Will the presence of the patient at multidisciplinary meetings influence the decision in head and neck oncology management?

Alignment Between Treatment Decision and Treatment Administration for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Upper Aerodigestive Tract Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Analysis

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the adequacy between treatment decisions made in multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) and therapy administered to patients with upper aerodigestive tract cancers. Secondary aims included assessing treatment administration times at different periods and identifying factors explaining discrepancies. Methods: A retrospective, monocentric study was conducted at a university hospital center from 2019 to 2021, including 475 first-line patients. Patients were divided into two groups: those with matching treatments (MTMs vs. delivered) and those with discrepancies. Alignment between treatment decision and treatment delivery was compared among the three periods (before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic), and factors influencing non-alignment were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: Of the 475 patients, 106 (23%) received treatments differing from MTM decisions. The pandemic period saw more advanced cancers (4.8% metastatic in 2019 vs. 12% in 2020), poorer general condition, and undernutrition. The pandemic did not significantly affect treatment matching (p = 0.4). Factors linked to mismatches included worse general condition (PS ≥ 2, p < 0.001) and more locally advanced tumors (T3/4, p = 0.002). Shorter processing times were noted during the pandemic and post-pandemic periods. Conclusions: Despite more advanced cancers and poorer general condition, patients treated during the pandemic had continuous care and similar treatment alignment as before. This study shows the effectiveness of ongoing care during the pandemic, ensuring treatment adherence.

Tools and Strategies to Integrate Multi-Domain Information for Personalized Decision-Making in Oncological Care Pathways: A Scoping Review

Introduction

There is a growing interest in personalized decision-making in oncology. According to the Integrated Oncological Decision-Making Model (IODM), decisions should be based on information from three domains: (1) medical technical information, (2) patients' general health status and (3) patients' preferences and goals. Little is known about what kind of tool/strategy is used to collect the information, by whom this is collected (nurse, clinician) when this is collected (moment in the care pathway), and how this information should be collected and integrated within decision-making in oncological care pathways, and what its impact is.

Methods

We searched PUBMED, Embase and Web of Science in October 2023 for studies looking at tools to collect and integrate information from the three domains of the IODM. We extracted data on the content and implementation of these tools, and on decision and patient outcomes.

Results

The search yielded 2576 publications, of which only seven studies described collection of information from all three domains (inclusion criteria). In the seven included studies, information on the three domains was collected through dialogue, questionnaires, and assessments (what) by a nurse (2 out of 7 studies) or by other members of the Multi-Disciplinary Team (by whom) (5 out of 7 studies). Members of the Multi-Disciplinary Team subsequently integrated the information (5 out 7 studies) during their meeting (when), with patients and family attending this meeting in 2 studies (how). In terms of decision outcomes, 5 out of 7 studies compared the treatment recommendations before and after implementation of the tools, showing a modification of the treatment plan in 3% to 53% of cases. The limited data on patient outcomes suggest positive effects on well-being and fewer complications (3 out of 7 studies).

Conclusion

The seven studies identified that integrated information from the three IODM domains into treatment decision-making lacked comprehensive information regarding the strategies, process, timing and individuals involved in implementing the tools. Nevertheless, the few studies that looked at patient outcomes showed promising findings.

Shared-Decision-Making Experiences in Breast Cancer Care with and without Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences: A Mixed-Methods-Study

Purpose

This study aimed (1) to analyze patients' perceived shared decision-making (SDM) experiences over 4 weeks between patients participating or not in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTCs) and (2) to analyze the association of patients' active participation in and organizational variables of MTCs with patients' perceived SDM experience directly after MTC.

Patients and Methods

From the N=317 patients, this observational study included patient surveys, observations, and audio transcripts from MTCs with (N=82) and without (N=145) patient participation in six breast and gynecologic cancer centers. We performed t tests for within- and between-group comparisons and linear regression with "patients' perceived SDM experiences in MTC" as the dependent variable.

