Characteristics of the Multi Disciplinary Cancer Conference (Tumor Boards) in the COVID 19 era.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13561-e13561
Author(s):  
Lijo Simpson ◽  
Anju Mathew ◽  
Robert Wojciechowski
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Web Application ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Quality Metrics ◽  
Care Team ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Case Conference ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Virtual Platform

e13561 Background: Cancer centers in the US are required to discuss a minimum of 15% analytic cases and prospective presentation (minimum 80%) in the multidisciplinary case conference (tumor board, MDCC), per the Commission on Cancer accrediting standards. Tumor board discussion have been shown to improve treatment decision making and patient outcomes. These meetings were in person meetings in the Pre-COVID era. The COVID 19 pandemic and the subsequent requirements for social distancing forced hospitals to move most MDCCs to a virtual format. We report on the large scale utilization of a propriety Care-Coordination platform OncoLens to run MDCCs across the country. Methods: Technology quality metrics were collected from the ongoing daily usage of the platform including time characteristics, care team utilization metrics, average attendance, quality metrics collected for accreditation and clinical trials matching on the OncoLens platform. Results: The virtual platform was accessible to around 8000 providers across the United States. On average per month there were 250 virtual meetings with over 290,000 meeting minutes. Conferences ranged from 30 minutes to 4 hours. 75% of users used the web application 25% of users utilized their smart phones .System uptime was 99.99%. Hospitals were able to conduct General and Site specific conferences. Virtual attendance of the required specialties of Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Surgery, Pathology and Radiology was attained, with the average conference attendance being 14. On average hospitals required 2 administrative training sessions. Most of the case presentations were prospective. This format does enable cancer programs to collect quality metrics around Cancer program accreditation by the American College of Surgeons. A wide variety of common and rare cancer types were discussed in the virtual format. 66% of patients discussed potentially matched to clinical trials during the discussion. Conclusions: The shift of MDCCs to a mostly virtual environment occurred quickly in response to the COVID 19 pandemic. It took an average of 2 training classes to get the cancer care team on board with the use of new technology. It is possible to have high quality discussions and attain metrics for Commission On Cancer accreditation utilizing a virtual platform.

scholarly journals cbpManager: a web application to streamline the integration of clinical and genomic data in cBioPortal to support the Molecular Tumor Board

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arsenij Ustjanzew ◽  
Alexander Desuki ◽  
Christoph Ritzel ◽  
Alina Corinna Dolezilek ◽  
Daniel-Christoph Wagner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Data ◽  
Web Application ◽  
Cancer Biology ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Cancer Genomics ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Data Formats ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Data Files

Abstract Background Extensive sequencing of tumor tissues has greatly improved our understanding of cancer biology over the past years. The integration of genomic and clinical data is increasingly used to select personalized therapies in dedicated tumor boards (Molecular Tumor Boards) or to identify patients for basket studies. Genomic alterations and clinical information can be stored, integrated and visualized in the open-access resource cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics. cBioPortal can be run as a local instance enabling storage and analysis of patient data in single institutions, in the respect of data privacy. However, uploading clinical input data and genetic aberrations requires the elaboration of multiple data files and specific data formats, which makes it difficult to integrate this system into clinical practice. To solve this problem, we developed cbpManager. Results cbpManager is an R package providing a web-based interactive graphical user interface intended to facilitate the maintenance of mutations data and clinical data, including patient and sample information, as well as timeline data. cbpManager enables a large spectrum of researchers and physicians, regardless of their informatics skills to intuitively create data files ready for upload in cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics on a daily basis or in batch. Due to its modular structure based on R Shiny, further data formats such as copy number and fusion data can be covered in future versions. Further, we provide cbpManager as a containerized solution, enabling a straightforward large-scale deployment in clinical systems and secure access in combination with ShinyProxy. cbpManager is freely available via the Bioconductor project at https://bioconductor.org/packages/cbpManager/ under the AGPL-3 license. It is already used at six University Hospitals in Germany (Mainz, Gießen, Lübeck, Halle, Freiburg, and Marburg). Conclusion In summary, our package cbpManager is currently a unique software solution in the workflow with cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics, to assist the user in the interactive generation and management of study files suited for the later upload in cBioPortal.

