Tumor Boards: Beyond the Patient Care Conference

Jazieh, Abdul Rahman

doi:10.1007/s13187-011-0209-z

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In accordance with other authors, we consider that tumor boards stimulate the knowledge and development of the professionals involved in the care of patients with cancer, thereby encouraging teamwork and improving the quality of health care [ 33 , 34 ]. In this regard, several government-produced documents defining MDTs such as the principles of multidisciplinary care in Australia [ 23 ], multidisciplinary cancer conferences in the Canadian province of Ontario [ 22 ], and the characteristics of an effective MDT in the United Kingdom [ 17 ] highlight the importance of internal cohesion and positive leadership styles.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

A Web-Based Self-assessment Model for Evaluating Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams in Spain: Development and Validation Pilot Study

Guilabert¹,

Prades²,

Borràs³

et al. 2022

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Tumor boards constitute the main consensus and clinical decision–making body of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in cancer care. With the increasing clinical complexity of treatment options (eg, targeted therapies, multimodal treatments) and the progressive incorporation of new areas of intervention (eg, survivorship care), tumor boards are now required to play a central role in all cancer processes. However, although frameworks are in place to evaluate MDT quality, only few web-based tools are available for this purpose; indeed, no web-based MDT evaluation tools have been developed for or adapted to the Spanish National Health System. Objective The first aim of this study was to develop a web-based self-assessment model (Autoevaluación de Equipos Multidisciplinares de Atención al Cáncer [AEMAC]) for evaluating multidisciplinary cancer teams in Spain and the second aim was to validate this tool by testing its metric properties, acceptability, and usability. Methods We designed and validated the AEMAC program in 3 stages. In the first stage (research), we reviewed the available scientific evidence and performed a qualitative case study of good practice in multidisciplinary care within the Spanish National Health System (n=4 centers and 28 health care professionals). The results were used to define the thematic areas and quality criteria for the self-evaluation model, which were then discussed and validated by a group of experts. The second stage (development) involved the technological development of a web app that would be accessible from any mobile device. In the third stage (piloting and validation), we conducted 4 pilot tests (n=15 tumor boards, 243 professionals) and used the results to analyze the acceptability and usefulness of the tool. Results We designed a self-assessment model based on 5 thematic areas encompassing a total of 25 quality components, which users rated on a 3-option development scale. The evaluation process, which was managed entirely from the web app, consisted of individual self-assessment, group prioritization, and creation of an improvement plan. Cronbach alpha (.86), McDonald’s omega (0.88), and various fit indices (comparative fit index between 0.95 and 1 and goodness-of-fit index between 0.97 and 0.99 for all 5 aspects) confirmed internal consistency. The mean rating for overall satisfaction with the tool and for consistency between the content of the tool and the reality of tumor boards was 7.6 out of 10. Conclusions The results obtained during the period of research and piloting of the AEMAC program showed that it has an appropriate structure and metric properties and could therefore be implemented in a real context and generalized to other hospitals. As a virtual tool, it helps to measure the key aspects of MDT quality, such as effectiveness of collaboration and communication, leadership, and the organizational environment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

A Web-Based Self-assessment Model for Evaluating Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams in Spain: Development and Validation Pilot Study

Guilabert¹,

Prades²,

Borràs³

et al. 2022

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to aiding in the decision making of diagnosis and treatment, the importance of TBs also lies in quality improvement, education, and professional career enhancement. 1 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of GI Tumor Board on Patient Management and Adherence to Guidelines

