Analysis of 105.000 patients with cancer: have they been discussed in oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings? A nationwide population-based study in the Netherlands

Evidence-based cancer care: assessing guideline adherence of multidisciplinary tumor board recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer in a non-academic medical center

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB) are associated with improved outcomes. Yet, most patients in Western countries receive cancer care at non-academic medical centers. Guideline adherence of MTB recommendations in non-academic medical centers as well as factors contributing to non-adherence remain largely unexplored.

METHODS

This retrospective study followed the STROBE recommendations. All cases discussed at the MTB of the Landesklinikum Baden-Moedling, Austria, were eligible for inclusion. Guideline non-adherence was assessed by two reviewers independently using the AWMF S3 guidelines. Factors associated with guideline non-adherence were investigated using multivariable ordinal regression.

RESULTS

In total, 579 patients were included in the final analysis: 486 were female (83.9%) and 93 were male (16.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 60-80). Most had breast cancer (n = 451; 77.9%), while 128 had colorectal cancer (22.1%). Complete adherence to guidelines was observed in 453 patients (78.2%), major deviations in 60 (10.4%), and minor deviations in 66 (11.4%) patients. Non-adherence was primarily due to patient preferences (n = 24; 40.0%), lack of surgical treatment recommendation (n = 24; 40.0%), and comorbidities (n = 9; 15.0%). After adjusting for relevant variables, predictors of non-adherence included older age at diagnosis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04), colorectal cancer (OR 3.84, 95% CI 1.99-7.42), higher ECOG status (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.18-2.16), and a more recent MTB conference (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.41).

CONCLUSION

Overall, guideline adherence was high for colorectal and breast cancer and comparable to results from academic medical centers. However, results need to be confirmed in other tumor entities.

Multidisciplinary team meetings and their impact on survival in rectal cancer. Population-based analysis in Catalonia (Spain)

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) are considered a pillar of cancer care; however, evidence of the independent benefit of MTMs on survival in rectal cancer is controversial.

METHODS

This population-based cohort analysis included patients undergoing surgery for primary rectal cancer with curative intent. We drew data derived from three clinical audits conducted in Catalonia from 2011 to 2020. The primary outcome was 2-year survival. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to assess the hazard ratio for death in patients whose cases were versus were not discussed in a preoperative MTM.

RESULTS

A total of 5249 patients were included (66.1 % male, 58.3 % aged 60-79 years, 63.2 % receiving anterior resection): 4096 cases were discussed in a preoperative MTM, and 1153 were not. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed that the MTM group had better survival than those with no preoperative MTM (hazard ratio 1.22, 95 % confidence interval 1.02-1.48), after adjusting for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative MTM may be associated with improved survival in patients with rectal cancer in Catalonia. Efforts to ensure universal access to MTMs for all newly diagnosed patients should be supported.

Digital decision support for structural improvement of melanoma tumor boards: using standard cases to optimize workflow

PURPOSE

Choosing optimal cancer treatment is challenging, and certified cancer centers must present all patients in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT). Our aim was to develop a decision support system (DSS) to provide treatment recommendations for apparently simple cases already at conference registration and to classify these as "standard cases". According to certification requirements, discussion of standard cases is optional and would thus allow more time for complex cases.

METHODS

We created a smartphone query that simulated a tumor conference registration and requested all information needed to provide a recommendation. In total, 111 out of 705 malignant melanoma cases discussed at a skin cancer center from 2017 to 2020 were identified as potential standard cases, for which a digital twin recommendation was then generated by DSS.

RESULTS

The system provided reliable advice in all 111 cases and showed 97% concordance of MDT and DSS for therapeutic recommendations, regardless of tumor stage. Discrepancies included two cases (2%) where DSS advised discussions at MDT and one case (1%) with deviating recommendation due to advanced patient age.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work aimed not to replace clinical expertise but to alleviate MDT workload and enhance focus on complex cases. Overall, our DSS proved to be a suitable tool for identifying standard cases as such, providing correct treatment recommendations, and thus reducing the time burden of tumor conferences in favor for the comprehensive discussion of complex cases. The aim is to implement the DSS in routine tumor board software for further qualitative assessment of its impact on oncological care.

The role of the multidisciplinary tumor board after endoscopic resection of malignant tumors: is it worth it?

