-person visits (47% Agree or Strongly Agree). Audiovisual component improved patient perception of involvement in care, ability to self-manage health or medical needs, and comparability to in-person visits. Follow-up survey demonstrated similar satisfaction. Total travel-related savings are as follows: 86,470 miles, 84,374 minutes, $49,720 US dollars, and 35.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

CONCLUSION

Veterans are broadly satisfied with teleoncology. Audiovisual capabilities are critical to satisfaction. This is challenging for rural populations with lack of technology access. Patients experienced financial and time savings, and society benefitted from reduced carbon emissions. Continued optimization is needed to enhance patient experience and address secondary effects.

Online conferencing software in radiology: Recent trends and utility

Videoconferencing platforms have recently gained wide attention due to the COVID-19 pandemic, both within and outside of the medical community. This article reviews various applications of online meeting technology to the radiologic community, not only in response to the recent pandemic but also thereafter. Various platform features are outlined and discussed, specifically with respect to collaboration, training, and patient care. Platforms reviewed are GoToMeeting, Microsoft Teams, Skype, WebEx, and Zoom.

Telehealth in Oncology: ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations

PURPOSE

To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript.

RESULTS

The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies.

STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE

Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards.

Virtual Handover of Patients in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit During the Covid-19 Crisis

OBJECTIVE

A key measure to mitigate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been social distancing. Incorporating video-conferencing applications in the patient handover process between healthcare workers can enhance social distancing while maintaining handover elements. This study describes pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) physicians' experience using an online video-conferencing application for handover during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Qualitative content analysis.

SETTING

PICU at a university hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

SUBJECTS

PICU Physicians.

INTERVENTIONS

Due to the pandemic, the hospital's PICU used Zoom® as a remote conferencing application instead of a face-to-face handover. Following institutional review board approval, data were collected over two weeks (1 Jul 2020 to 14 Jul 2020).

MEASUREMENTS

An online survey was conducted using open-ended questions to capture demographic data and the perceived efficacy of remote handovers. Thematic framework analysis process included open coding, creating categories, and abstraction.

MAIN RESULTS

All 37 PICU physicians who participated in the handover completed the survey. The participants comprised six attendings, nine specialists, and 22 residents. While 20 (54.1%) physicians reported attending 1-5 Zoom handovers by the time of the study, some (n. 6, 16.2%) had more than ten virtual handovers. They had variable previous teleconferencing experiences. Most physicians (78.4%) were comfortable conducting a remote handover. Most found that Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation handover elements were properly achieved through this remote handover process. The perceived advantages of online handover included fewer interruptions, time efficiency, and facilitation of social distancing. The perceived disadvantages were the paucity of nonverbal communication and teaching during virtual meetings.

CONCLUSION

Video-conferencing applications for online handovers could supplement traditional face-to-face intensive care unit patient handover during outbreaks of infectious diseases. The use of video streaming and more emphasis on teaching should be encouraged to optimize the users' experience.

Implementation, relevance, and virtual adaptation of neuro-oncological tumor boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide provider survey

Purpose

Neuro-oncology tumor boards (NTBs) hold an established function in cancer care as multidisciplinary tumor boards. However, NTBs predominantly exist at academic and/or specialized centers. In addition to increasing centralization throughout the healthcare system, changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic have arguably resulted in advantages by conducting clinical meetings virtually. We therefore asked about the experience and acceptance of (virtualized) NTBs and their potential benefits.

Methods

A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed via a web-based platform. Specialized neuro-oncological centers in Germany were identified based on the number of brain tumor cases treated in the respective institution per year. Only one representative per center was invited to participate in the survey. Questions targeted the structure/organization of NTBs as well as changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

A total of 65/97 institutions participated in the survey (response rate 67%). In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, regular conventions of NTBs were maintained by the respective centers and multi-specialty participation remained high. NTBs were considered valuable by respondents in achieving the most optimal therapy for the affected patient and in maintaining/encouraging interdisciplinary debate/exchange. The settings of NTBs have been adapted during the pandemic with the increased use of virtual technology. Virtual NTBs were found to be beneficial, yet administrative support is lacking in some places.

Conclusions

Virtual implementation of NTBs was feasible and accepted in the centers surveyed. Therefore, successful implementation offers new avenues and may be pursued for networking between centers, thereby increasing coverage of neuro-oncology care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11060-021-03784-w.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Review of the Evidence and Conditions That Facilitated Its Use during the Global Pandemic

Practice and behaviour change in healthcare is complex, and requires a set of critical steps that would be needed to implement and sustain the change. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is traditionally used for locally advanced disease and is primarily advantageous for surgical downstaging purposes. However, it does also offer patients with certain biologic subtypes such as the triple negative or Her2 positive breast cancers the opportunity to improve survival, even in early stage disease. During the height of the pandemic, an opportunity and motivation for the increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer was identified. This paper describes the conditions that have supported this practice change at the provider and institutional levels. We also include our own institutional algorithm based on tumor biology and extent of disease that have guided our decisions on breast cancer management during the pandemic. Our processes can be adapted by other institutions and breast oncology practices in accordance with local conditions and resources, during and beyond the pandemic.