Alfarhan

Algwaiz

Alzahrani

et al. 2018

JGO

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAs the burden of cancer on the population and the health care system continues to increase with more complicated treatment options, the need for multidisciplinary teams to be as efficient as possible becomes more vital. Our study aimed to evaluate the consistency of GI Tumor Board (GI TB) recommendations with international guidelines, the adherence of physicians involved in patient care to TB recommendations, and the impact on the management of patients.MethodsA prospective cohort study was conducted from January to June 2016 at our institution, which is a major tertiary hospital that provides comprehensive cancer care. All cases presented at the GI TB during this period were included. Data regarding adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, adherence to TB recommendations, and changes made to the management of patients were collected weekly from the GI TB in a data collection form.ResultsOf the 104 patients included, 57 (55%) were males and the median age was 58 (16 to 85) years. Colorectal cancer was the most common diagnosis, in 65 patients (63%). Nearly one-half of cases (45%) were stage IV cancers. Starting new treatment was recommended for 72 patients (69%). Further investigations were requested for 15 patients (14%). For imaging, 24 recommendations (23%) were made. Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was observed in 97% of total recommendations. New findings were found in pathology (11%), radiology (13%), and staging (4%). Management plans were changed in 37 cases (36%). Over a 3-month period after presentation to the GI TB, most of the recommendations (87%) were performed.ConclusionA multidisciplinary tumor board enhances the adherence to guidelines and has an impact on patient management in approximately one-third of patients. Among physicians, adherence to recommendations of the TB was high.

show abstract

“…In most centers, this is standardized and can be viewed by all treating clinics via the hospital-wide EDP patient administration system. However, the scope of documentation both during patient registration and in the MDT itself (medical history, completeness of the clinical course, potential trial offers) is substantially based on the individual documentation culture of the individual boards (Jazieh 2011). The extent to which optional trial inclusions are queried in principle in the context of the respective case discussion is handled variably by the different MDTs.…”

Section: Challenge: Decentralized Trial and Tumor Board Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relevance of tumor boards for the inclusion of patients in oncological clinical trials

Dapper

Dantes²,

Herschbach

et al. 2023

J Cancer Res Clin Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Major national and international oncological societies generally recommend treating a significant proportion of oncological patients in clinical trials to improve therapy strategies for cancer patients. At cancer centers, the recommendation about the appropriate therapy for the individual tumor patient is usually made in interdisciplinary case discussions in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT). In this study, we examined the impact of MDTs for the inclusion of patients in therapy trials. Methodology A prospective, explorative study of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich (CCCM) was conducted at both university hospitals in 2019. In the first phase, various MDTs’ case discussions about oncological situations and their decisions regarding possible therapy trials were recorded in a structured manner. In the second phase, the actual inclusion rates of patients in therapy trials and reasons for non-inclusion were examined. Finally, the data of the respective university hospitals were anonymized, pooled and analyzed. Results A total of 1797 case discussions were reviewed. Therapy recommendations were made in 1527 case presentations. 38 (2.5%) of 1527 patients were already included in a therapy trial at the time of case presentation. The MDTs recommended inclusion of an additional 107 cases (7%), for a therapy trial. Of these patients, 41 were finally enrolled in a therapy trial which resulted in a total recruitment rate of 5.2%. Despite MDTs’ recommendations, 66 patients were not included in a therapy trial. The main reason for non-inclusion was insufficient inclusion or existing exclusion criteria (n = 18, 28%). In 48% of all cases (n = 31), the reason for non-inclusion could not be determined. Conclusion The potential of MDTs as an instrument for the inclusion of patients in therapy trials is high. To increase the enrollment of patients in oncological therapy trials, structural measures such as the central use of trial administration and MTB software in addition to standardized tumor board discussions must be established to ensure a seamless flow of information about actual recruiting trials and the current status of trial participation of patients.

show abstract

Tumor Boards: Beyond the Patient Care Conference

Cited by 13 publications

References 9 publications

A Web-Based Self-assessment Model for Evaluating Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams in Spain: Development and Validation Pilot Study

A Web-Based Self-assessment Model for Evaluating Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams in Spain: Development and Validation Pilot Study

Impact of GI Tumor Board on Patient Management and Adherence to Guidelines

Relevance of tumor boards for the inclusion of patients in oncological clinical trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About