OBJECTIVE: There have been no studies undertaken on the effect of the multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board on treatment planning. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of the multidisciplinary tumor board in altering diagnosis, stage, and treatment plan in patients with head and neck tumors. STUDY DESIGN: Case series with planned data collection. SETTING: Comprehensive cancer center and tertiary academic hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A prospective study of the discussions concerning 120 consecutive patients presented at a multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board was performed. As each patient was presented, a record was made of the "pre-conference" diagnosis, stage, and treatment plan. After case discussion, the "post-conference" diagnosis, stage, and treatment plan were recorded. Results are compared between malignant and benign tumor cohorts. RESULTS: The study population comprised 120 patients with new presentations of head and neck tumors: 84 malignancies and 36 benign tumors. Approximately 27 percent of patients had some change in tumor diagnosis, stage, or treatment plan. Change in treatment was significantly more common in cases of malignancy, occurring in 24 percent of patients versus six percent of benign tumors (P = 0.0199). Changes in treatment were also noted to be largely escalations in management (P = 0.0084), adding multi-modality care. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary tumor board affects diagnostic and treatment decisions in a significant number of patients with newly diagnosed head and neck tumors. The multidisciplinary approach to patient care may be particularly effective in managing malignant tumors, in which treatment plans are most frequently altered.
OBJECTIVE: There have been no studies undertaken on the effect of the multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board on treatment planning. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of the multidisciplinary tumor board in altering diagnosis, stage, and treatment plan in patients with head and neck tumors. STUDY DESIGN: Case series with planned data collection. SETTING: Comprehensive cancer center and tertiary academic hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A prospective study of the discussions concerning 120 consecutive patients presented at a multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board was performed. As each patient was presented, a record was made of the "pre-conference" diagnosis, stage, and treatment plan. After case discussion, the "post-conference" diagnosis, stage, and treatment plan were recorded. Results are compared between malignant and benign tumor cohorts. RESULTS: The study population comprised 120 patients with new presentations of head and neck tumors: 84 malignancies and 36 benign tumors. Approximately 27 percent of patients had some change in tumor diagnosis, stage, or treatment plan. Change in treatment was significantly more common in cases of malignancy, occurring in 24 percent of patients versus six percent of benign tumors (P = 0.0199). Changes in treatment were also noted to be largely escalations in management (P = 0.0084), adding multi-modality care. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary tumor board affects diagnostic and treatment decisions in a significant number of patients with newly diagnosed head and neck tumors. The multidisciplinary approach to patient care may be particularly effective in managing malignant tumors, in which treatment plans are most frequently altered.
Authors: Raj Kurpad; William Kim; W Kim Rathmell; Paul Godley; Young Whang; Julia Fielding; LuAnn Smith; Ava Pettiford; Heather Schultz; Matthew Nielsen; Eric M Wallen; Raj S Pruthi Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Nam P Nguyen; Paul Vos; Howard Lee; Thomas L Borok; Ulf Karlsson; Tomas Martinez; James Welsh; Deirdre Cohen; Russell Hamilton; Nga Nguyen; Ly M Nguyen; Vincent Vinh-Hung Journal: Oncology Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Evan M Graboyes; Melanie E Townsend; Dorina Kallogjeri; Jay F Piccirillo; Brian Nussenbaum Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: M Silbermann; B Pitsillides; N Al-Alfi; S Omran; K Al-Jabri; K Elshamy; I Ghrayeb; J Livneh; M Daher; H Charalambous; A Jafferri; R Fink; M El-Shamy Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Pieter van Hagen; Manon C W Spaander; Ate van der Gaast; Caroline M van Rij; Hugo W Tilanus; J Jan B van Lanschot; Bas P L Wijnhoven Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Kyle Scarberry; Lee Ponsky; Edward Cherullo; William Larchian; Donald Bodner; Matthew Cooney; Rodney Ellis; Gregory Maclennan; Ben Johnson; William Tabayoyong; Robert Abouassaly Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Kerollos N Wanis; Karen Pineda-Solis; Mauro E Tun-Abraham; Jake Yeoman; Stephen Welch; Kelly Vogt; Julie Ann M Van Koughnett; Michael Ott; Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro Journal: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 7.293