Colorectal multidisciplinary meeting audit to determine patient benefit

Treatment Pattern and Outcome of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in Resource-Constrained Countries: Experience at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

PURPOSE

Management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) includes neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) followed by total mesorectal excision. Recently, total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) has gained attention. In developing countries, patients with rectal cancer often present at advanced stages. This study assesses treatment patterns and outcomes in LARC at a largest referral center in Ethiopia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 100 patients with LARC treated at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital from January 2020 to September 2022.

RESULTS

The median age at diagnosis was 45.5 years (range, 20-86), with 51% male. Of the patients, 81% had no previous oncologic treatment and 75.3% was discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board. Up-front surgery was planned for 44.4% of patients, whereas 22.2% and 8.6% were assigned to TNT and NACRT, respectively. Among 81 treatment-naïve patients, 79 were triaged for surgery, but only 47 (59.5%) underwent surgery, achieving an 89.9% R0 resection rate. Of 36 up-front planned surgeries, 35 proceeded as planned, whereas only 12 of 43 (28%) planned after neoadjuvant treatment underwent surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) was given to 37% of patients, with 16.7% (5 of 30) undergoing subsequent surgery. Radiotherapy was given to 24.2% of participants, with 56.25% undergoing surgery. Short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) was given to two patients. Only 14.8% completed all planned treatments, with radiation waiting time (median, 10 months) being the main impediment.

CONCLUSION

Timely administration of neoadjuvant treatment is not possible in most resource-limited settings. Because of better treatment completion, up-front surgery looks a more viable option than NACT in these situations. Extended waiting time for radiotherapy can be mitigated by opting for alternatives like SCRT in selected patients.

Do Surgical Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meetings Make a Difference?

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are important but resource-expensive components of surgical and oncologic care. This cohort study investigated the effectiveness of surgical MDT meetings by assessing the predictability of MDT meeting recommendations, the degree that patient management plans are changed by discussion, and the incidence of recommendation implementation.

METHODS

Multidisciplinary team meetings at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in South Australia were audited for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) and colorectal (CR) surgical units from August 2021 to June 2022. All cases referred for MDT meeting discussion were included. Prospectively obtained pre-MDT meeting management plans were compared with formal MDT meeting recommendations to assess for concordance and degree of change. Patient records were assessed after 8 months for MDT meeting recommendation implementation. Multivariable analysis of patient factors was performed to identify associations between MDT meeting recommendation predictability and implementation.

RESULTS

In 438 patient cases, discussed during 30 MDT meetings, 317 (72.37%) were correctly predicted. Specifically, 226 (51.6%) were correct with no change, 28 (6.39%) were correct with minor changes, 40 (9.13%) were correct with moderate changes, and 23 (5.25%) were correct with major changes. The UGI and CR cohorts differed significantly in moderate changes (P = 0.0217). The female patients were 1.62 times more likely than the male patients to have pre-MDT meeting management plans predicted (P = 0.0201). Formal MDT meeting recommendations were implemented in 380 (89.62%) cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The MDT meetings changed management for almost 1 in 2 patients discussed. Other than female sex, no identifiable patient factors increased the likelihood of predictability, and no factors predicted recommendation implementation.

Evidence Review for the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Part III: Standardization, Protocols, and Achieving Better Outcomes for Patient Care

BACKGROUND

After decades of experience supporting surgical quality and safety by the American College of Surgeons (ACS), the ACS Quality Verification Program (ACS QVP) was developed to help hospitals improve surgical quality and safety. This review is the final installment of a 3-part review aimed to synthesize evidence supporting the main principles of the ACS QVP.

STUDY DESIGN

Evidence was systematically reviewed for 3 principles: standardized team-based care across 5 phases of surgical care, disease-based management, and external regulatory review. MEDLINE was searched for articles published from inception to January 2019 and 2 reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion in a hierarchical manner, extracted data, and summarized results in a narrative fashion. A total of 5,237 studies across these 3 topics were identified. Studies were included if they evaluated the relationship between the standard of interest and patient-level or organization measures within the last 20 years.

RESULTS

After applying inclusion criteria, a total of 150 studies in systematic reviews and primary studies were included for assessment. Despite institutional variation in standardized clinical pathways, evidence demonstrated improved outcomes such as reduced length of stay, costs, and complications. Evidence for multidisciplinary disease-based care protocols was mixed, though trended toward improving patient outcomes such as reduced length of stay and readmissions. Similarly, the evidence for accreditation and adherence to external process measures was also mixed, though several studies demonstrated the benefit of accreditation programs on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified literature supports the importance of standardized multidisciplinary and disease-based processes and external regulatory systems to improve quality of care.

