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

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.

Treatment strategies in vertebral metastasis. Need for multidisciplinary committees from the perspective of the surgeon. Narration of literatura

Improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment have improved survival. Secondarily, the number of patients who present a vertebral metastasis and the number with some morbidity in relation to these metastases also increases. Vertebral fracture, root compression or spinal cord injury cause a deterioration of their quality of life. The objective in the treatment of the vertebral metastasis must be the control of pain, maintenance of neurological function and vertebral stability, bearing in mind that in most cases it will be a palliative treatment. The treatment of these complications needs a multidisciplinary approach, radiologists, interventional radiologists, oncologists and radiation therapists, spine surgeons, but also rehabilitation or pain units. Recent studies show that a multidisciplinary approach of these patients can improve quality of life and even prognosis. In the present article, a review and reading of the literature on the multidisciplinary management of these patients is carried out.

[Translated article] Treatment strategies in vertebral metastasis. Need for multidisciplinary committees from the perspective of the surgeon. Narration of literature

Improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment have improved survival. Secondarily, the number of patients who present a vertebral metastasis and the number with some morbidity in relation to these metastases also increase. Vertebral fracture, root compression or spinal cord injury cause a deterioration of their quality of life. The objective in the treatment of the vertebral metastasis must be the control of pain, maintenance of neurological function and vertebral stability, bearing in mind that in most cases it will be a palliative treatment. The treatment of these complications needs a multidisciplinary approach, radiologists, interventional radiologists, oncologists and radiation therapists, spine surgeons, but also rehabilitation or pain units. Recent studies show that a multidisciplinary approach of these patients can improve quality of life and even prognosis. In the present article, a review and reading of the literature on the multidisciplinary management of these patients is carried out.

The Oesophageal Cancer Multidisciplinary Team: Can Machine Learning Assist Decision-Making?

BACKGROUND

The complexity of the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) multidisciplinary team (MDT) is continually growing, leading to rising clinician workload, time pressures, and demands. This increases heterogeneity or 'noise' within decision-making for patients with oesophageal cancer (OC) and may lead to inconsistent treatment decisions. In recent decades, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and more specifically the branch of machine learning (ML) has led to a paradigm shift in the perceived utility of statistical modelling within healthcare. Within oesophageal cancer (OC) care, ML techniques have already been applied with early success to the analyses of histological samples and radiology imaging; however, it has not yet been applied to the MDT itself where such models are likely to benefit from incorporating information-rich, diverse datasets to increase predictive model accuracy.

METHODS

This review discusses the current role the MDT plays in modern UGI cancer care as well as the utilisation of ML techniques to date using histological and radiological data to predict treatment response, prognostication, nodal disease evaluation, and even resectability within OC.

RESULTS

The review finds that an emerging body of evidence is growing in support of ML tools within multiple domains relevant to decision-making within OC including automated histological analysis and radiomics. However, to date, no specific application has been directed to the MDT itself which routinely assimilates this information.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors feel the UGI MDT offers an information-rich, diverse array of data from which ML offers the potential to standardise, automate, and produce more consistent, data-driven MDT decisions.

Clinically decisive (dis)agreement in multidisciplinary team assessment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; a prospective, national, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Decisions regarding tumor staging, operability, resectability, and treatment strategy in patients with esophageal cancer are made at multidisciplinary team (MDT) conferences. We aimed to assess interobserver agreement from four national MDT conferences and whether this would have a clinical impact.

METHODS

A total of 20 patients with esophageal cancer were included across all four upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer centers. Fully anonymized patient data were distributed among the MDT conferences which decided on TNM category, resectability, operability, curability, and treatment strategy blinded to each other's decisions. The interobserver agreement was expressed as both the raw observer agreement and with Krippendorff's α values. Finally, a case-by-case evaluation was performed to determine if disagreement would have had a clinical impact.

