Quantifying the utility of a multidisciplinary neuro-oncology tumor board

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Adham M. Khalafallah ◽  
Adrian E. Jimenez ◽  
Carlos G. Romo ◽  
David Olayinka Kamson ◽  
Lawrence Kleinberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nervous System ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Image Interpretation ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
A Prospective Study

OBJECTIVEThere has been limited research on the efficacy of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) in improving the treatment of patients with tumors affecting the nervous system. The objective of the present study was to quantify the utility of MDTBs in providing alternative diagnostic interpretations and treatment plans for this patient population.METHODSThe authors performed a prospective study of patients in 4 hospitals whose cases were discussed at MDTBs between July and November 2019. Patient demographic data, diagnoses, treatment plans, and eligibility for clinical trials were recorded, among other variables.RESULTSA total of 176 cases met eligibility criteria for study inclusion. The majority (53%) of patients were male, and the mean patient age was 52 years. The most frequent diagnosis was glioblastoma (32.4%). Among the evaluable cases, MDTBs led to 38 (21.6%) changes in image interpretation and 103 (58.2%) changes in patient management. Additionally, patients whose cases were discussed at MDTBs had significantly shorter referral times than patients whose cases were not discussed (p = 0.024).CONCLUSIONSMDTB discussions led to significant numbers of diagnostic and treatment plan changes as well as shortened referral times, highlighting the potential clinical impact of multidisciplinary care for patients with nervous system tumors.

scholarly journals NCOG-67. QUANTIFYING THE UTILITY OF A MULTIDISCIPLINARY NEURO-ONCOLOGY TUMOR BOARD

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii144-ii144
Author(s):  
Adham Khalafallah ◽  
Adrian Jimenez ◽  
Carlos Romo ◽  
David Kamson ◽  
Lawrence Kleinberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nervous System ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Image Interpretation ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
A Prospective Study

Abstract BACKGROUND There is limited research attempting to measure the efficacy of tumor boards (MDTBs) in the treatment of patients with tumors affecting the nervous system. OBJECTIVE The objective of the present study was to quantify the utility of a MDTB in providing alternative diagnostic interpretations and treatment plans for this patient population. METHODS A prospective study of patient cases discussed at four hospitals’ MDTBs between July and November 2019 was performed. Demographic data, diagnoses, treatment plans, and eligibility for clinical trials were recorded, among other variables. RESULTS A total of 176 patient cases met eligibility criteria. The majority of patients (53%) were male with a mean age of 52 years. The most frequent diagnosis was glioblastoma (32.4%). Among the evaluable cases, MDTBs led to 38 (21.6%) changes in image interpretation and 103 (58.2%) changes in patient management. Additionally, patients whose cases were discussed at MDTBs had significantly shorter referral times compared to patients whose cases were not discussed (p= 0.024). CONCLUSION MDTB discussions led to a significant number of diagnostic and treatment plan changes as well as shortened referral times, highlighting the potential clinical impact of multidisciplinary care for patients with nervous system tumors.

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic diseases.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 319-319
Author(s):  
David G. Brauer ◽  
Matthew S. Strand ◽  
Dominic E. Sanford ◽  
Maria Majella Doyle ◽  
Faris Murad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Common Diagnosis ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Cancer Network ◽  
The Impact

319 Background: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MTBs) are a requirement for comprehensive cancer centers and are routinely used to coordinate multidisciplinary care in oncology. Despite their widespread use, the impact of MTBs is not well characterized. We studied the outcomes of all patients presented at our pancreas MTB, with the goal of evaluating our current practices and resource utilization. Methods: Data were prospectively collected for all patients presented at a weekly pancreas-specific MTB over the 12-month period at a single-institution NCI-designated cancer center. The conference is attended by surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists, interventional gastroenterologists, pathologists, and radiologists (diagnostic and interventional). Retrospective chart review was performed at the end of the 12-month period under an IRB-approved protocol. Results: A total of 470 patient presentations were made over a 12-month period. Average age at time of presentation was 61.5 years (range 17 – 89) with 51% males. 61.7% of cases were presented by surgical oncologists and 26% by medical oncologists. 174 cases were the result of new diagnoses or referrals. 78 patients were presented more than once (average of 2.3 times). Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common diagnosis (37%), followed by uncharacterized pancreatic mass (16%), and pancreatic cyst (7%). The treatment plan proposed by the presenting clinician was known or could be evaluated prior to conference in 402 cases. Presentation of a case at MTB changed the plan of management 25% (n = 100) of the time, including MTB recommendation against a planned resection in 46 cases. When the initial plan changed as a result of MTB discussion, the most common new plan was to obtain further diagnostic testing such as biopsy and/or endoscopy (n = 24). Conclusions: MTBs are required and resource-intensive but offer the opportunity to discuss a wide array of pathologies and influence management decisions in a sizable proportion of cases. Additional investigations evaluating adherence rates to MTB decisions and to published guidelines (i.e. National Comprehensive Cancer Network) will further enhance the assessment and utility of MTBs.

