Do multidisciplinary meetings follow guideline-based care?

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) are increasingly being mandated as essential to oncology practice. However, there is a paucity of data on their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to assess whether MDM recommendations were concordant with guidelines in the treatment of lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Meeting in South West Sydney, Australia, prospectively collects data on all patients whose cases have been presented. New patients with lung cancer who presented between December 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007, were reviewed. Patients were assigned to treatment on the basis of evidence-based guidelines according to pathology, stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. MDM recommendations were compared with guideline treatment, and reasons for discrepancy were noted.
RESULTS: There were 335 patients with a median age of 69 years. Of these, 82% had non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 14% had small-cell lung cancer, and 4% had no pathologic diagnosis. Eighty-four percent had locally advanced or metastatic disease. Concordance of MDM recommendations with guideline treatment existed in 29 (58%) of 50 cases for surgery, 201 (88%) of 228 cases for radiotherapy, and 200 (77%) of 260 cases for chemotherapy. Overall concordance with guideline treatment was 71% (239 of 335 cases). On multivariate analysis, age greater than 70 years, ECOG performance status of 2 or higher, and stage III NSCLC were associated with the MDM not recommending guideline treatment. The primary reasons for this were physician decision (39%), comorbidity (25%), and technical factors (22%).
CONCLUSION: MDM recommendations were largely concordant with guidelines. Physician discretion in not recommending guideline treatment was most often exercised in older patients and those with borderline performance status. Individual factors that may preclude guideline treatment cannot be accounted for by guidelines.