scholarly journals Landscape of Oncology Clinical Trials in Africa

2020 ◽  
pp. 932-941
Author(s):  
Folakemi T. Odedina ◽  
Delva Shamley ◽  
Ifeoma Okoye ◽  
Adaora Ezeani ◽  
Ntokozo Ndlovu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
African Population ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Lung Cancers ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Virtual Platform ◽  
African Patients

PURPOSE The burden of cancer in Africa is of significant concern for several reasons, including that incidence of cancer in Africa continues to rise while Africa is also dealing with communicable diseases. To combat cancer in Africa, oncology clinical trials are needed to develop innovative interventions for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of clinical trials in Africa and it is difficult for African clinicians to get information on open oncology clinical trials and impossible for African patients with cancer to access this information. The primary objective of this study was to identify open oncology clinical trials in Africa. METHODS This project was part of a large-scale study to develop an African Virtual Platform for Oncology Clinical Trials Registry. The study was a quantitative, web-based, retrospective review of clinical trials registries. RESULTS A total of 109 open oncology clinical trials were identified. Most of the trials were in Egypt, South Africa, Algeria, and Kenya. The top cancer types for oncology clinical trials in Africa were breast, cervical, and lung cancers. The top sponsor of oncology clinical trials in Africa was academic institutions, especially institutions in the United States. CONCLUSION The paucity of clinical trials in Africa will continue to magnify the global disparities of cancer in the African population. Clinical trials are needed to ensure therapeutic interventions are safe and effective in the African population. In the era of personalized and precision health, it no longer suffices to assume that drugs developed in North America, Europe, or Asia will be effective in the African population.

Results of a multistate, multi-institution implementation of a multidisciplinary cancer conference quality measurement tool.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 212-212
Author(s):  
Lijo Simpson ◽  
Anju Mathew ◽  
Robert Wojciechowski ◽  
Irina Hill
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Quality Measurement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Quality Metrics ◽  
Lower Percentage ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Quality Cancer Care ◽  
Psychosocial Counselling ◽  
Virtual Platform

212 Background: The 2006 ASCO and the ESMO consensus statement on quality cancer care defined the delivery of multimodality treatment by a multidisciplinary team of appropriately skilled health professionals as an essential component of quality cancer care. Furthermore, MDCs have demonstrated improved survival in breast, head and neck, ovarian and colorectal cancers. Despite these advantages, health care systems struggle to implement and sustain MDCs due to the heavy burden imposed by the required work processes. We report on the large-scale utilization of a propriety quality measurement platform OncoLens to run MDCs across the country. Methods: Technology quality metrics were collected from the ongoing daily usage of the platform including cancer characteristics, care team utilization metrics, average attendance, quality metrics collected for accreditation and clinical trials matching on the OncoLens platform. Results: The virtual platform was accessible to around 8000 providers across the United States. In 2020, 13771 cases were discussed. Attendance of the required specialties for high quality care of Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Surgery, Pathology and Radiology was attained, with the average conference attendance being 14. Race/ethnicity data on the cases revealed White (9197, 67%), Black (1817,13%), Hispanic (363,3%) and Other (2356,17%). Optional quality metrics were collected during discussions for CoC, NAPBC and NAPRC accreditation. These included NCCN guidelines discussed, Staging discussed, clinical trials discussed, Genetics discussion, palliative care discussion, rehabilitation services, reproductive counselling discussed, psychosocial counselling discussed, nutritional counselling discussed, reconstructive surgery discussion, tobacco cessation discussion across General and Site-specific conferences. Most of the case presentations were prospective. This format does enable cancer programs to collect quality metrics around Cancer program accreditation by the American College of Surgeons. 66% of patients discussed potentially matched to clinical trials during the discussion. Conclusions: A technology platform can assist cancer programs to collect quality metrics around cancer care. This gives them the ability to run data driven quality programs targeting specific quality metrics. Hispanics have a lower percentage of cases presented at MDC compared to other race/ethnicities. It is possible to have high quality discussions and attain metrics for Commission on Cancer accreditation utilizing a virtual platform.