The impact of oncological package implementation on the treatment of rectal cancer in years 2013-2019 in Poland - multicenter study

<b><br>Introduction:</b> In 2015, in Poland, the oncological package (OP) was established. This law constituted a fast track of oncological diagnosis and treatment and obligatory multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT).</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of OP on rectal cancer treatment.</br> <b><br>Methods:</b> The study was a multicenter, retrospective analysis of data collected from five centers. It included clinical data of patients operated on due to rectal cancer between 2013 and 2019. For most analyses, patients were categorized into three groups: 2013-2014 - before OP (A), 2015-2016 - early development of OP (B), 2017-2019 - further OP functioning (C).</br> <b><br>Results:</b> A total of 1418 patients were included. In all time intervals, the majority of operations performed were anterior resections. There was a significantly lower local tumor stage (T) observed in subsequent time intervals, while there were no significant differences for N and M. In period C, the median of resected nodes was significantly higher than in previous periods. Four of the centers showed an increasing tendency in the use of preoperative radiotherapy. The study indicated a significant increase in the use of short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) and a decrease in the number of patients who did not receive any form of preoperative therapy in subsequent periods. In the group that should receive radiotherapy (T3/4 or N+ and M0), the use of SCRT was also significantly increasing.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> In the whole cohort, there was a significant increase in the use of preoperative radiotherapy and a decrease in the T stage, changing with the development of OP. Nevertheless, this relation is indirect and more data should be gathered for further conclusions.</br>.

A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy of multidisciplinary team and radiology reporting of preoperative colorectal cancer local staging

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to correlate and assess diagnostic accuracy of preoperative staging at multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) against the original radiology reports and pathological staging in colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted at two institutions. Patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer and available preoperative imaging were included. Preoperative tumor and nodal staging (cT and cN) as determined by the MDT and the radiology report (computed tomography [CT] and/or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) were recorded. Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between MDT and the radiology report for cN staging in colon cancer, cT and cN in rectal cancer, and tumor regression grade (TRG) in patients with rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant therapy. Pathological report after surgery served as the reference standard for local staging, and AUROC curves were constructed to compare diagnostic accuracy of the MDT and radiology report.

RESULTS

A total of 481 patients were included. Agreement between MDT and radiology report for cN stage was good in colon cancer (k = .756, Confidence Interval (CI) 95% .686-.826). Agreement for cT and cN and in rectal cancer was very good (kw = .825, CI 95% .758-.892) and good (kw = .792, CI 95% .709-.875), respectively. In the rectal cancer group that received neoadjuvant therapy, agreement on TRG was very good (kw = .919, CI 95% .846-.993). AUROC curves using pathological staging indicated no difference in diagnostic accuracy between MDT and radiology reports for either colon or rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative colorectal cancer local staging was consistent between specialist MDT review and original radiology reports, with no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy identified.

Impact of two waves of Sars-Cov2 outbreak on the number, clinical presentation, care trajectories and survival of patients newly referred for a colorectal cancer: A French multicentric cohort study from a large group of university hospitals

The SARS‐Cov2 may have impaired care trajectories, patient overall survival (OS), tumor stage at initial presentation for new colorectal cancer (CRC) cases. This study aimed at assessing those indicators before and after the beginning of the pandemic in France. In this retrospective cohort study, we collected prospectively the clinical data of the 11.4 million of patients referred to the Greater Paris University Hospitals (AP‐HP). We identified new CRC cases between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2020, and compared indicators for 2018‐2019 to 2020. pTNM tumor stage was extracted from postoperative pathology reports for localized colon cancer, and metastatic status was extracted from CT‐scan baseline text reports. Between 2018 and 2020, 3602 and 1083 new colon and rectal cancers were referred to the AP‐HP, respectively. The 1‐year OS rates reached 94%, 93% and 76% for new CRC patients undergoing a resection of the primary tumor, in 2018‐2019, in 2020 without any Sars‐Cov2 infection and in 2020 with a Sars‐Cov2 infection, respectively (HR 3.78, 95% CI 2.1‐7.1). For patients undergoing other kind of anticancer treatment, the percentages are 64%, 66% and 27% (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4‐3.3). Tumor stage at initial presentation, emergency level of primary tumor resection, delays between the first multidisciplinary meeting and the first anticancer treatment did not differ over time. The SARS‐Cov2 pandemic has been associated with less newly diagnosed CRC patients and worse 1‐year OS rates attributable to the infection itself rather than to its impact on hospital care delivery or tumor stage at initial presentation.

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.

Improved Overall Survival of Colorectal Cancer under Multidisciplinary Team: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose

The purpose of the current meta-analysis was to evaluate whether multidisciplinary team improved overall survival of colorectal cancer.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library database were searched from inception to October 25, 2020. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence (CI) of overall survival (OS) were calculated.

