OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact of the uro-oncology multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) at an Australian tertiary centre on patient management decisions, and to develop criteria for patient inclusion in MDMs. METHODS: Over a 3-month period, all cases presented at our weekly uro-oncology MDM were prospectively assessed, by asking the presenting clinician to state their provisional management plans and comparing this with the subsequent consensus decision. The impact of the MDM was graded as high if there was a major change in the management plan or if a plan was developed where there was none. RESULTS: Over the study period, 120 discussions about 107 patients were recorded. Prostate, urothelial, kidney and testis cancer represented 46 (38.3%), 36 (30%), 26 (21.6%) and 12 (10%) of the discussions, respectively. The MDM made high impact changes to the original plan in 32 (26.7%) cases. High impact changes were nearly twice as likely to occur in patients with metastatic disease as in those without metastases (P < 0.05). Primary cross referral between disciplines occurred in 40 (33.3%) cases, including 66.7% of testicular and 42% of bladder cancers but only 26% of prostate and 19% of kidney cancers (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The uro-oncology MDM alters management plans in about one-quarter of cases. Additionally, MDMs also serve other purposes, such as cross-referral or consideration for clinical trials. Patients should be discussed in MDMs if multimodal therapy may be required, clinical trial eligibility is being considered or if metastasis or recurrence is noted.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact of the uro-oncology multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) at an Australian tertiary centre on patient management decisions, and to develop criteria for patient inclusion in MDMs. METHODS: Over a 3-month period, all cases presented at our weekly uro-oncology MDM were prospectively assessed, by asking the presenting clinician to state their provisional management plans and comparing this with the subsequent consensus decision. The impact of the MDM was graded as high if there was a major change in the management plan or if a plan was developed where there was none. RESULTS: Over the study period, 120 discussions about 107 patients were recorded. Prostate, urothelial, kidney and testis cancer represented 46 (38.3%), 36 (30%), 26 (21.6%) and 12 (10%) of the discussions, respectively. The MDM made high impact changes to the original plan in 32 (26.7%) cases. High impact changes were nearly twice as likely to occur in patients with metastatic disease as in those without metastases (P < 0.05). Primary cross referral between disciplines occurred in 40 (33.3%) cases, including 66.7% of testicular and 42% of bladder cancers but only 26% of prostate and 19% of kidney cancers (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The uro-oncology MDM alters management plans in about one-quarter of cases. Additionally, MDMs also serve other purposes, such as cross-referral or consideration for clinical trials. Patients should be discussed in MDMs if multimodal therapy may be required, clinical trial eligibility is being considered or if metastasis or recurrence is noted.
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: Thomas M Habermann; Arushi Khurana; Ruth Lentz; John J Schmitz; Alexander G von Bormann; Jason R Young; Christopher H Hunt; Sara N Christofferson; Grzegorz S Nowakowski; Kristen B McCullough; Pedro Horna; Adam J Wood; William R Macon; Paul J Kurtin; Scott C Lester; Scott L Stafford; Ushrasree Chamarthy; Faraz Khan; Stephen M Ansell; Rebecca L King Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2020-09-23