The Role of Multidisciplinary Ocular and Periocular Cancers Meetings in Uveal Melanoma Management: A 2-Year Analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MDTB) strategy in the treatment of patients with uveal melanoma. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the implementation of MDTB meetings over a 24-month period. During this time, 72 intraocular tumors were discussed, including 59 confirmed cases of uveal melanoma. The MDTB involved a core group of specialists (e.g., ophthalmologists, oncologists, and radiologists), with other experts included when clinically appropriate. To assess patient satisfaction with the MDTB approach, a structured questionnaire was administered, including items on clarity of communication, perceived quality of care, and overall satisfaction, which were ranked on a 5-point scale. Results: A total of 319 patients with ocular, periocular, or orbital tumors were discussed during the study period, of which, 72 had intraocular tumors. A total of 13 (18%) were diagnosed to have choroidal metastases, whereas 59 (82%) had uveal melanomas. The average time between patient care and MDTB discussion was 15.9 days (IQR: 7.5–16.5). The mean time between the case discussion and the implementation of recommendations (diagnostic, therapeutic, or referral decisions) was 14.8 days (IQR: 6.0–23.75). Overall, 4 (7%) patients were classified as Stage I, 16 (27%) as Stage IIa, 18 (31%) as Stage IIb, 7 (12%) as Stage IIIa, 2 (3%) as Stage IIIb, and 12 (20%) as Stage IV. Regarding the satisfaction questionnaire, all patients (100%) agreed to have the clinical case discussed at the TB even though this could result in a delay in diagnostic/therapeutic implementation. However, only 60% of patients perceived they had been directly involved in the decision-making process. Conclusions: In selected cases of uveal melanoma and other types of cancer, MDTBs should be recognized as a gold standard in cancer care, allowing for comprehensive decision-making that draws on a wide range of highly specialized expertise.

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