Quantifying the utility of a multidisciplinary neuro-oncology tumor board

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore;
  • 2 Department of Neurology, Brain Cancer Program, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore;
  • 3 Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda;
  • 4 Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore; and
  • 5 Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

There 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.

METHODS

The 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.

RESULTS

A 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).

CONCLUSIONS

MDTB 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.

ABBREVIATIONS MDTB = multidisciplinary tumor board; NP = nurse practitioner; PA = physician assistant.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Table 1 (PDF 400 KB)

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Debraj Mukherjee: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. dmukher1@jhmi.edu.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online September 18, 2020; DOI: 10.3171/2020.5.JNS201299.

Disclosures Dr. Kleinberg reports receiving honoraria from Accuray and receiving support of non–study-related clinical or research effort overseen by the author from Accuray, Novacure, and Arbor. Dr. Brem reports being a consultant for AsclepiX Therapeutics, StemGen, InSightec, Accelerating Combination Therapies, Camden Partners, LikeMinds, Galen Robotics, NexImmune, and Nurami Medical and receiving support of non–study-related clinical or research effort overseen by the author from Arbor Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Acuity Bio Corp.

  • 1

    Wheless SA, McKinney KA, Zanation AM. A prospective study of the clinical impact of a multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143(5):650654.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Sidhom MA, Poulsen MG. Multidisciplinary care in oncology: medicolegal implications of group decisions. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(11):951954.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Leo F, Venissac N, Poudenx M, Multidisciplinary management of lung cancer: how to test its efficacy? J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2(1):6972.

  • 4

    Snyder J, Schultz L, Walbert T. The role of tumor board conferences in neuro-oncology: a nationwide provider survey. J Neurooncol. 2017;133(1):17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Kurpad R, Kim W, Rathmell WK, A multidisciplinary approach to the management of urologic malignancies: does it influence diagnostic and treatment decisions? Urol Oncol. 2011;29(4):378382.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Lee B, Kim K, Choi JY, Efficacy of the multidisciplinary tumor board conference in gynecologic oncology. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(48):e8089.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Santoso JT, Schwertner B, Coleman RL, Hannigan EV. Tumor board in gynecologic oncology. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004;14(2):206209.

  • 8

    Cohen P, Tan AL, Penman A. The multidisciplinary tumor conference in gynecologic oncology—does it alter management? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(9):14701472.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Greer HO, Frederick PJ, Falls NM, Impact of a weekly multidisciplinary tumor board conference on the management of women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20(8):13211325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Snelgrove RC, Subendran J, Jhaveri K, Effect of multidisciplinary cancer conference on treatment plan for patients with primary rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(7):653658.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    van Hagen P, Spaander MCW, van der Gaast A, Impact of a multidisciplinary tumour board meeting for upper-GI malignancies on clinical decision making: a prospective cohort study. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;18(2):214219.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Thenappan A, Halaweish I, Mody RJ, Review at a multidisciplinary tumor board impacts critical management decisions of pediatric patients with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64(2):254258.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Wright FC, De Vito C, Langer B, Hunter A. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: a systematic review and development of practice standards. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(6):10021010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Kesson EM, Allardice GM, George WD, Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 women. BMJ. 2012;344(7856):e2718.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Pillay B, Wootten AC, Crowe H, The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;42:5672.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Giralt J, Benavente S, Arguis M. Optimizing approaches to head and neck cancer: strengths and weaknesses in multidisciplinary treatments of locally advanced disease. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(suppl 7):vii195vii199.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):19631972.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 641 641 594
Full Text Views 86 86 76
PDF Downloads 53 53 48
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0