scholarly journals Multidisciplinary Cancer Management of Colorectal Cancer in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Biniyam Tefera Deressa ◽  
Nikola Cihoric ◽  
Ephrem Tefesse ◽  
Mathewos Assefa ◽  
Daniel Zemenfes
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Clinical Staging ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Colorectal Cancers ◽  
Cancer Management ◽  
Retrospective Assessment ◽  
Tumor Boards

PURPOSE Multidisciplinary cancer care is currently considered worldwide as standard for the management of patients with cancer. It improves patient diagnostic and staging accuracy and provides patients the benefit of having physicians of various specialties participating in their treatment plan. The purpose of this study was to describe the profile of patients discussed in the Tikur Anbessa Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB) and the potential benefits brought by multidisciplinary care. METHODS The study involved the retrospective assessment of all patient cases presented to the Tikur Anbessa Hospital colorectal cancers MTB between March 2016 and November 2017. The data were collected from the MTB medical summary documents and were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). RESULTS Of 147 patients with colorectal cancer, 96 (65%) were men. The median age at presentation was 46 years (range, 17-78 years). The predominant cancer was rectal (n = 101; 69%), followed by colon (n = 24; 16%). Of these, 68 (45%) and 22 (15%) had stage III and IV disease, respectively, on presentation to the MTB. The oncology department presented the majority of the patients for discussion. Most patients had undergone surgery before the MTB discussion but had no proper preoperative clinical staging information. The majority of patients with rectal cancer treated before the MTB discussion had undergone surgery upfront; however, most of the patients who were treatment naive before MTB received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before surgery. CONCLUSION Decisions made by tumor boards are more likely to conform to evidence-based guidelines than are those made by individual clinicians. Therefore, early referral of patients to MTB before any treatment should be encouraged. Finally, other hospitals in Ethiopia should take a lesson from the Tikur Anbessa Hospital colorectal cancers MTB and adopt multidisciplinary cancer management.

Comparison of treatment plans feasible through AI enabled multidisciplinary online tumor board solution versus NCCN-based clinical decision support system (CDSS).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 816-816
Author(s):  
Bhawna Sirohi ◽  
Sushil Beriwal ◽  
C. S. Pramesh ◽  
Supriya Chopra ◽  
Mahesh Goel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Treatment Plans

816 Background: Multidisciplinary tumor boards at Academic Medical Centers (AMC) maximize cancer outcomes. Guidelines based CDSS are alternatives to determine care pathways. Since 2015, 300 AMC cancer experts in USA and India use an AI enabled online tumor board solution, “NAVYA,” to scale low cost access to multidisciplinary expertise, on 1-2 minutes of expert time per decision (ASCO 2017). Methods: GI patients who used NAVYA between 5/1/15-8/31/19 were analyzed. Actionable treatment plans generated by NAVYA were compared to NCCN. Actionable treatment plans include chemotherapy protocols (doses, frequencies), radiation protocols (sites, fractions), etc. Inactionable specialty level decisions (CT-RT vs. surgery) lack specificity. Results: 1302 patients (4638 treatment decisions) were analyzed: 61% (794) male, 80% between age 45 to 75, mostly with Colon, Pancreas, Gallbladder, Rectum, or Stomach cancer; 49.7% non-metastatic. Cohort was comparable to GLOBOCAN estimates. In 82.2% (3812/4638) decisions, NAVYA added value beyond NCCN. First, in 4.5% (212/4638), NAVYA recommended a patient-specific treatment plan that was not part of NCCN. Second, in 3.2% (148/4638), NAVYA recommended treatments plan for clinical scenarios not covered by NCCN, (for eg. 3rd line therapies). Third, in 74.5% (3452/4638), NAVYA used patient specific criteria including resource constraints and patient preference to choose a treatment plan amongst the multiple pathways provided by NCCN and added actionable treatment details. Conclusions: Guideline based CDSS are insufficient to make the vast majority of actionable treatment decisions. Scaling rapid access to multidisciplinary experts is critical. Leapfrogging existing guidelines based CDSS, NAVYA online tumor board makes actionable expert treatment plans possible at a large scale.