OBJECTIVES

The value of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer patients is well known. Most of the current evidence focuses on advanced cancer cases, whereas little is known about the effect of MTBs on early tumors, especially after endoscopic resection. The aim of our study is to evaluate the value of the MTB after endoscopic resection of malignant tumors of the gastrointestinal tract.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all endoscopically resected malignant tumors in our department between 2011 and 2019, focusing on the existence of an MDT recommendation after endoscopic resection, the MDT adherence to the current guidelines, and the implementation of the recommendation by the patients.

RESULTS

We identified 198 patients fulfilling our inclusion criteria, of whom 168 (85%) were discussed in the MDT after endoscopic resection. In total, 155 of the recommendations (92%) were in accordance with the current guidelines, and 147 (88%) of them were implemented by the patients. The MDT discussion itself did not influence the overall survival, whereas the implementation of the MTB recommendation was associated with a significantly better prognosis. Deviations of the MDT recommendation from the guidelines had no effect on the overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The discussion of endoscopically resected malignant tumors in the MTB is crucial for the treatment of patients with this type of cancer, since the implementation of the MTB recommendation, even if it deviates from the current guidelines, improves the prognosis.

Novel hormone therapy and coordination of care in high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs in 20-50% of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing primary definitive treatment. Patients with high-risk BCR have an increased risk of metastatic progression and subsequent PCa-specific mortality, and thus could benefit from treatment intensification. Given the increasing complexity of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, multidisciplinary care (MDC) can play a crucial role in the individualized management of this patient population. This review explores the role for MDC when evaluating the clinical evidence for the evolving definition of high-risk BCR and the emerging therapeutic strategies, especially with novel hormone therapies (NHTs), for patients with either high-risk BCR or oligometastatic PCa. Clinical studies have used different characteristics to define high-risk BCR and there is no consensus regarding the definition of high-risk BCR nor for management strategies. Next-generation imaging and multigene panels offer potential enhanced patient identification and precision-based decision-making, respectively. Treatment intensification with NHTs, either alone or combined with radiotherapy or metastasis-directed therapy, has been promising in clinical trials in patients with high-risk BCR or oligometastases. As novel risk-stratification and treatment options as well as evidence-based literature evolve, it is important to involve a multidisciplinary team to identify patients with high-risk features at an earlier stage, and make informed decisions on the treatments that could optimize their care and long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, MDC data are scarce in the BCR or oligometastatic setting. Efforts to integrate MDC into the standard management of this patient population are needed, and will likely improve outcomes across this heterogeneous PCa patient population.

Hospital practice variation in the proportion of patients with esophagogastric cancer discussed during an expert multidisciplinary team meeting

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) and especially MDTMs in which expert centres are involved (expert MDTMs) are a key element in adequate cancer care. However, variation among hospitals in the proportion of patients presented during an expert MDTM has been described. This study aims to investigate national practice variation in the proportion of patients with oesophageal or gastric cancer being discussed during an expert MDTM.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with oesophageal or gastric cancer in 2018-2019 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 6,921). Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to analyse the association between patient, and tumour characteristics, and the probability to be discussed in an expert MDTM. Variation was analysed according to the hospital and region of diagnosis for: all patients, patients with a potentially curable (cT1-4A cTX, any cN, cM0) or incurable tumour stage (cT4b and/or cM1).

RESULTS

In total, 79% of patients were discussed during an expert MDTM, of whom 84% (n = 3,424) and 71% (n = 2,018) with potentially curable, or incurable oesophageal or gastric cancer, respectively. The proportion of patients discussed during an expert MDTM ranged from 54% to 98%, and 17% to 100% between hospitals for potentially curable and incurable patients, respectively (all p < 0.0001). Adjusted analyses showed significant hospital (all p < 0.0001), but no regional variation regarding the patients discussed during an expert MDTM.

CONCLUSION

For patients with oesophageal or gastric cancer the probability of being discussed during an expert MDTM varies considerably according to the hospital of diagnosis.

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.

The influence of multidisciplinary team meetings on treatment decisions in advanced bladder cancer

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the role of specialised genitourinary multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) in decision-making and identify factors that influence the probability of receiving a treatment plan with curative intent for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data relating to patients with cT2-4aN0/X-1 M0 urothelial cell carcinoma, diagnosed between November 2017 and October 2019, were selected from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry ('BlaZIB study'). Curative treatment options were defined as radical cystectomy (RC) with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, chemoradiation or brachytherapy. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between MDTM factors and curative treatment advice and how this advice was followed.