Results

Patients' perceived SDM experiences increased at 4 weeks after MTC (p<0.001) with lower perceived SDM experiences for participating versus nonparticipating patients (p<0.001). Linear regression showed that the organizational variable "round table seating arrangement" was significantly associated with higher perceived SDM experiences compared with a theater or U-shape arrangement (beta=-0.38, p=0.043; beta=-0.69, p=0.010) directly after MTC.

Conclusion

Results provide first insights into patients' perceived SDM experiences in MTCs. SDM in MTCs is associated with organizational variables of MTCs. A round table seating arrangement in MTCs with patient participation seems important for patients' perceived SDM experiences. The relatively low perceived SDM experiences of participating patients directly after MTC indicates room for improvement, eg concerning patient-centered communication.

Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review

Background

Discussing patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) is customary in cancer care worldwide and requires a significant investment in terms of funding and time. Efficient collaboration and communication between healthcare providers in all the specialisms involved is therefore crucial. However, evidence-based criteria that can guarantee high-quality functioning on the part of MDTMs are lacking. In this systematic review, we examine the factors influencing the MDTMs’ efficiency, functioning and quality, and offer recommendations for improvement.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases (01–01-1990 to 09–11-2021), using different descriptions of ‘MDTM’ and ‘neoplasm’ as search terms. Inclusion criteria were: quality of MDTM, functioning of MDTM, framework and execution of MDTM, decision-making process, education, patient advocacy, patient involvement and evaluation tools. Full text assessment was performed by two individual authors and checked by a third author.

Results

Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and five themes were identified: 1) MDTM characteristics and logistics, 2) team culture, 3) decision making, 4) education, and 5) evaluation and data collection. The quality of MDTMs improves when the meeting is scheduled, structured, prepared and attended by all core members, guided by a qualified chairperson and supported by an administrator. An appropriate amount of time per case needs to be established and streamlining of cases (i.e. discussing a predefined selection of cases rather than discussing every case) might be a way to achieve this. Patient centeredness contributes to correct diagnosis and decision making. While physicians are cautious about patients participating in their own MDTM, the majority of patients report feeling better informed without experiencing increased anxiety. Attendance at MDTMs results in closer working relationships between physicians and provides some medico-legal protection. To ensure well-functioning MDTMs in the future, junior physicians should play a prominent role in the decision-making process. Several evaluation tools have been developed to assess the functioning of MDTMs.

Conclusions

MDTMs would benefit from a more structured meeting, attendance of core members and especially the attending physician, streamlining of cases and structured evaluation. Patient centeredness, personal competences of MDTM participants and education are not given sufficient attention.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08112-0.

Opportunities and limitations of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation - A qualitative interview study with providers

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine opportunities and limitations of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation from the providers' perspective in breast and gynecological cancer centers.

METHODS

Semi-structured guideline-based expert interviews were conducted with providers from breast and gynecological cancer centers with and without patient participation in multidisciplinary tumor conferences. Interviews were transcribed, anonymized and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The providers (n = 30) reported that some process steps of shared decision making can be implemented in limited form and under certain conditions in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation. Above all, patients can potentially ask questions and contribute individual additional information and their preferences.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes first insights into the implementation of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation. From the providers' perspective, the implementation of shared decision making seems difficult under the current circumstances. Further studies, using patient experiences, participative observations or interventional designs, are required.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Despite the limited implementation of shared decision making in tumor conferences, patient participation can be advantageous as it can allow patients to ask questions and contribute individual additional information as well as their preferences.

Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences from the Providers' Perspective: Is It Feasible in Routine Cancer Care?

Objective

Recent studies from Germany show that a small amount of breast and gynecological cancer patients participate in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTCs) at some cancer centers. One reason for the variation by center might be the providers’ attitudes about and experiences with MTC patient participation (MTCpp), which has not been analyzed before. Therefore, it is the aim of this study to analyze the providers’ expected or experienced feasibility concerning MTCpp at breast and gynecological cancer centers in Germany.