Results

A total of 11 studies with 30814 patients were included in this meta-analysis. After pooling the HRs, the MDT group was associated with better OS compared with the non-MDT group (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, p = 0.005). In subgroup analysis of stage IV colorectal cancer, the MDT group was associated with better OS as well (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.90, p = 0.004). However, in terms of postoperative mortality, no significant difference was found between MDT and non-MDT groups (OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.44-1.61, p = 0.60).

Conclusion

MDT could improve OS of colorectal cancer patients.

The Effect of Multidisciplinary Team Discussion Intervention on the Prognosis of Advanced Colorectal Cancer

Purpose: The effects of multidisciplinary team discussion intervention on the treatment and prognosis of advanced colorectal cancer are still controversial. Large sample size studies to evaluate the efficacy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer are lacking. Materials and Methods: We statistically analyzed the data of surgical patients diagnosed with advanced colorectal cancer from 2008 to 2014 by retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether or not they received multidisciplinary team discussion intervention. After at least 3 years of follow up, differences between two groups were compared with respect to treatment process and patient prognosis. Results: The time to treatment in intervention group was shorter (9.6 ± 4.2 days vs 10.7 ± 5.6 days; p= 0.002). There were no significant differences in recurrence and metastasis rate between the two groups. Multivariate survival analysis suggested that multidisciplinary team discussion intervention reduced the risk of death (HR = 0.677; p = 0.006). And it had significant interaction with tumor invasion and tumor stage, and especially had beneficial effects in the tumor stage IV subgroup (p=0.005) and tumor invasion T4 subgroup (p<0.001). Conclusion: Multidisciplinary team discussion intervention accelerated the treatment process and reduced the death risk of patients with advanced colorectal cancer, especially improved the overall survival of stage IV and invasion T4 patients. The clinical characteristics of tumor invasion and tumor stage must be the primary considerations when judging whether patients need to conduct multidisciplinary team discussions.

Impact of optional multidisciplinary tumor board meeting on the mortality of patients with gastrointestinal cancer: A retrospective observational study

Background

Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings (MDTs) have shown a positive effect on patient care and play a role in the planning of care. However, there is limited evidence of the association between MDTs and patient mortality and in‐hospital morbidity for mixed cases of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer.

Aim

To evaluate the influence of optional MDTs on care of patients with cancer to determine potential associations between MDTs and patient mortality and morbidity.

Methods and results

This was a retrospective observational study at the referral center of King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Among all adult patients diagnosed with GI cancer from January 2017 to June 2019, 130 patients were included. We categorized patients into two groups: 66 in the control group (non‐MDT) and 64 in the MDT group. The main outcome measure was overall mortality, measured by survival analysis. The follow‐up was 100% complete. Four patients in the MDT group and 13 in the non‐MDT group died (P = .04). The median follow‐up duration was 294 days (interquartile range [IQR], 140‐434) in the non‐MDT group compared with 176 days (IQR, 103‐466) in the MDT group (P = .20). There were no differences in intensive care unit or hospital length‐of‐stay or admission rates. The overall mortality at 2 years was 13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐0.66) in the MDT group and 38% (95% CI, 0.10‐0.39) in the non‐MDT group (P = .08). The MDT group showed a 72% (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08‐0.90; P = .03) decrease in mortality over time compared with the non‐MDT group.

Conclusions

MDTs were associated with decreased mortality over time. Thus, MDTs have a positive influence on patient care by improving survival and should be incorporated into care.

Impact of a Multidisciplinary Team Approach for Managing Advanced and Recurrent Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The wide variety of treatment strategies makes clinical decision-making difficult in advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer cases. Many hospitals have started multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings comprising a team of dedicated specialists for discussing cases. MDTs for selected cases that are difficult to diagnose and treat are alternatives to regular MDTs. This study's aim was to determine the impact of a MDT for colorectal cancer on clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Cases were discussed when clinical specialists had difficulty making decisions alone. All processes done by the MDT were then recorded in prospectively designed medical case forms.

RESULTS

From Jan 2011 to Dec 2014, 1383 cases were discussed. A total of 549 (39.8%) case forms were completed for patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer, whereas 833 (60.2%) were completed for those with recurrent diseases. The MDT altered the proposed treatment of the referring physician in 179 (13%) cases. In 85 of the 179 (47.5%) altered cases, the radiologist's review of clinical information affected the diagnosis and decision. Furthermore, 152 of the 1383 MDT decisions were not implemented. Treatment intent, therapeutic plan, and alteration of decision were important reasons for not following the MDT's recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Case discussions in MDT meetings resulted in altered clinical decisions in >10% cases. Implementation rates after MDT discussions might be affected by the treatment decision-making process. Imperfect decisions made by individual physicians can be decreased by the multidisciplinary decision-making process.

Impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on patients with rectal cancer

Οncological outcomes in patients with primary rectal cancer have markedly improved over the last few years, mainly due to the widespread application of the total mesorectal excision technique. This improvement should also be largely attributed to multiple specialties, other than colorectal surgery, such as radiology, oncology and pathology. Therefore, a multimodal approach is key to efficient and appropriate rectal cancer management. Multidisciplinary tumor (MDT) boards have become an important asset for the management and treatment of patients with rectal cancer, and a number of studies published to date suggest the beneficial effect of the multidisciplinary approach on the management of such patients. The available evidence demonstrates a modification of the treatment plan, attributed to the MDT implementation, in a non-negligible proportion of these patients. However, more studies are required in order to assess the exact impact of MDT boards on disease-free and overall survival of patients with primary rectal cancer.

Practice patterns, attitudes, and knowledge among physicians regarding cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for patients with peritoneal metastases

Background

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a treatment option for patients with peritoneal metastases shown to provide improved overall survival for appropriately selected patients. However, the availability and utilization of this treatment remains limited. The aim of this survey-based study was to evaluate factors influencing physician treatment choices for peritoneal metastases.

Methods

Surveys were mailed to medical oncologists and surgeons in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. Survey questions evaluated access to HIPEC centers, prior experience with referral to HIPEC centers, opinions regarding efficacy, and knowledge regarding outcomes of CRS and HIPEC.

Results

Surveys were mailed to 2279 physicians; 116 eligible surveys were returned. Seventy-five percent of respondents would consider referral to a HIPEC center for appendiceal peritoneal metastasis, while only 50% would consider it for colon cancer and peritoneal mesothelioma. The most common reason for never referring a patient to a HIPEC center was lack of access to a HIPEC specialist (47%) followed by perceived lack of evidence for the treatment modality (31%). Five-year survival after CRS and HIPEC was underestimated while 30-day mortality was overestimated by more than half of respondents.

Conclusions

Referral to HIPEC centers is underutilized among community physicians in practice. Limited access to HIPEC experts is the most common cause for lack of referral, followed by a perception of insufficient evidence for this treatment approach. Lack of familiarity with data regarding outcomes impacts referral patterns and treatment choices. Possible actions to increase awareness and appropriate utilization of CRS and HIPEC are suggested.

Management of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: impact of multidisciplinary case conference review

BACKGROUND

While no evidence exists to support mandatory multidisciplinary case conference (MCC) review for patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases, this unique population may benefit greatly from multidisciplinary discussion.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients who underwent liver resection with curative intent for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) at a tertiary center between January 2008 and June 2015. The characteristics of patients discussed at a weekly regional MCC were examined, and the effect of MCC review on treatment approach was assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients underwent elective surgery for synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases during the study period. Twenty-nine patients (44%) were presented at a MCC. Presentation was associated with greater likelihood of undergoing simultaneous or liver-first resection (P≤0.0001), with no difference in the extent of liver resection or location of primary tumor between the groups. A greater proportion of patients received chemotherapy and/or radiation following MCC discussion, without statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment approach for patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases may be significantly altered based on MCC review. Multidisciplinary discussion is advocated in order to facilitate equal access to individualized care.

The Value of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer is rising and most patients with GI malignancies are discussed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). We performed a systematic review to assess whether MDTs for patients with GI malignancies can correctly change diagnosis, tumor stage and subsequent treatment plan, and whether the treatment plan was implemented.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We conducted a search of the PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases, and included studies relating to adults with a GI malignancy discussed by an MDT prior to the start of treatment which described a change of initial diagnosis, stage or treatment plan. Two researchers independently evaluated all retrieved titles and abstracts from the abovementioned databases.

RESULTS

Overall, 16 studies were included; the study quality was rated as fair. Four studies reported that MDTs changed the diagnoses formulated by individual physicians in 18.4-26.9% of evaluated cases; two studies reported that MDTs formulated an accurate diagnosis in 89 and 93.5% of evaluated cases, respectively; nine studies described that the treatment plan was altered in 23.0-41.7% of evaluated cases; and four studies found that MDT decisions were implemented in 90-100% of evaluated cases. The reasons for altering a treatment plan included the patient's wishes, and comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

MDT meetings for patients with a GI malignancy are responsible for changes in diagnoses and management in a significant number of patients. Treatment plans formulated by MDTs are implemented in 90-100% of discussed patients. All patients with a GI malignancy should be discussed by an MDT.