BACKGROUND: Tumor board (TB) conferences facilitate multidisciplinary cancer care and are associated with overall improved outcomes. Because of shortages of the oncology workforce and limited access to TB conferences, multidisciplinary care is not available at every institution. This pilot study assessed the feasibility and acceptance of using telemedicine to implement a virtual TB (VTB) program within a regional healthcare network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The VTB program was implemented through videoconference technology and electronic medical records between the Houston (TX) Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) (referral center) and the New Orleans (LA) VAMC (referring center). Feasibility was assessed as the proportion of completed VTB encounters, rate of technological failures/mishaps, and presentation duration. Validated surveys for confidence and satisfaction were administered to 36 TB participants to assess acceptance (1-5 point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes included preliminary data on VTB utilization and its effectiveness in providing access to quality cancer care within the region. RESULTS: Ninety TB case presentations occurred during the study period, of which 14 (15%) were VTB cases. Although one VTB encounter had a technical mishap during presentation, all scheduled encounters were completed (100% completion rate). Case presentations took longer for VTB than for regular TB cases (p=0.0004). However, VTB was highly accepted with mean scores for satisfaction and confidence of 4.6. Utilization rate of VTB was 75%, and its effectiveness was equivalent to that observed for non-VTB cases. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of VTB is feasible and highly accepted by its participants. Future studies should focus on widespread implementation and validating the effectiveness of this model.
BACKGROUND:Tumor board (TB) conferences facilitate multidisciplinary cancer care and are associated with overall improved outcomes. Because of shortages of the oncology workforce and limited access to TB conferences, multidisciplinary care is not available at every institution. This pilot study assessed the feasibility and acceptance of using telemedicine to implement a virtual TB (VTB) program within a regional healthcare network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The VTB program was implemented through videoconference technology and electronic medical records between the Houston (TX) Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) (referral center) and the New Orleans (LA) VAMC (referring center). Feasibility was assessed as the proportion of completed VTB encounters, rate of technological failures/mishaps, and presentation duration. Validated surveys for confidence and satisfaction were administered to 36 TBparticipants to assess acceptance (1-5 point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes included preliminary data on VTB utilization and its effectiveness in providing access to quality cancer care within the region. RESULTS: Ninety TB case presentations occurred during the study period, of which 14 (15%) were VTB cases. Although one VTB encounter had a technical mishap during presentation, all scheduled encounters were completed (100% completion rate). Case presentations took longer for VTB than for regular TB cases (p=0.0004). However, VTB was highly accepted with mean scores for satisfaction and confidence of 4.6. Utilization rate of VTB was 75%, and its effectiveness was equivalent to that observed for non-VTB cases. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of VTB is feasible and highly accepted by its participants. Future studies should focus on widespread implementation and validating the effectiveness of this model.
Authors: Kevin G Billingsley; David L Schwartz; Susan Lentz; Eric Vallières; R Bruce Montgomery; William Schubach; David Penson; Bevan Yueh; Howard Chansky; Claudia Zink; Darla Parayno; Gordon Starkebaum Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2002 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: I Ray-Coquard; T Philip; G de Laroche; X Froger; J-P Suchaud; A Voloch; H Mathieu-Daudé; B Fervers; F Farsi; G P Browman; F Chauvin Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Robert W Krell; Bradley N Reames; Samantha Hendren; Timothy L Frankel; Timothy M Pawlik; Mathew Chung; David Kwon; Sandra L Wong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Aitua C Salami; Gala M Barden; Diana L Castillo; Mina Hanna; Nancy J Petersen; Jessica A Davila; Aanand D Naik; Daniel A Anaya Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Mary E Charlton; Jennifer E Hrabe; Kara B Wright; Jennifer A Schlichting; Bradley D McDowell; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Chi Lin; Karyn B Stitzenberg; John W Cromwell Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Harish Dharmarajan; Jennifer L Anderson; Seungwon Kim; Shaum Sridharan; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Robert L Ferris; Mario G Solari; David A Clump; Heath D Skinner; James P Ohr; Dan P Zandberg; Barton Branstetter; Marion A Hughes; Katie S Traylor; Raja Seethala; Simion I Chiosea; Marci L Nilsen; Jonas T Johnson; Mark W Kubik Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Michael J Pishvaian; Edik M Blais; R Joseph Bender; Shruti Rao; Simina M Boca; Vincent Chung; Andrew E Hendifar; Sam Mikhail; Davendra P S Sohal; Paula R Pohlmann; Kathleen N Moore; Kai He; Bradley J Monk; Robert L Coleman; Thomas J Herzog; David D Halverson; Patricia DeArbeloa; Emanuel F Petricoin; Subha Madhavan Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2019-10-07
Authors: Lidia S van Huizen; Pieter U Dijkstra; Sjoukje van der Werf; Kees Ahaus; Jan Ln Roodenburg Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Elif Sahin; Umut Kefeli; Devrim Cabuk; Ercan Ozden; Yagmur Cakmak; Muhammed Ali Kaypak; Mustafa Seyyar; Kazım Uygun Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 3.603