A systematic scoping review of multidisciplinary cancer team and decision-making in the management of men with advanced prostate cancer

NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a useful adjunct for the urology multidisciplinary meeting

BACKGROUND

Surgical risk calculators are not often routinely used in Urology Multidisciplinary Meetings (MDM), and little is known about their impact on clinical decision-making. The aim of this study is to assess the utility of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) risk calculator for decision-making in the Urology MDM setting, with particular consideration given to decisions about surgical candidacy.

METHODS

We analysed all adult patients discussed in our Urology MDM with urological conditions whose management plan could potentially include major surgery. During a MDM, a consensus management decision was made prior to the NSQIP score being revealed to blinded team members. Any change in decision after revealing the score was documented, including rationale.

RESULTS

Sixty-three out of 64 eligible cancer cases being discussed at MDM warranted NSQIP scores being revealed to the MDM post initial consensus. 95.2% (n = 60) did not have a change in the MDM management plan after reveal of NSQIP score. The NSQIP score led to a change in the MDM management decision in three cases: two renal cancer cases where management changed to biopsy with view to microwave ablation if positive, and one prostate cancer case, where management changed to recommend against radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSION

The NSQIP risk calculator was a useful tool and adjunct in the MDM setting. It served as a safety net where surgical risk was not initially properly estimated by team members, and reinforced decisions where there was concordance between NSQIP score and clinical judgement.

Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) provide an integrated team approach to ensure individualized and evidence-based treatment recommendations and best expert advice in cancer care. A growing number of patients and more complex treatment options challenge MDTM resources and evoke needs for case prioritization. In this process, decision aids could provide streamlining and standardize evaluation of case complexity. We applied the recently developed Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC, instrument with the aim to validate its performance in another healthcare setting and diagnostic area as a means to provide cases for full MDTM discussions.

METHODS

The 26-item MeDiC instrument evaluates case complexity and was applied to 364 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden. MeDiC scores were generated from individual-level health data and were correlated with clinicopathological parameters, healthcare setting, and the observed clinical case selection for MDTMs.

RESULTS

Application of the MeDiC instrument was feasible with rapid scoring based on available clinical data. Patients with high-risk prostate cancers had significantly higher MeDiC scores than patients with low or intermediate-risk cancers. In the total study, population affected lymph nodes and metastatic disease significantly influenced MDTM referral, whereas comorbidities and age did not predict MDTM referral. When individual patient MeDiC scores were compared to the clinical MDTM case selection, advanced stage, T3/T4 tumors, involved lymph nodes, presence of metastases and significant physical comorbidity were identified as key MDTM predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the MeDiC instrument in prostate cancer may be used to streamline case selection for MDTMs in cancer care and may complement clinical case selection.

Registered nurses' views on consideration of patient perspectives during multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) represent an integral component of modern cancer care and have increasingly been implemented to ensure accurate and evidence-based treatment recommendations. During MDTMs, multiple and complex medical and patient-related information should be considered by a multi-professional team whose members contribute various perspectives. Registered nurses (RNs) are expected to share information on the patient perspective at MDTMs. However, research suggests that RNs' contributions to case discussions are limited and that patient perspective is generally underrepresented. Our aim was to explore RNs' views of the prerequisites for and barriers to the inclusion of the patient perspective in MDTMs in Swedish cancer care.

METHODS

Data were collected from four focus group interviews with 22 RNs who worked as contact nurses in Swedish cancer care. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis identified two categories and five subcategories. The participants presented different views and expressed ambivalence about the patient perspective in MDTMs. Subcategories were related to medical versus holistic perspectives, the added value of patient perspective, and possibilities for patient contributions. The participants also discussed prerequisites for the patient perspective to be considered in MDTM decision-making process, with subcategories related to structures promoting attention to the patient perspective and determinants of RNs' contributions to case discussions in MDTMs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates various views related to the patient perspective in MDTMs and identifies a great need to clarify the RN's role. Our results indicate that if enhanced presentation of the patient perspective in MDTMs is desired, key information points and structures must be established to collect and present relevant patient-related information.

