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

Multidisciplinary team meetings improve survival in patients with esophageal cancer

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) are recommended for patients with esophageal cancer. Improved staging, timeliness to surgery and better adherence to guidelines have been attributed to MDTs, but there are few studies published on the MDTs' effect on survival. All patients with esophageal cancer in Sweden between 2006 and 2018 were grouped according to whether they had been discussed at an MDT as part of their clinical pathway. Factors affecting group allocation were explored with multivariable logistic regression, and the impact of MDT on survival was studied with Cox-regression and the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Of 6837 included patients, 1338 patients (20%) were not discussed at an MDT. Advanced age (80-90 years; odds ratio [OR] 0.25, 0.16-0.42 (95% confidence interval)) and clinical stage IVb (OR 0.65, 0.43-0.98) decreased the probability of being presented at an MDT, whereas high education level (OR 1.31, 1.02-1.67), being married (OR 1.20, 1.01-1.43), squamous histology (OR 1.50, 1.22-1.84) and later year of diagnosis (OR 1.33, 1.29-1.37 per year) increased the probability of an MDT. In multivariable adjusted analysis, MDT discussion was associated with improved survival (hazard ratios 0.72, 0.66-0.78) and median survival increased from 4.5 to 10.7 months. MDTs were associated with improved survival for esophageal cancer patients. Elderly patients with advanced disease and poor socioeconomic status were less likely to be presented at an MDT, but had clear survival-benefits if they were discussed in a multidisciplinary setting.

The impact of multidisciplinary cancer conferences on overall survival: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary cancer conferences consist of regular meetings between diverse specialists working together to share clinical decision making in cancer care. The aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of multidisciplinary cancer conference intervention on the overall survival of patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for studies published up to July 2023. Studies reporting on the impact of multidisciplinary cancer conferences on patient overall survival were included. A standard random-effects model with the inverse variance-weighted approach was used to estimate the pooled hazard ratio of mortality (multidisciplinary cancer conference vs non-multidisciplinary cancer conference) across studies, and the heterogeneity was assessed by I2. Publication bias was examined using funnel plots and the Egger test.

RESULTS

A total of 134 287 patients with cancer from 59 studies were included in our analysis, with 48 467 managed by multidisciplinary cancer conferences and 85 820 in the control arm. Across all cancer types, patients managed by multidisciplinary cancer conferences had an increased overall survival compared with control patients (hazard ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval = 0.62 to 0.71, I2 = 84%). Median survival time was 30.2 months in the multidisciplinary cancer conference group and 19.0 months in the control group. In subgroup analysis, a positive effect of the multidisciplinary cancer conference intervention on overall survival was found in breast, colorectal, esophageal, hematologic, hepatocellular, lung, pancreatic, and head and neck cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our meta-analysis found a significant positive effect of multidisciplinary cancer conferences compared with controls. Further studies are needed to establish nuanced guidelines when optimizing multidisciplinary cancer conference integration for treating diverse patient populations.

Cloud platform to improve efficiency and coverage of asynchronous multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with digestive tract cancer

Background

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the gold standard of cancer treatment. However, the limited participation of multiple medical experts and the low frequency of MDT meetings reduce the efficiency and coverage rate of MDTs. Herein, we retrospectively report the results of an asynchronous MDT based on a cloud platform (cMDT) to improve the efficiency and coverage rate of MDT meetings for digestive tract cancer.

Methods

The participants and cMDT processes associated with digestive tract cancer were discussed using a cloud platform. Software programming and cMDT test runs were subsequently conducted to further improve the software and processing. cMDT for digestive tract cancer was officially launched in June 2019. The doctor response duration, cMDT time, MDT coverage rate, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines compliance rate for patients with stage III rectal cancer, and uniformity rate of medical experts' opinions were collected.

Results

The final cMDT software and processes used were determined. Among the 7462 digestive tract cancer patients, 3143 (control group) were diagnosed between March 2016 and February 2019, and 4319 (cMDT group) were diagnosed between June 2019 and May 2022. The average number of doctors participating in each cMDT was 3.26 ± 0.88. The average doctor response time was 27.21 ± 20.40 hours, and the average duration of cMDT was 7.68 ± 1.47 min. The coverage rates were 47.85% (1504/3143) and 79.99% (3455/4319) in the control and cMDT groups, respectively. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines compliance rates for stage III rectal cancer patients were 68.42% and 90.55% in the control and cMDT groups, respectively. The uniformity rate of medical experts' opinions was 89.75% (3101/3455), and 8.97% (310/3455) of patients needed online discussion through WeChat; only 1.28% (44/3455) of patients needed face-to-face discussion with the cMDT group members.

Conclusion

A cMDT can increase the coverage rate of MDTs and the compliance rate with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for stage III rectal cancer. The uniformity rate of the medical experts' opinions was high in the cMDT group, and it reduced contact between medical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The association between hospital variation in curative treatment for esophagogastric cancer and health-related quality of life and survival

BACKGROUND

As previous studies showed significant hospital variation in curative treatment of esophagogastric cancer, this study assesses the association between this variation and overall, cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival, and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with potentially curable esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2018 as registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included. Data on overall survival was available for all patients, data on cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival and HRQoL was available for subgroups. Patients were classified according to diagnosis in hospitals with low, medium or high probability of treatment with curative intent (LP, MP or HP). Multivariable models were used to assess the association between LP, MP and HP hospitals and HRQoL and survival.

RESULTS

This study includes 7,199 patients with esophageal, and 2,407 with gastric cancer. Overall and cancer-specific survival was better for patients diagnosed in HP versus LP hospitals for both esophageal (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.77-0.88 and HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.75-0.91, respectively), and gastric cancer (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.73-0.92 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI:0.64-0.87, respectively). These differences disappeared after adjustments for treatment. Recurrence-free survival was worse for gastric cancer patients diagnosed in HP hospitals (HR = 1.50, 95%CI:1.14-1.96), which disappeared after adjustment for radicality of surgery. Minor, but no clinically relevant, differences in HRQoL were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed in hospitals with a high probability of treatment with curative intent have a better overall and cancer-specific but not recurrence-free survival, while minor differences in HRQoL were observed.

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.

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.