Assessment of the quality of multidisciplinary cancer conferences: A prospective observational study.

Le résumé fourni par la source

e13548 Background: Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) serve as venues for input from a variety of clinicians in patient management. Research suggests that leveraging technology improves efficiency and effectiveness of MCCs. This study examined the current state of practice in three specialized MCCs before the implementation of a tumor board technology solution. Methods: A single-site prospective observational study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. A validated tool was adapted to evaluate the quality of information and discussion at the MCCs. Variables were scored on a 1-5 rating scale (poor to excellent). Audio recordings supplemented the observational data collection. Surveys were also administered to assess participants’ satisfaction with the process and case discussions. Endpoints of interest included time and quality of case preparation, presentation and discussion, and rate of clinical trials consideration. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic/clinical characteristics of patients and calculate overall scores for the MCC performance. Results: From September 2020 to March 2021, a total of 257 patients were presented at the three MCCs with a median age of 66 years. The distribution of clinical stages (AJCC)1-4 was 30.5%, 11.6%, 17.2% and 7.7%, respectively with 33.0% of the values missing. The overall quality of information presented, and the discussion was deemed average. However, presentation of patient views, case history and MCC chair contribution were considered poor, above average, and excellent, respectively (median scores = 1.0, 3.5 and 5.0). The median time per case presentation and discussion was 9.0 minutes. The median time per case preparation by the radiologist and pathologist was 8.6 and 12.0 minutes, respectively. Two hundred and eighty-three surveys were completed by attending physicians. 77.5% of them agreed that the case discussions were insightful and helped change their minds about the cases discussed and 91.2% were satisfied with the depth of case discussion. The rate of clinical trial consideration was 10.8%. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate various strengths and weaknesses of a conventional approach to MCCs in three disease sites – thoracic, breast and gynecology. A comparison of relevant parameters when a tumor board technology platform is utilized is ongoing. This may address some of the weaknesses identified in our study and extend the benefits of MCCs to more patients.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.