Addressing Challenges and Controversies in the Management of Prostate Cancer with Multidisciplinary Teams

The diagnostic and treatment landscapes of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving. This has led to several challenges and controversies regarding optimal management of the disease that outpace guidelines and clinical data. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be used to engage the array of specialists that collaborate to treat complex malignancies such as prostate cancer. While the rationale for the use of MDTs in prostate cancer is well known, ways to optimally use MDTs to address the challenges and controversies associated with prostate cancer management are less well understood. One area of MDT care that remains undefined is how MDTs can most effectively provide guidance on clinical decision-making in situations in which information from novel diagnostic testing (genetic testing, molecular imaging) is substantially different from the established clinical risk factors. In this review, we provide a clinical perspective on ways that MDTs can be used to address this and other challenges and controversies across the prostate cancer disease continuum, from diagnosis to end-of-life considerations. Beyond clinical scenarios, we also review ways in which MDTs can mitigate disparities of care in prostate cancer. Overall, MDTs play a central role in helping to address the daily vexing issues faced by clinicians related to diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment. Given the accelerating advances in precision medicine and targeted therapy, and the new questions and controversies these will bring, the value of MDTs for prostate cancer management will only increase in the future.

Modern paradigms for prostate cancer detection and management

Early detection and management of prostate cancer has evolved over the past decade, with a focus now on harm minimisation and reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment, given the proven improvements in survival from randomised controlled trials. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is now an important aspect of the diagnostic pathway in prostate cancer, improving the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, enabling accurate localisation of appropriate sites to biopsy, and reducing unnecessary biopsies in most patients with normal magnetic resonance imaging scans. Biopsies are now performed transperineally, substantially reducing the risk of post-procedure sepsis. Australian-led research has shown that prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has superior accuracy in the staging of prostate cancer than conventional imaging (CT and whole-body bone scan). Localised prostate cancer that is low risk (International Society for Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade 1, Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6; and ISUP grade group 2, Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 with less than 10% pattern 4) can be offered active surveillance, reducing harms from overtreatment. Prostatectomy and definitive radiation remain the gold standard for localised intermediate and high risk disease. However, focal therapy is an emerging experimental treatment modality in Australia in carefully selected patients. The management of advanced prostate cancer treatment has evolved to now include several novel agents both in the metastatic hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant disease settings. Multimodal therapy with androgen deprivation therapy, additional systemic therapy and radiotherapy are often recommended. PSMA-based radioligand therapy has emerged as a treatment option for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and is currently being evaluated in earlier disease states.

Multicenter study on multidisciplinary committees in advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Although Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) are recommended in the management of Advanced Prostate Cancer (APC), their functioning in real practice has been poorly evaluated. We carried out a multicenter study with the objective of evaluating the functioning of uro-oncology MDTs in 6 hospitals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed. The level of Compliance with the Fundamental Quality Requirements (CFQR) of the MDTs was evaluated by means of a questionnaire filled out by the coordinators of the MDTs in each hospital. The information on the perspective of the members of the MDTs was evaluated through an anonymous survey.

RESULTS

A high level of CFQR in MDTs was evidenced (75%), showing deficiencies in terms of protocol update, agendas, audits, and scientific production. The survey was answered by 62.32% of the 69 physicians surveyed (urologists, oncologists, radiation therapists, radiologists, and pathologists). The 88.4% consider the duration of the meetings appropriate. There are disparate opinions concerning the protection of the MDT meeting time as well as protocol update. Of the patients with APC presented at the MDTs meeting, 62,8% require intervention from two specialties. Only 50% of respondents believe that all CRPC cases are discussed and that there is a prior agenda. The decisions made by the MDTs are reflected in the clinical history in 65.1% and are binding only in 60.5% of the cases. Half of the respondents have not been trained in MDTs. Most participants (90.7%) agree on the fact that MDTs. convey benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluations of the MDTs identify rectifiable deficiencies by modifying hospital inertia and care planning.

