Cargando…

Multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers

The established standard to ensure state-of-the-art cancer treatment is through multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs), although resource- and time-intensive. In this validation study, the multiple myeloma (MM)-TB was reexamined, aiming to validate our previous (2012–2014) results, now using the TB da...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Frank, Benedikt, Ihorst, Gabriele, Herget, Georg, Schäfer, Henning, Neubauer, Jakob, Calba, Marc-Antoine, Textor, Daniel, Möller, Mandy-Deborah, Wenger, Sina, Jung, Johannes, Waldschmidt, Johannes, Miething, Cornelius, Rassner, Michael, Greil, Christine, Wäsch, Ralph, Engelhardt, Monika
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9734518/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36464695
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00277-022-05051-y
_version_ 1784846597965742080
author Frank, Benedikt
Ihorst, Gabriele
Herget, Georg
Schäfer, Henning
Neubauer, Jakob
Calba, Marc-Antoine
Textor, Daniel
Möller, Mandy-Deborah
Wenger, Sina
Jung, Johannes
Waldschmidt, Johannes
Miething, Cornelius
Rassner, Michael
Greil, Christine
Wäsch, Ralph
Engelhardt, Monika
author_facet Frank, Benedikt
Ihorst, Gabriele
Herget, Georg
Schäfer, Henning
Neubauer, Jakob
Calba, Marc-Antoine
Textor, Daniel
Möller, Mandy-Deborah
Wenger, Sina
Jung, Johannes
Waldschmidt, Johannes
Miething, Cornelius
Rassner, Michael
Greil, Christine
Wäsch, Ralph
Engelhardt, Monika
author_sort Frank, Benedikt
collection PubMed
description The established standard to ensure state-of-the-art cancer treatment is through multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs), although resource- and time-intensive. In this validation study, the multiple myeloma (MM)-TB was reexamined, aiming to validate our previous (2012–2014) results, now using the TB data from March 2020 to February 2021. We assessed MM-TB protocols, physicians’ documentation, patient, disease, remission status, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) as left-truncated survival times. Moreover, TB-adherence, level of evidence according to grade criteria, time requirements, study inclusion rates, and referral satisfaction were determined. Within a 1-year period, 312 discussed patients were documented in 439 TB protocols. Patient and disease characteristics were typical for comprehensive cancer centers. The percentages of patients discussed at initial diagnosis (ID), with disease recurrence or in need of interdisciplinary advice, were 39%, 28%, and 33%, respectively. Reasons for the MM-TB presentation were therapeutic challenges in 80% or staging/ID-defining questions in 20%. The numbers of presentations were mostly one in 73%, two in 20%, and three or more in 7%. The TB adherence rate was 93%. Reasons for non-adherence were related to patients’ decisions or challenging inclusion criteria for clinical trials. Additionally, we demonstrate that with the initiation of TBs, that the number of interdisciplinarily discussed patients increased, that TB-questions involve advice on the best treatment, and that levels of compliance and evidence can be as high as ≥ 90%. Advantages of TBs are that they may also improve patients’, referrers’, and physicians’ satisfaction, inclusion into clinical trials, and advance interdisciplinary projects, thereby encouraging cancer specialists to engage in them. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00277-022-05051-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9734518
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97345182022-12-12 Multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers Frank, Benedikt Ihorst, Gabriele Herget, Georg Schäfer, Henning Neubauer, Jakob Calba, Marc-Antoine Textor, Daniel Möller, Mandy-Deborah Wenger, Sina Jung, Johannes Waldschmidt, Johannes Miething, Cornelius Rassner, Michael Greil, Christine Wäsch, Ralph Engelhardt, Monika Ann Hematol Original Article The established standard to ensure state-of-the-art cancer treatment is through multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs), although resource- and time-intensive. In this validation study, the multiple myeloma (MM)-TB was reexamined, aiming to validate our previous (2012–2014) results, now using the TB data from March 2020 to February 2021. We assessed MM-TB protocols, physicians’ documentation, patient, disease, remission status, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) as left-truncated survival times. Moreover, TB-adherence, level of evidence according to grade criteria, time requirements, study inclusion rates, and referral satisfaction were determined. Within a 1-year period, 312 discussed patients were documented in 439 TB protocols. Patient and disease characteristics were typical for comprehensive cancer centers. The percentages of patients discussed at initial diagnosis (ID), with disease recurrence or in need of interdisciplinary advice, were 39%, 28%, and 33%, respectively. Reasons for the MM-TB presentation were therapeutic challenges in 80% or staging/ID-defining questions in 20%. The numbers of presentations were mostly one in 73%, two in 20%, and three or more in 7%. The TB adherence rate was 93%. Reasons for non-adherence were related to patients’ decisions or challenging inclusion criteria for clinical trials. Additionally, we demonstrate that with the initiation of TBs, that the number of interdisciplinarily discussed patients increased, that TB-questions involve advice on the best treatment, and that levels of compliance and evidence can be as high as ≥ 90%. Advantages of TBs are that they may also improve patients’, referrers’, and physicians’ satisfaction, inclusion into clinical trials, and advance interdisciplinary projects, thereby encouraging cancer specialists to engage in them. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00277-022-05051-y. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-12-05 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9734518/ /pubmed/36464695 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00277-022-05051-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Frank, Benedikt
Ihorst, Gabriele
Herget, Georg
Schäfer, Henning
Neubauer, Jakob
Calba, Marc-Antoine
Textor, Daniel
Möller, Mandy-Deborah
Wenger, Sina
Jung, Johannes
Waldschmidt, Johannes
Miething, Cornelius
Rassner, Michael
Greil, Christine
Wäsch, Ralph
Engelhardt, Monika
Multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers
title Multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers
title_full Multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers
title_fullStr Multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers
title_full_unstemmed Multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers
title_short Multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers
title_sort multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9734518/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36464695
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00277-022-05051-y
work_keys_str_mv AT frankbenedikt multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT ihorstgabriele multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT hergetgeorg multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT schaferhenning multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT neubauerjakob multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT calbamarcantoine multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT textordaniel multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT mollermandydeborah multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT wengersina multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT jungjohannes multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT waldschmidtjohannes multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT miethingcornelius multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT rassnermichael multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT greilchristine multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT waschralph multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters
AT engelhardtmonika multidisciplinarytumorboardanalysisvalidationstudyofacentraltoolintumorcenters