Methods

This paper presents cross-sectional qualitative interview data from the PINTU study. From April to December 2018, n=30 health-care providers from n=6 breast and gynecological cancer centers in North-Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, were interviewed. One-half of the providers had no experience and the other half had experience with MTCpp. Inductive and deductive coding was performed in order to capture the feasibility aspects of participation.

Results

MTCpp seems not to be feasible in routine cancer care following providers’ expected barriers and negative experiences. However, MTCpp seems to be feasible for selected cancer patients following providers’ expected opportunities and positive experiences. Our results show that both provider groups report positive and negative experiences or expectations.

Conclusion

The mixed findings regarding expected or experienced feasibility of MTCpp provide first insights into differences concerning MTCpp between organizations. Our results suggest that the providers’ perceptions (expectations and experiences) influence the possibility for patients to participate in an MTC in a cancer center.

Adherence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients to tumor board recommendations

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings or tumor boards (TBs) are fundamental components of cancer treatment. Although their primary function is improved outcomes, this aspect is often underreported. The main objective of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) discussed at TBs, and to compare the effect of adherence and nonadherence to recommended treatment plans on outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective data analysis was conducted of HNSCC patients those who were adherent and nonadherent to TB therapy recommendations during 2008-2009 at a comprehensive cancer center. Fisher's exact test and t test were used for group-wise comparison, and Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression models, for survival analysis and determination of the contributing factors to nonadherence.

RESULTS

Comprehensive Treatment plans were recommended by TBs in 293 HNSCC patients with curative intent. Seventy-two patients were excluded based on the selection criteria. Among the remaining 221 patients, 172 (77.9%) were adherent to TB recommendations, while 49 (22.1%) failed to comply. Patient (n = 36; 73.5%), clinician (n = 2; 4.1%), and disease-related (n = 11; 22.4%) factors were significant contributors to nonadherence. Mean (±standard deviation (SD)) survival time was 55.6 ± 2.32 and 29.1 ± 4 months in the adherent and nonadherent groups, (P < .0001, respectively). Multivariate analyses showed that gender, ethnicity, higher T-stage, and multimodal treatment were associated with nonadherence.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to TB recommendations improved overall survival, reflecting the importance of interdisciplinary expertise in contemporary cancer treatment. Early identification and intervention is crucial in "at risk" patients to prevent subsequent drop-out from optimal cancer care.

[Facial skin cancers: Comparison of opinions in French multidisciplinary team meetings]

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to evaluate the diversity, or homogeneity, of recommendations made in multidisciplinary team meetings (MTM) concerning the management of facial skin cancers in France, and to analyze the determinants thereof.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We contacted a panel of dermatology and ENT multidisciplinary teams (MDT) and collected their recommendations made at meetings regarding 3 clinical cases: squamous cell carcinoma in a renal transplant patient with an incomplete excision margin (case 1), locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (case 2), and lentigo maligna (case 3). The responses were analyzed globally and then based on 2 subgroups defined by the presence or absence of a dermatologist in the MTM. The effect of the makeup of the MTM (based on the presence of a dermatologist, a plastic surgeon, an oncologist and an ENT specialist) was evaluated for the main therapeutic proposals.

RESULTS

The opinions of the 45 MDMs that responded to the survey were mixed for the three cases as regards important elements such as the indication of surgical revision for case 1, the proposal of an alternative treatment to surgery for case 2, and monitoring arrangements for case 3. Certain proposals were associated with the presence of a dermatologist in the MTM, such as discussion of adaptation of immunosuppressive treatment and details of the surgical margins to be applied for case 1, as well as simple monitoring and details of monitoring arrangements in case 3.

CONCLUSION

It is important to maintain dermatologists in MTMs on account of their expertise in all therapeutic areas concerning skin cancers.