Time difference in retrieving clinical information in Patient-overview Prostate Cancer compared to electronic health records

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa) typically undergo numerous lines of treatment leading to large amounts of information in Electronic Health Records (EHRs). The Patient-overview Prostate Cancer (PPC) presents clinical information in a graphical overview. The aim of this study was to measure time spent on retrieving clinical information in PPC compared to EHRs, to assess if retrieved data was correct and to explore usability of PPC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Oncologists, urologists and nurses in three hospitals in Sweden were timed when filling out questionnaires about patients using PPC and two different EHRs; Melior and COSMIC. Time and number of errors were analysed using linear mixed models (LMMs). Usability of PPC was measured with the System Usability Scale.

RESULTS

The LMM showed a significantly shorter time to retrieve information in PPC compared to EHRs. The estimated time to complete one questionnaire was 8 minutes (95% CI = 6-10, p < 0.001) in PPC compared to 25 minutes in Melior and 21 minutes in COSMIC. Compared to PPC, the estimated time difference was 17 minutes longer in Melior (95% CI = 14-20, p < 0.001) and 13 minutes longer in COSMIC (95% CI = 10-17, p < 0.001). The LMM showed significantly fewer errors in PPC compared to Melior. No significant difference in the number of errors was found between PPC and COSMIC. The usability of PPC was rated as excellent by oncologists, urologists and nurses.

CONCLUSION

A graphical overview of a patient's medical history, as in PPC, gives health staff rapid access to relevant information with a high degree of usability.

Exploring the impact of uro-oncology multidisciplinary team meetings on patient outcomes: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are mainstay clinical management globally. Clinical guidelines state that patients should be considered for MDT review, but evidence has identified that within the specialty of uro-oncology not all patients are reviewed by an MDT. This systematic review aimed to understand the impact of uro-oncology MDT meetings on patient outcomes, to explore how patient engagement is incorporated in the process, and to identify the barriers and facilitators within an MDT.

METHODS

A systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsychINFO) were searched in EBSCOhost from January 2010 to March 2021, using a range of key search words. Studies were assessed for inclusion according to a pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment was undertaken. The findings were tabulated, and a narrative synthesis undertaken.

RESULTS

373 articles were screened, and seven studies were included. The studies were conducted in a range of international countries which provided an overview of uro-oncology MDTs in different healthcare contexts. The following themes were identified: 1) MDT and clinical outcomes, 2) structure and format, 3) patient engagement in the process, and 4) barriers and facilitators.

CONCLUSION

Cancer care is constantly being challenged due to complex newer therapies, including multimodality treatments, and newer emergent broader considerations such as, oncogeriatrics, genetic counselling, and survivorship issues which should have a central place for consideration in the MDT.

The Effects of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Clinical Practice for Colorectal, Lung, Prostate and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

Multidisciplinary team meetings have increasingly been implemented in cancer care worldwide to ensure timely, accurate and evidence-based diagnosis, and treatment plans. Nowadays, multidisciplinary team meetings are generally considered indispensable. However, they are considered time-consuming and expensive, while the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings are not yet fully understood. The aim of this systematic review is to update and summarize the literature and create an overview of the existing knowledge. Cancer types such as colorectal, lung, prostate and breast cancer with rapidly increasing incidence rates will inevitably impact the workload of clinicians. Understanding the effects of the widely implemented multidisciplinary team meetings in oncology care is fundamental in order to optimize care pathways and allocate resources in the rapidly diversifying landscape of cancer therapies.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of our systematic review is to identify the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) for lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Methods: Our systematic review, performed following PRISMA guidelines, included studies examining the impact of MDTMs on treatment decisions, patient and process outcomes. Electronic databases PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for articles published between 2000 and 2020. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and GRADE scale. Results: 41 of 13,246 articles were selected, evaluating colorectal (21), lung (10), prostate (6) and breast (4) cancer. Results showed that management plans were changed in 1.6–58% of cases after MDTMs. Studies reported a significant impact of MDTMs on surgery type, and a reduction of overall performed surgery after MDTM. Results also suggest that CT and MRI imaging significantly increased after MDTM implementation. Survival rate increased significantly with MDTM discussions according to twelve studies, yet three studies did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Despite heterogeneous data, MDTMs showed a significant impact on management plans, process outcomes and patient outcomes. To further explore the impact of MDTMs on the quality of healthcare, high-quality research is needed.