scholarly journals Personalized Medicine in the Oncology Clinic: Implementation and Outcomes of the Johns Hopkins Molecular Tumor Board

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Brian Dalton ◽  
Patrick M. Forde ◽  
Hyunseok Kang ◽  
Roisin M. Connolly ◽  
Vered Stearns ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Molecular Profiling ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

Purpose Tumor genomic profiling for personalized oncology therapy is being widely applied in clinical practice even as it is being evaluated more formally in clinical trials. Given the complexities of genomic data and its application to clinical use, molecular tumor boards with diverse expertise can provide guidance to oncologists and patients seeking to implement personalized genetically targeted therapy in practice. Methods A multidisciplinary molecular tumor board reviewed tumor molecular profiling reports from consecutive referrals at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins over a 3-year period. The tumor board weighed evidence for actionability of genomic alterations identified by molecular profiling and provided recommendations including US Food and Drug Administration–approved drug therapy, clinical trials of matched targeted therapy, off-label use of such therapy, and additional tumor or germline genetic testing. Results One hundred fifty-five patients were reviewed. Actionable genomic alterations were identified in 132 patients (85%). Off-label therapies were recommended in 37 patients (24%). Eleven patients were treated off-label, and 13 patients were enrolled onto clinical trials of matched targeted therapies. Median progression-free survival of patients treated with matched therapies was 5 months ( 95% CI, 2.9 months to not reached), and the progression-free survival probability at 6 months was 43% (95% CI, 26% to 71%). Lack of locally available clinical trials was the major limitation on clinical actionability of tumor profiling reports. Conclusion The molecular tumor board recommended off-label targeted therapies for a quarter of all patients reviewed. Outcomes were heterogeneous, although 43% of patients receiving genomically matched therapy derived clinical benefit lasting at least 6 months. Until more data become available from precision oncology trials, molecular tumor boards can help guide appropriate use of tumor molecular testing to direct therapy.

First Results of the Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Cancer Center Freiburg (CCCF) Tumor Board (TB) Multiple Myeloma (MM) Assessing TB-Questions, TB-Advice Adherence, TB-Satisfaction of Patients, Participants and Referring Physicians, Inclusion of Difficult-to-Treat-MM Pts in Clinical Trials (CT) and Patient Outcome

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2635-2635
Author(s):  
Ricarda Selder ◽  
Masa Pandurevic ◽  
Mandy-Deborah Möller ◽  
Johannes Waldschmidt ◽  
Milena Pantic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Clinical Pathways ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Stream Line ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Referring Physicians

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.

Quality assessment of tumor boards across an academic and community cancer network.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 122-122
Author(s):  
Daniel Aaron Roberts ◽  
Robert Stuver ◽  
Igor Schillevoort ◽  
Jessica A. Zerillo
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Assessment Survey ◽  
Cancer Network

122 Background: Cancer tumor boards (TB), or multidisciplinary team meetings are standard of care in oncology care worldwide. Specific components are described by the American College of Surgeon's Commission on Cancer Program. Most data show consistent improvement in outcomes including a change in diagnostic findings, treatment, and possibly improved survival with TBs. Methods: We adapted a performance assessment tool based on a validated survey implemented in the United Kingdom. An initial survey aimed at assessing tumor board structure and design was sent to 21 TB leaders, and subsequently a tumor board quality assessment survey was sent to 175 participants throughout an academic and community network. The quality assessment survey required participants to identify an answer on a 5-point Likert scale in the categories of "very poor, poor, average, good, and very good". Results: TB leaders representing 16 of 21 (response rate 76%) TBs responded to the structure/design survey. Twelve TBs were from the academic center and included diseases such as Gynecologic Oncology, Cutaneous Oncology, Genitourinary Oncology, and Sarcoma, while four were from community sites. TB leaders indicated that 55% of TBs did not receive CME credit and 60% did not document their recommendations. One hundred eleven TB participants of 175 (response rate 63%) responded to the quality assessment survey. Participants identified the following strengths: 1) all relevant subspecialties present for meetings, 2) respectful teamwork and culture, and 3) operating on an organized agenda. Areas for improvement included: 1) inconsistent tumor board recommendation documentation and 2) post-meeting coordination of care. Results were reviewed with network and cancer center leadership as well as with the Cancer Committee. Conclusions: We assessed our own tumor boards across our cancer network by utilizing an adapted version of a validated TB performance measurement tool for the first time in the United States. Through this assessment we identified key areas for improvement including the need for obtaining CME credit for TB attendance, and developed a policy, process, and template for documenting TB recommendations in an easily accessible centralized location.

