Impact of the lung oncology multidisciplinary team meetings on the management of patients with cancer

Abstract

MDT meetings significantly impact on the management plans for lung oncology patients. The majority of MDT recommendations (72%) were implemented into patient care. These findings provide further evidence to support the role of MDT meetings as an essential part of the decision-making process for the optimal multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer.

Lung cancer radiation therapy in Australia and New Zealand: Patterns of practice

“…The vast majority of ROs (94%) discuss lung cancer patients at a MDT meeting. Numerous studies show discussing patients at an MDT meeting reduces diagnostic and treatment delays and significantly impact on the management plans in 58% of lung cancer patients. There is also evidence that discussion at MDT meeting may also be associated with improved survival …”

Management of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: impact of multidisciplinary case conference review

“…Each case requires a unique care plan dependent on patient, primary disease site, and metastatic burden, making treatment increasingly patient specific. Multidisciplinary case conference (MCC) review is encouraged in these complex cases as MCCs are thought to improve quality of care (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9). While many of these cases undergo MCC review, the specific benefit of MCC presentation in colorectal cancer care is currently unknown.…”

Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Meetings: Improving the practice of radiation oncology and facing future challenges

“…As previously stated, one of the primary objectives of the Lung Cancer MDM is to achieve a group consensus on management decisions, and thereby reduce the impact of individual physician biases on patient treatment. One prospective study from Australia has attempted to quantify the benefit of Lung Cancer MDM in the decision making for treatment recommendations for patients with lung cancer . Prior to discussion in the Lung Cancer MDM, the referring lung cancer specialist was required to document their management strategy if the Lung Cancer MDM had not been available; these management strategies were then compared with the subsequent recommendations from the Lung Cancer MDM.…”

“…Prior to discussion in the Lung Cancer MDM, the referring lung cancer specialist was required to document their management strategy if the Lung Cancer MDM had not been available; these management strategies were then compared with the subsequent recommendations from the Lung Cancer MDM. Interestingly, the Lung Cancer MDM significantly altered the management course in 58% of patients ( P < 0.005) . The primary reason for a change in the management plan was due to the recommendation from the MDM for additional investigations (59%) prior to definitive decision making on the optimal treatment plan; other reasons for altering the management plan were due to changes in treatment modality (19%), treatment intent (9%), tumour histology (6%) or stage (6%).…”

“…Researchers have also investigated the impact of the Lung Cancer MDM on the delivery of treatment, by assessing the concordance of recommendations of the Lung Cancer MDM with the actual treatment received by patients with lung cancer. In the aforementioned study, the investigators also independently audited the subsequent lung cancer management received by this cohort of patients, and found that the majority of recommendations from the MDM (72%) were subsequently implemented into the clinical management of the patient . However, 28% of patients did not receive the treatment that was recommended in the Lung Cancer MDM; the reasons for this discordance included clinician preference (28%), the availability of new clinical information after the MDM (22%), pre‐existing poor patient performance status (17%), declining performance status due to disease progression (11%), patient preference (11%) and unknown (11%) .…”