RESULTS

Of the 2321 patients, 2048 (88.2%) were discussed in a genitourinary MDTM. Advanced age (>80 years) and poorer World Health Organization performance status (score 1-2 vs 0) were associated with no discussion (P < 0.001). Being discussed was associated with undergoing treatment with curative intent (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-4.9), as was the involvement of a RC hospital (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.09-2.65). Involvement of an academic centre was associated with higher rates of bladder-sparing treatment (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.31-3.21). Patient preference was the main reason for non-adherence to treatment advice.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with MIBC, the probability of being discussed in a MDTM was associated with age, performance status and receiving treatment with curative intent, especially if a representative of a RC hospital was present. Future studies should focus on the impact of MDTM advice on survival data.

Elderly Outcomes After Hospitalization: The Hospital Frailty Risk Score Applied on the French Health Data Hub

Objectives: To demonstrate the association between the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) and 30-day mortality, 30-day hospital readmission and length of stay (LOS) in France. Methods: Logistic regressions were performed using data recorded in the French national health data system ( SNDS) for elderly patients (≥75 years old) hospitalized in France in 2017. Results: Over the 1,111,090 patients included, 30-day mortality was associated with the HFRS: adjusted OR (aOR) for an intermediate HFRS (5–15 points) was 1.91 [95% confidence interval (95% IC); 1.87–1.95] and aOR 2.57 [95% IC; 2.50–2.64] for high HFRS (>15 points), as compared to low HFRS (<5 points). LOS >10 days increased with the HFRS (aOR = 1.36 [95% IC; 1.34–1.38] for an intermediate HFRS and aOR 1.51 [95% IC; 1.48–1.54] for a high HFRS). A high HFRS was associated with 30-day hospital readmission (aOR = 1.06 [95% IC; 1.04–1.08]). Discussion: This real-life analysis of in- and out-patient healthcare pathways confirmed the HFRS’s ability to predict adverse outcomes, after adjustment on social deprivation.

Use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: an explorative study based on EU healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVES

Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care are increasingly using information and communication technology (ICT), hospital health information system (HIS) functionalities and ICT-driven care components. We aimed to explore the use of these tools in multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) and to identify the critical challenges posed by their adoption based on the perspective of professionals representatives from European scientific societies.

DESIGN

This qualitative study used discussion of cases and focus group technique to generate data. Thematic analysis was applied.

SETTING

Healthcare professionals working in a multidisciplinary cancer care environment.

PARTICIPANTS

Selection of informants was carried out by European scientific societies in accordance with professionals' degree of experience in adopting the implementation of ICT and from different health systems.

RESULTS

Professionals representatives of 9 European scientific societies were involved. Up to 10 ICTs, HIS functionalities and care components are embedded in the informational and decision-making processes along three stages of MTMs. ICTs play a key role in opening MTMs to other institutions (eg, by means of molecular tumour boards) and information types (eg, patient-reported outcome measures), and in contributing to the internal efficiency of teams. While ICTs and care components have their own challenges, the information technology context is characterised by the massive generation of unstructured data, the lack of interoperability between systems from different hospitals and HIS that are conceived to store and classify information rather than to work with it.

CONCLUSIONS

The emergence of an MTM model that is better integrated in the wider health system context and incorporates inputs from patients and support systems make traditional meetings more dynamic and interconnected. Although these changes signal a second transition in the development process of multidisciplinary teams, they occur in a context marked by clear gaps between the information and management needs of MTMs and the adequacy of current HIS.

Time interval from last visit to imaging diagnosis influences outcome in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A regional population-based study on linked medico-administrative and clinical data

Background:

Excessive waiting time intervals for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer can influence their prognosis but they remain unclear. The objective was to describe time intervals from the medical visit to diagnostic imaging and to treatment and their prognostic impact in pancreatic cancer in one French region.

Methods:

This retrospective observational multicentre study included all patients with pancreatic cancer seen for the first time in 2017 in multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs), where clinical data were collected. A probabilistic matching with the medico-administrative data from the French national healthcare database (Système National des Données de Santé) was performed to define the care pathway from clinical presentation to the beginning of treatment. Median key time intervals were estimated for both resected and unresected tumours. Factors associated with 1-year survival were studied using Cox model.