scholarly journals Epidemiology, Outcomes and Prognosis of Central Nervous System Infections in Singapore. Preliminary results from The Singapore Neurologic Infections Programme (SNIP)

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S303-S304
Author(s):  
Fu Zi Yvonne Chan ◽  
Limin Wijaya ◽  
Kevin Tan ◽  
Monica Chan ◽  
Derek Soon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Altered Mental Status ◽  
Diagnostic Tools ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Cns Infections ◽  
Tertiary Hospitals ◽  
Simplex Virus ◽  
A Prospective Study

Abstract Background Central Nervous System (CNS) infections frequently result in devastating consequences although the aetiology is seldom definitively identified. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a prospective study to describe the epidemiology of CNS infections in Singapore. Methods Patient enrollment was conducted in 5 adult tertiary hospitals in Singapore, between August 2013 and December 2016. Patients aged ≥16 years who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled. Demographic data, neuroimaging, neurophysiology and biochemical results were collected. Cases were classified as “Confirmed” or “Probable” depending on whether the aetiological agent was detected by either culture or molecular methods in the CSF. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) was recorded at enrollment, 2 weeks and 6 months, with scores of 0–2 classified as good and 3–6 as poor outcome. Results A total of 2061 patients were screened, of whom 199 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 106 (53.2%), 65 (32.7%) and 28 (14%) cases of meningitis, meningoencephalitis and encephalitis were diagnosed, respectively. An aetiologic agent was identified in 119 (60%) of cases. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTb) was the most common cause of meningitis and meningoencephalitis with 23 (13.5%) cases. Herpes simplex virus was the most common aetiology for encephalitis with 3 (10.7%) cases. Immune-mediated aetiologies accounted for 8 (4%) of the total cases. Fatal outcomes were observed in 7 (3.5%) patients. The absence of focal weakness (aOR 0.024 95% CI 0.001–0.535 P = 0.018) and absence of altered mental status (aOR 0.03; 95% CI 0.002–0.43; P = 0.009) at admission predicted good outcomes at 6 months. Vomiting was associated with poor prognosis (aOR 17.91; 95% CI 1.12–286.04; P = 0.041). Conclusion It is surprising that MTb was the most common aetiologic agent although none were fatal. Our study identified aetiologic diagnoses, clinical and biochemical results that correlated with outcome of CNS infections although it also underscores the need for better diagnostic tools for aetiologic confirmation. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Physician and practice characteristics influencing tumor board attendance: Results from the provider survey of the Los Angeles Women's Health Study

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17501-e17501
Author(s):  
K. Scher ◽  
D. M. Tisnado ◽  
D. Rose-Ash ◽  
A. Rastegar ◽  
J. Adams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Health Study ◽  
Coordination Of Care ◽  
Volume Number ◽  
Practice Characteristics ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Low Volume

e17501 Background: Coordination of care has grown in importance with the advent of new modalities of treatment requiring specialized expertise. In cancer care, multidisciplinary approaches have shown improvements in quality of care and patient satisfaction. Tumor boards provide a mechanism for improving coordination of care. We evaluated physician and practice characteristics that predict frequency of tumor board attendance. Methods: This cross-sectional study utilizes data obtained by surveying physicians of a population-based sample of women with incident breast cancer. Physicians were queried regarding tumor board attendance, specialty (medical oncologist [MO], radiation oncologist [RO], surgeon indicating that the hospital at which most breast cancer surgeries are performed has an American College of Surgeons accredited program [ACOSSg] and surgeon without such affiliation [non-ACOSSg]), physician characteristics (gender, race, teaching involvement, patient volume, number of offices, ownership interest), and practice setting (practice type, size, reimbursement). Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were performed for the dependent variable characterizing provider report of frequency of tumor board meeting attendance. Results: Most surveyed physicians (83%) report attending tumor board weekly (58%) or monthly (25%). Weekly participation was reported by 63%, 92%, 47%, and 32% of MOs, ROs, ACOSSgs, and non-ACOSSgs (p < 0.01). Specialty and higher patient volumes are significant predictors of more frequent attendance, after adjustment for practice size and type. In comparison to the most prevalent specialty category (low volume ACOSSgs), high volume MOs attend more (p = 0.01), and low volume non-ACOSSgs attend less frequently (p = 0.00). Conclusions: Tumor board attendance implies increased participation in multidisciplinary care, but specific subsets of providers are less frequent users. This not only has implications for choosing providers, but also for efforts to increase attendance. Tumor board agendas and formalized institution wide policies could be designed to further engage low frequency attendees as a means to promote multidisciplinary care and improve health outcomes. [Table: see text]

