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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |