J Ryan1, I Faragher. 1. Department of Surgery, Colorectal Unit, Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: It is recommended that patients with cancer should be managed in the context of a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Alternatively, proponents of the standard model of care propose that the well-informed treating doctor is able to make the appropriate plan for each patient, making the need for a MDT meeting redundant. We compared the management plans made within a colorectal cancer MDT with routine care. METHOD: Consecutive cases presenting to the colorectal MDT were prospectively assessed. Before the meeting management plans were made, based on routine care pathways. These were compared with plans made at the MDT meeting and discrepancies recorded. The number of patients who generated beneficial discussion was recorded. RESULTS: There were 261 discussions regarding the care of 197 patients. In the 203 cases where the pathways were relevant, patient management was consistent with the pathway in 94% of the cases discussed. Discussion of routine cases of colon cancer rarely changed management (3.4%). Conversely, management changed after MDT discussion in 50% of complex cases (the preoperative management of rectal cancer, recurrence, metastatic disease and malignant polyps). The postoperative discussion of pathology findings rarely generated beneficial discussion. CONCLUSION: Discussion of routine cases of colon cancer in our MDT rarely changed management, but it did change the decisions regarding complex cases or in patients with unusual pathology. We propose a two-tiered approach to the MDT where all patients are listed for a MDT meeting but only patients with complex pathology are discussed in detail. Colorectal Disease
AIM: It is recommended that patients with cancer should be managed in the context of a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Alternatively, proponents of the standard model of care propose that the well-informed treating doctor is able to make the appropriate plan for each patient, making the need for a MDT meeting redundant. We compared the management plans made within a colorectal cancer MDT with routine care. METHOD: Consecutive cases presenting to the colorectal MDT were prospectively assessed. Before the meeting management plans were made, based on routine care pathways. These were compared with plans made at the MDT meeting and discrepancies recorded. The number of patients who generated beneficial discussion was recorded. RESULTS: There were 261 discussions regarding the care of 197 patients. In the 203 cases where the pathways were relevant, patient management was consistent with the pathway in 94% of the cases discussed. Discussion of routine cases of colon cancer rarely changed management (3.4%). Conversely, management changed after MDT discussion in 50% of complex cases (the preoperative management of rectal cancer, recurrence, metastatic disease and malignant polyps). The postoperative discussion of pathology findings rarely generated beneficial discussion. CONCLUSION: Discussion of routine cases of colon cancer in our MDT rarely changed management, but it did change the decisions regarding complex cases or in patients with unusual pathology. We propose a two-tiered approach to the MDT where all patients are listed for a MDT meeting but only patients with complex pathology are discussed in detail. Colorectal Disease
Authors: Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Nicholas J Petrelli; Kathleen M Castro; James F Gardner; Jinani Jayasekera; Olga Goloubeva; Ming T Tan; Erica J McNamara; Howard A Zaren; Thomas Asfeldt; James D Bearden; Andrew L Salner; Mark J Krasna; Irene Prabhu Das; Steve B Clauser; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Nicholas J Petrelli; Kathleen M Castro; James F Gardner; Jinani Jayasekera; Olga Goloubeva; Ming T Tan; Erica J McNamara; Howard A Zaren; Thomas Asfeldt; James D Bearden; Andrew L Salner; Mark J Krasna; Irene Prabhu Das; Steve B Clauser Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Sung Min Jung; Yong Sang Hong; Tae Won Kim; Jin-Hong Park; Jong Hoon Kim; Seong Ho Park; Ah Young Kim; Seok-Byung Lim; Young-Joo Lee; Chang Sik Yu Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.352