Public reporting outcomes of multidisciplinary cancer care: Conceptual issues.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 280-280
Author(s):  
James Austin Talcott
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Analytic Description ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

280 Background: Patient outcomes are the most valid measures of quality of care. Public reporting makes them available to patients, referring physicians and payers. Our institution has committed to reporting all cancer patient outcomes. In carrying out that objective, we encountered novel analytical issues arising from differences between the usually reported treatments, surgical procedures, and multidisciplinary cancer care. We present important conceptual issues we identified. Methods: Analytic description of methodological issues encountered in publishing cancer patient outcomes. Results: Issues include: (1) Assigning responsibility. Patient outcomes of multidisciplinary cancer care can be influenced by multiple oncology specialties and institutions. While providers directly control only the treatment they provide, providers share collective responsibility for executing the treatment plan, coordinating care and vouching for the quality of collaborating providers. Therefore, reporting outcomes of one element of multidisciplinary care is incomplete and inadequate. (2) Claiming responsibility. Providers with institutional affiliations but no involvement in quality improvement or reporting processes should be excluded from public reporting. Minimum requirements to qualify for public institutional affiliation should be enforced and “free riders” identified. (3) Defining and presenting valid comparison populations. Treatment trials’ eligibility criteria and recruitment practices exclude poorer prognosis patients, producing biased comparisons to complete “registry” populations that distort patient expectations. Publishing outcomes of well-characterized subpopulations improves valid results and provides more individualized information. Conclusions: Reporting patient outcomes after multidisciplinary cancer care raises novel conceptual issues. We discuss our response to three important issues.

The impact of multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCC) on the treatment of metastatic rectal cancer (MRC) at the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre (TOHCC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14686-e14686
Author(s):  
Tanya Di Valentin ◽  
Timothy R. Asmis ◽  
Rebecca Ann C. Auer
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Ottawa Hospital ◽  
Patient Demographics ◽  
Relative Risks ◽  
Included Patient ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
The Impact

e14686 Background: There is significant controversy surrounding the management of surgically resectable MRC. The use and timing of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pelvic radiation, and relative risks and benefits of a combined surgical resection are areas of debate among surgeons, medical, and radiation oncologists. The TOHCC multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences (MCC) provide an opportunity to discuss these cases and propose treatment plans for these patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all the cases of MRC which were discussed at MCC at the TOHCC from November 2007 until October 2009. Information collected included patient demographics, site of metastases, the treatment they received prior to their case being discussed at MCC (past surgeries, chemotherapy, radiotherapy), the treatment plan discussed at MCC, treatment actually administered post MCC discussion, and patient outcome at 6 months. Results: Forty-two patients with MRC were reviewed. The most common sites of metastases were liver (45.2%) and lung (31%). Once diagnosed with metastatic disease, prior to the MCC, patients had received the following treatments alone or in combination: chemotherapy (33.3%), radiotherapy (21.4%), surgery (19.0%), no treatment (n=57.1%). After their case was presented, 38 patients (90.5%) received the treatment recommended at the MCC , while 4 (9.5%) did not. Treatment post MCC included: chemotherapy (neoadjuvant: 38.1%; adjuvant: 23.8%; palliative: 28.6%), radiotherapy (neoadjuvant: 14.3%; adjuvant: 7.1%; palliative: 7.1%) and surgery (31.0%). Conclusions: There is no standardized approach to the management of MRC. Given its complexity, many cases are reviewed at MCC, which allow coordination for multidisciplinary care of these patients. The results of this study suggest that in a majority of cases, the recommendations brought forth at MCC are indeed acted upon. Given that these meetings have a significant impact on the treatment plan and outcome of patients with MRC, they should represent the standard of care when treating this disease.