Results:

A total of 324 patients (88% of total patients with MTM presentation) were matched and included: male 54%, mean age 72 years ±9.2, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS > 1 19.5%, metastatic disease at diagnosis 47.4%, tumour resection 16%. At 1 year, 57% had died (65% in the unresected group and 17% in the resected group). The median time interval from the medical visit to diagnostic imaging was 15 days [Q1–Q3: 8–44]. After imaging, median time intervals to definite diagnosis and to first treatment were 11 and 20 days, respectively. Significant prognostic factors associated with the risk of death at 1 year were ECOG PS > 1 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.1 [1.4–3.0]), metastasis (HR 2.7 [1.9–3.9]), no tumour resection (HR 2.7 [1.3–5.6]) and time interval between the medical visit and diagnostic imaging ⩾25 days (HR 1.7 [1.2–2.3]).

Conclusion:

Delay in access to diagnostic imaging impacted survival in patients with pancreatic cancer, regardless of whether tumour resection had been performed.

Clinical variation in the organization of clinical pathways in esophagogastric cancer, a mixed method multiple case study

Background

Among esophagogastric cancer patients, the probability of having undergone treatment with curative intent has been shown to vary, depending on the hospital of diagnosis. However, little is known about the factors that contribute to this variation. In this study, we sought to understand the organization of clinical pathways and their association with variation in practice.

Methods

A mixed-method study using quantitative and qualitative data was conducted. Quantitative data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (e.g., outpatient clinic consultations and diagnostic procedures). For qualitative data, thematic content analysis was performed using semi-structured interviews (n = 30), observations of outpatient clinic consultations (n = 26), and multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM, n = 16) in eight hospitals, to assess clinicians’ perspectives regarding the clinical pathways.

Results

Quantitative analyses showed that patients more often underwent surgical consultation prior to the MDTM in hospitals associated with a high probability of receiving treatment with curative intent, but more often consulted with a geriatrician in hospitals associated with a low probability of such treatment. The organization of clinical pathways was analyzed quantitatively at three levels: regional, local, and patient levels. At a regional level, hospitals differed in terms of the number of patients discussed during the MDTM. At the local level, the revision of radiological images and restaging after neoadjuvant treatment varied. At the patient level, some hospitals routinely conduct fitness tests, whereas others estimated the patient’s physical fitness during an outpatient clinic consultation. Few clinicians performed a standard geriatric consultation in older patients to assess their mental fitness and frailty.

Conclusion

Surgical consultation prior to MDTM was more often conducted in hospitals associated with a high probability of receiving treatment with curative intent, whereas a geriatrician was consulted more often in hospitals associated with a low probability of receiving such treatment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07845-2.

Implementation of a regional video multidisciplinary team meeting is associated with an improved prognosis for patients with oesophageal cancer A mixed methods approach

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) improve diagnostic work-up and treatment-decisions. This study aims to evaluate the influence of implementing a regional-video-Upper-GI-MDTM (uMDTM) for oesophageal cancer (OC) on the number of patients discussed, treatment-decisions, perspectives of involved clinicians and overall survival (OS) in the Eindhoven Upper-GI Network consisting of 1 resection hospital and 5 referring hospitals.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2018, patients diagnosed with OC within this region, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry(n = 1119). From 2014, an uMDTM was gradually implemented and a mixed-method quantitative and qualitative design was used to analyse changes. Quantitative outcomes were described before and after implementation of the uMDTM. Clinicians were interviewed to assess their perspectives regarding the uMDTM.

RESULTS

After participation in the uMDTM more patients were discussed in an MDTM (80%-89%,p < 0.0001) and involvement of a resection centre during the uMDTM increased (43%-82%,p < 0.0001). The proportion of patients diagnosed with potentially curable OC (cT1-4a-x, any cN, cM0) remained stable (59%-61%, p = 0.452). Endoscopic or surgical resections were performed more often (28%-34%,p = 0.034) and the use of best supportive care decreased (21%-15%,p = 0.018). In the qualitative part an improved knowledge, collaboration and discussion was perceived due to implementation of the uMDTM. Three-year OS for all OC patients increased after the implementation of the uMDTM (24%-30%,p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a regional Upper-GI MDTM was associated with an increase in patients discussed with a resection centre, more curative resections and a better OS. It remains to be elucidated which factors in the clinical pathway explain this observed improved survival.

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.