Secret sauce in collaborative tumor boards: Team-based characteristics that optimize tumor board functionality.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23015-e23015
Author(s):  
Barbara Oureilidis-DeVivo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Organizational Behavior ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Decision Making Processes

e23015 Background: Interdisciplinary teams are an indispensable characteristic of modern organizations, particularly in healthcare settings that require specialists to work together to solve multifaceted patient care problems. Multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs) aim to coordinate multidisciplinary perspectives to help the oncology team devise the best treatment program for the patient. Yet, while this is their purpose, studies have found that TBs do not always achieve that goal effectively. Why are some tumor board (TB) teams more effective than others? This study shed light on key characteristics found among highly effective TBs. It provides a theoretical explanation of their organizational behaviors and structures and their effect on cancer treatment decision-making. The research is grounded in organizational behavior theories that have historical prominence in group decision-making, social hierarchy, and interdisciplinary collaboration, and are used to explain the phenomenon under investigation best. Methods: Qualitative research was used in the study. Data from 44 different TB observations and 18 interviews were gathered over four years at seven research hospitals in the United States and United Kingdom. The data were then coded, analyzed and synthesized with organizational behavior theory to explain the social phenomena under investigation. Results: The study revealed that certain TBs practice strong collaboration displaying high levels of partnership, cooperation, equality, and interdependency, which was incorporated explicitly into their meeting systems to achieve their common goal. Team-based characteristics such as members’ consistent shared preferences and identity, coordinated interactions, a collective learning process, and shared power and partnership are key markers found within these teams that positively influenced treatment decision-making processes and outcomes, earmarking best practices in TB groups. Conclusions: Organizational theory that suggests that for a collaborative process to be effective, team-based mechanisms need to be adopted in which each member respects, trusts, and acknowledges the skills and expertise of other disciplines in the organization, shares team values, decision-making processes, responsibilities, and planning, relies mutually upon other team members, and works outside normal professional boundaries openly and willingly. In an egalitarian structure like that of the TBs reviewed in this study, where preferences and identities are consistent and groups are collaborative, treatment decisions are less biased and incorporate multidisciplinary perspectives. Thus, this study suggests that by possessing both team- and task-based characteristics and practices, TBs engage in best practices, and thereby optimize their functionality.

The PLATON pilot-study “Platform for analyzing targetable tumor mutations”: A PLATON network study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS6598-TPS6598
Author(s):  
Arndt Vogel ◽  
Bianca Zäpf ◽  
Thorsten Oliver Goetze ◽  
Benedikt Westphalen ◽  
Lothar Müller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Web Application ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Molecular Profiling ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Molecular Profile ◽  
Curative Therapy ◽  
Esophagogastric Cancer ◽  
Study Sites