scholarly journals An analysis on medical expenses of multidisciplinary cancer care under health insurance

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (10) ◽  
pp. 711-716
Author(s):  
Myungjin Jung ◽  
Byungyul Jun
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Therapeutic Modality ◽  
Patient Treatment ◽  
Medical Expenses ◽  
Hospitalization Costs ◽  
Treatment Plans

Background: Cancer has been the leading cause of death in Korea for more than 40 years. As the aging population in the country increases, this trend is expected to continue. Cancer care is also being subdivided into specialties according to the development of medical technology. This division of care has made it difficult for a single physician to set up a complete cancer treatment plan. As a result, the call for multidisciplinary care has risen. Multidisciplinary cancer care allows physicians to share opinions and choose optimal patient treatment plans across multiple specialties. In August 2014, the Ministry of Health and Welfare designated a set number of approved multidisciplinary treatments and has included them under its health insurance coverage. As a result, multidisciplinary care is rapidly increasing.Current Concepts: An analysis on cancer care was conducted from 2014 to 2018, which examined the average medical expenses, hospitalization costs, and surgery costs per person according to therapeutic modality. Findings showed that multidisciplinary care decreased the overall cost of medical care in cancer patients compared to segmented care provided by single specialty physicians.Discussion and Conclusion: This study predicted that multidisciplinary care would be effective in reducing medical expenses. Cancer patients do not need to be treated by individual subspecialty physicians when personalized care treatment plans through a multidisciplinary approach is possible. The results of this study show that the Korean government should expand health insurance premium support and coverage for multidisciplinary cancer care.

INNV-16. CNS-TAP TOOL RECOMMENDATIONS OF TARGETED ANTI-CANCER AGENTS COMPARED TO THOSE SELECTED BY A MULTIDISCIPLINARY TUMOR BOARD IN A MOLECULARLY-DRIVEN DIPG CLINICAL TRIAL (PNOC003)

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi108-vi108
Author(s):  
Holly Roberts ◽  
Karthik Ravi ◽  
Allison Schepers ◽  
Bernard Marini ◽  
Cassie Kline ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anticancer Agents ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Targeted Treatment ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Genetic Sequencing ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Multidisciplinary Tumor Board

Abstract Genetic sequencing of diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) has revealed genomic heterogeneity, sparking an interest in individualized and targeted treatment options for this particularly devastating disease. A feasibility study, PNOC003: Molecular Profiling for Individualized Treatment Plan for DIPG (NCT02274987), was completed within the Pacific Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Consortium. In this study, a multidisciplinary tumor board reviewed detailed molecular and genomic profiling of each participant’s tumor and made molecularly-targeted treatment recommendations. Separately, our team developed the Central Nervous System Targeted Agent Prediction (CNS-TAP) tool, which combines pre-clinical, clinical, and CNS penetration data with patient-specific genomic information to derive numeric scores for targeted anticancer agents, aimed to objectively evaluate these therapies for use in patients with CNS tumors. We hypothesized that highly-scored agents within CNS-TAP would overlap with the agents recommended by the tumor board in PNOC003. For each study participant, we used the genomic profiling report to identify actionable alterations and incorporated these data into CNS-TAP to identify the highest-scoring agents. We compared high-scoring agents within CNS-TAP with recommendations from the tumor board for each of the enrolled 28 participants. Overall, 93% of patients (26/28) had at least one agent recommended by both the tumor board and CNS-TAP. Additionally, 38% of all agents (36/95) recommended by the tumor board were also selected by CNS-TAP. We identified factors that likely contributed to the differences in therapy recommendations between these two methods: CNS-TAP requires additional clinician input to account for drug-drug interactions, includes only classically-defined anticancer agents, and cannot easily be updated in real-time as new data emerge. However, CNS-TAP provides an objective evaluation of targeted therapies, whereas tumor boards are inherently subjective. A prospective study incorporating both CNS-TAP and a molecular tumor board for targeted therapy selection in high-grade glioma is currently ongoing to further compare and objectively evaluate these methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document