Multidisciplinary team meetings: are all patients presented and does it impact quality of care and survival - a registry-based study

Background

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are part of the standard cancer care process in many European countries. In France, they are a mandatory condition in the authorization system for cancer care administration, with the goal to ensure that all new patients diagnosed with cancer are presented in MDTMs.

Aim

Identify the factors associated with non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs, and study the impact of presentation in MDTMs on quality of care and survival in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

3999 CRC patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 in the area covered by the “Calvados Registry of Digestive Tumours” were included. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with presentation in MDTMs. Univariate analyses were performed to study the impact of MDTMs on quality of care. Multivariate Cox model and the Log-Rank test were used to assess the impact of MDTMs on survival.

Results

Non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs were associated with higher age at diagnosis, dying within 3 months after diagnosis, unknown metastatic status, non-metastatic cancer and colon cancer. Non-presentation was associated with a diagnosis after 2010. Unknown presentation was associated with a diagnosis before 2007 and a longer travel time to the reference care centres. Presentation in MDTMs was associated with more chemotherapy administration for patients with metastatic cancer and more adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. After excluding poor prognosis patients, lower survival was significantly associated with higher age at diagnosis, unknown metastatic status or metastatic cancer, presence of comorbidities, rectal cancer and non-presentation in MDTMs (HR = 1.5 [1.1–2.0], p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Elderly and poor prognosis patients were less presented in MDTMs. Geriatric assessments before presentation in MDTMs were shown to improve care plan establishment. The 100% objective is not coherent if MDTMs are only to discuss diagnosis and curative cares. They could also be a place to discuss therapeutic limitations. MDTMs were associated with better treatment and longer survival. We must ensure that there is no inequity in presentation in MDTMs that could lead to a loss of chance for patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07022-x.

Multidisciplinary decision-making in older patients with cancer, does it differ from younger patients?

BACKGROUND

In order to tailor treatment to the individual patient, it is important to take the patients context and preferences into account, especially for older patients. We assessed the quality of information used in the decision-making process in different oncological MDTs and compared this for older (≥70 years) and younger patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cross-sectional observations of oncological MDTs were performed, using an observation tool in a University Hospital. Primary outcome measures were quality of input of information into the discussion for older and younger patients. Secondary outcomes were the contribution of different team members, discussion time for each case and whether or not a treatment decision was formulated.

RESULTS

Five-hundred and three cases were observed. The median patient age was 63 year, 32% were ≥70. In both age groups quality of patient-centered information (psychosocial information and patient's view) was poor. There was no difference in quality of information between older and younger patients, only for comorbidities the quality of information for older patients was better. There was no significant difference in the contributions by team members, discussion time (median 3.54 min) or number of decision reached (87.5%).

CONCLUSION

For both age groups, we observed a lack of patient-centered information. The only difference between the age groups was for information on comorbidities. There were also no differences in contributions by different team members, case discussion time or number of decisions. Decision-making in the observed oncological MDTs was mostly based on medical technical information.

Impact of multidisciplinary tumor board discussion on palliation of patients with esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction cancer: a population-based study

Background: The Dutch guidelines for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer recommend discussion of patients by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT). Despite this recommendation, one previous study in the Netherlands suggested that therapeutic guidance was missing for palliative care of patients with esophageal cancer. The aim of the current study was therefore to assess the impact of an MDT discussion on initial palliative treatment and outcome of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer.Material and methods: The population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry was used to identify patients treated for esophageal or GEJ cancer with palliative intent between 2010 and 2017 in 7 hospitals. We compared patients discussed by the MDT with patients not discussed by the MDT in a multivariate analysis. Primary outcome was type of initial palliative treatment. Secondary outcome was overall survival.Results: A total of 389/948 (41%) patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer were discussed by the MDT before initial palliative treatment. MDT discussion compared to non-MDT discussion was associated with more patients treated with palliative intent external beam radiotherapy (38% vs. 21%, OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.8-3.9]) and systemic therapy (30% vs. 23%, OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.0-2.5]), and fewer patients treated with stent placement (4% vs. 12%, OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1-0.6]) and best supportive care alone (12% vs. 33%, OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1-0.3]). MDT discussion was also associated with improved survival (169 days vs. 107 days, HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1-1.6]).Conclusion: Our study shows that MDT discussion of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer resulted in more patients treated with initial palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy compared with patients not discussed by the MDT. Moreover, MDT discussion may have a positive effect on survival, highlighting the importance of MDT meetings at all stages of treatment.