TPS6598 Background: PLATON Network is designed as a platform to improve personalized therapy based on genomic profiles in gastrointestinal cancer patients. PLATON’s study-design focuses on patient’s molecular profiling and will provide a network web application for interlinking PLATON investigators which integrates information of the participating centers, their patients, the molecular profiles and available clinical trials at PLATON`s study-sites. Methods: The PLATON Network is designed as a permanent open, multicenter, prospective, cohort study with biobanking, with a shared platform infrastructure for associated sub-studies. In a first approach the PLATON Network enrolls within its pilot-study 200 patients in Germany of both sexes and ages over 18 at 40 study sites (NCT04484636) with signed informed consent. All patients of the pilot-study are diagnosed with hepatocellular cancer (HCC), intra- and extrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCA), gallbladder carcinoma (GBCA), pancreatic cancer (PDCA) or esophagogastric cancer (EC/GC). At the time of enrolment, patients are within their first-line therapy and no local curative therapy is available. Molecular profiling will be performed with the Foundation Medicine Assays FoundationOne CDx and FoundationOne Liquid CDx. Investigators may use the platform for searching clinical trials matching the individual molecular profile of their patients or may identify a patient, who may be eligible for a study or other treatment options available at the corresponding centers of the PLATON network. The interactive network web application will comprise a dashboard and a moderated chat room to interact for example in a virtual Molecular Tumor Board. The first patient was included on the 25th of November 2020. Up to 12th of February 2021, a total of 36 patients HCC (N = 1), CCA (N = 6), PDCA (N = 12), GBCA (N = 0) and EC/GC (N = 16) were enrolled at 11 study-sites and the results of 29 genetic analyses were completed. All cohorts of the pilot-study are open for recruitments up to a maximum of 40 individuals per diagnostic group. Clinical trial information: NCT04484636.

Prescreening to Increase Therapeutic Oncology Trial Enrollment at the Largest Public Hospital in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Wu ◽  
Amin Yakubov ◽  
Maher Abdul-Hay ◽  
Erica Love ◽  
Gianna Kroening ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Health Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Therapeutic Trial ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Number Of Patients

PURPOSE: The recruitment of underserved patients into therapeutic oncology trials is imperative. The National Institutes of Health mandates the inclusion of minorities in clinical research, although their participation remains under-represented. Institutions have used data mining to match patients to clinical trials. In a public health care system, such expensive tools are unavailable. METHODS: The NYU Clinical Trials Office implemented a quality improvement program at Bellevue Hospital Cancer Center to increase therapeutic trial enrollment. Patients are screened through the electronic medical record, tumor board conferences, and the cancer registry. Our analysis evaluated two variables: number of patients identified and those enrolled into clinical trials. RESULTS: Two years before the program, there were 31 patients enrolled. For a period of 24 months (July 2017 to July 2019), we identified 255 patients, of whom 143 (56.1%) were enrolled. Of those enrolled, 121 (84.6%) received treatment, and 22 (15%) were screen failures. Fifty-five (38.5%) were referred to NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center for therapy. Of the total enrollees, 64% were female, 56% were non-White, and overall median age was 55 years (range: 33-88 years). Our participants spoke 16 different languages, and 57% were non–English-speaking. We enrolled patients into eight different disease categories, with 38% recruited to breast cancer trials. Eighty-three percent of our patients reside in low-income areas, with 62% in both low-income and Health Professional Shortage Areas. CONCLUSION: Prescreening at Bellevue has led to a 4.6-fold increase in patient enrollment to clinical trials. Future research into using prescreening programs at public institutions may improve access to clinical trials for underserved populations.

An ethnographic study illuminating the effect of endogenous and exogenous uncertainty on tumor board decision making.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19156-e19156
Author(s):  
Barbara Oureilidis-DeVivo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Tumor Boards

e19156 Background: Hospital tumor boards (TBs) exist to help multidisciplinary specialists determine the best treatment plan for patients through multidisciplinary input and evidence-based treatment recommendations. However, decision-making processes and outcomes vary and may not consistently follow a linear, rational decision-making process or represent evidenced-based clinical guidelines. The ad hoc nature of multidisciplinary cancer teams can create limitations in interoperable functioning, especially in ambiguous environments. Methods: This qualitative ethnographic study explores levels of patient situational complexity under TB review within different structural dynamics in a group and describes how TBs cope with uncertainty when making treatment decisions. The study reports on original research and used ethnographic methods in 44 tumor boards at seven research hospitals in the United States and United Kingdom. Results: Results show TB decision-making process and outcomes are obstructed by the level of situational complexity in each patient’s case depending on the social dynamics of the group. Conclusions: Although multidisciplinary teams provide the benefit of variety in backgrounds and expertise, this structural diversity can also lead to limitations in the actual functioning of a group. By exploring the variations in this decision-making process, a deeper understanding can be reached of how oncology physicians make decisions about the clinical pathway for cancer patients and how this affects TB functionality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document