RESULTS

A total of 80 MDT evaluations were available for analysis. A moderate to near-perfect observer agreement of 79.2%, 55.8%, and 82.5% for TNM category was observed, respectively. Substantial agreement for resectability and moderate agreement for curability were found. However, an only fair agreement was observed for the operability category. The treatment strategies had a slight agreement which corresponded to disagreement having a clinical impact in 12 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal cancer MDT conferences had an acceptable interobserver agreement on resectability and TM categories; however, the operability assessment had a high level of disagreement. Consequently, the agreement on treatment strategy was reduced with a potential clinical impact. In future MDT conferences, emphasis should be on prioritizing the relevant information being readily available (operability, T & M categories) to minimize the risk of disagreement in the assessments and treatment strategies, and thus, delayed or suboptimal treatment.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: An Analysis of a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Database

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary management strategies are standard in esophageal cancer. Based on a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) database in a high-volume center, we aimed to evaluate real-world treatment patterns and patient outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. In addition, we determined the impact of MTB discussions on patient prognosis.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The pattern of treatment modalities and overall survival (OS) of patients with limited, locally advanced, and advanced/metastatic disease were reported.

RESULTS

Data from 1132 patients, including 247 patients with limited esophageal cancer, 606 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, and 279 patients with advanced/metastatic esophageal cancer were included. Upfront surgery was the most common (56.3%) treatment modality for patients with limited esophageal cancer, while treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer included upfront surgery (19.1%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (44.9%), and definitive chemoradiotherapy (36.0%); however, 27.9% of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy did not receive planned esophagectomy. Definitive chemoradiotherapy was mainly used for patients with locally advanced and advanced/metastatic disease, but had an incompletion rate of 22.0% and 33.7%, respectively. Regarding survival, the 5-year OS rates were 56.4%, 26.3%, and 5.1% in patients with limited, locally advanced, and advanced/metastatic disease, respectively. Additionally, patients whose clinical management was discussed in the MTB had a significantly better 5-year OS rate than the other patients (27.3% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We report the real-world data of treatment patterns and patient outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer with respect to multidisciplinary management, and demonstrate the positive impact of MTB discussions on patient prognosis.

Impact of palliative therapies in metastatic esophageal cancer patients not receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Palliative therapy has been associated with improved overall survival (OS) in several tumor types. Not all patients with metastatic esophageal cancer receive palliative chemotherapy, and the roles of other palliative therapies in these patients are limited.

AIM

To investigate the impact of other palliative therapies in patients with metastatic esophageal cancer not receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients between 2004-2015. Patients with M1 disease who declined chemotherapy and had known palliative therapy status [palliative therapies were defined as surgery, radiotherapy (RT), pain management, or any combination thereof] were included. Cases with unknown chemotherapy, RT, or nonprimary surgery status were excluded. Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS were calculated. Cox proportional hazards regression models were employed to examine factors influencing survival.

RESULTS

Among 140234 esophageal cancer cases, we identified 1493 patients who did not receive chemotherapy and had complete data. Median age was 70 years, most (66.3%) had a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 0, and 37.1% were treated at an academic center. The majority (72.7%) did not receive other palliative therapies. On both univariate and multivariable analyses, there was no difference in OS between those receiving other palliative therapy (median 2.83 mo, 95%CI: 2.53-3.12) vs no palliative therapy (2.37 no, 95%CI: 2.2-2.56; multivariable P = 0.290). On univariate, but not multivariable analysis, treatment at an academic center was predictive of improved OS [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95%CI: 0.80-1.00; P = 0.047]. On multivariable analysis, female sex (HR 0.81, 95%CI: 0.71-0.92) and non-black, other race compared to white race (HR 0.72, 95%CI: 0.56-0.93) were associated with reduced mortality, while South geographic region relative to West region (HR 1.23, 95%CI: 1.04-1.46) and CCI of 1 relative to CCI of 0 (HR 1.17, 95%CI: 1.03-1.32) were associated with increased mortality. Higher histologic grade and T-stage were also associated with worse OS (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Palliative therapies other than chemotherapy conferred a numerically higher, but not statistically significant difference in OS among patients with metastatic esophageal cancer not receiving chemotherapy. Quality of life metrics, inpatient status, and subgroup analyses are important for examining the role of palliative therapies other than chemotherapy in metastatic esophageal cancer and future studies are warranted.