Abstract
Introduction: Tumor boards have become a crucial institution in oncology practice to provide paramount interdisciplinary cancer treatment, stream-line patient (pt) entries and to ensure treatment according to clinical pathways (CP). We initiated a weekly MM-TB at our institution in 6/2012. Participating experts are hematologist-oncologists, pathologists/cytogenetic specialists, orthopedists, radiotherapists, immunologists/rheumatologists and, if needed, nephrologists, cardiologists and others. Pt applications to be discussed are centrally organized through our CCCF, with the TB advice being centrally stored within our electronic pt information system. Recommended TB advice is made according to best current literature/knowledge and international CP. The development of mandatory CCCF-CP and transparency of decision making are key quality criteria.
Methods: This first analysis focused on a) discussed TB questions, b) given recommendations, c) pt characteristics, d) pts’, referring- and participating-physicians' satisfaction with the TB, e) inclusion of these challenging-to-treat pts in clinical trials (CT) and f) PFS/OS of TB pts as compared to the literature (Kumar SK. Leukemia 2012). Grades of recommendations were assigned using the GRADE criteria (Engelhardt M. Haematologica 2014) and meticulously assessed, as well as whether TB recommendations were pursued. Pts’, referring- and participating-physicians' satisfaction with the TB was evaluated via standardized questionnaires, the aimed sample size being n=100 for consecutive pts and ~n=30 each for participating and referring physicians.
Results: From 6/2012-5/2014, 483 pts have been discussed within 90 MM-TB sessions, substantially increasing these from 2011 to 2012, 2013 and 2014 by 12-fold. Of the entire MM cohort seen at our institution, 60% of these challenging-to-treat pts were discussed within the TB in 2012, increasing to 71% in 2013. We have currently assessed 200 TB-protocols for pt characteristics, clinical outcome and adherence to TB decisions. Of those, 2% were presented for explicit diagnosis-finding, 17% had newly diagnosed MM, 41% relapsed/refractory MM and 40% had attained stable disease or better with their last-line therapy and were discussed to resolve their ongoing treatment. Expectedly, most pts (89%) were discussed for their next-line treatment, 43% due to strains with comorbidities, symptom control, side effects, diagnosis finding and MM-staging, and 11% due to various other reasons (multiple entries possible). Mean treatment lines of pts discussed in the TB was 2 (range 0-10), deciding on their 3rd-line-treatment. Within the TB cohort, 70% were presented once, but 30% several times (mean 2, range 2-4). Of these multiple presentations, most pts had relapsed or refractory MM, this rate further increasing towards the 3rd and 4th TB-presentation. The adherence to TB-recommendations was excellent with 93% of decisions being pursued. Reasons for adapted approaches were practicable issues or disagreement of the pt, family or referring physician. Of currently 80/100 interviewed pts, 95% were entirely satisfied with their care, treating oncologists/MM-expert team and very supportively perceived the MM-TB. Of note, 94% considered their cancer care ideally achieved by the TB, 92% that their local physician profited greatly and 88% that their personal preferences were also accounted for. Of 30 interviewed participating physicians, 97% considered themselves well-educated and their time well-spent. Of currently 18 referring physicians, 73% were unconditionally satisfied with all TB-diagnostics and -therapies, with the university centers' cooperation and 65% acknowledged no information loss. Of 288 pts assessed for their CT suitability, 28% were suggested by the TB to be included, with 53% actually being able to enter therein. Thus, 15% of our MM-TB cohort could be included in a CT, which is considerable since these were challenging-to-treat pts who had received extensive prior therapies and showed several comorbidities. This also confirms current CT accrual rates for cancer pts of 5-15%, which can be increased with well-structured TB.
Conclusions: Our preliminary results suggest that this MM-TB is a highly relevant exchange platform and allows physicians from different disciplines to intensely and rewardingly collaborate for state-of-the-art cancer care.
Disclosures
No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
A clinician’s perspective on co-developing and co-implementing a digital tumor board solution
