BACKGROUND: In most jurisdictions, a minority of patients are discussed at multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCC) despite recommendations for such reviews. We assessed the impact of MCC review of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers at a stand-alone cancer center. METHODS: Patient data were prospectively collected on consecutive cases presented at a GI MCC during a 6-month period. Original treatment plans were collected confidentially before presentation and compared to post-MCC treatment plans. We defined changes in management plans as major (change in treatment modality) or minor (testing prior to original plan). RESULTS: A total of 149 cases were evaluated: 115 upper GI (gastric/small bowel-10 %, liver-32 %, pancreaticobiliary-36 %), and 34 lower GI (23 %). Reasons for presentation were: questions regarding progression/metastases (44 %), management (26 %), diagnosis (21 %), pathology (15 %), and resectability (7 %). Physicians were certain of their original plans being the final recommendations in 84 % (n = 125). Change in management was recommended in 36 %; 72 % were major and 28 % were minor. Patients underwent all recommended treatments at our institution in 77 % of cases, a portion in 5 %, and no recommended treatments in 18 %. On multivariate analysis, physician degree of certainty for original management plan was not predictive of a change in management plan (p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Although certainty of prediscussion treatment plan is high, changes in treatment recommendations occurred in more than one-third of patients after GI MCC. This prospective study demonstrates the value of MCC in GI cancer sites, even at a stand-alone cancer center.
BACKGROUND: In most jurisdictions, a minority of patients are discussed at multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCC) despite recommendations for such reviews. We assessed the impact of MCC review of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers at a stand-alone cancer center. METHODS:Patient data were prospectively collected on consecutive cases presented at a GI MCC during a 6-month period. Original treatment plans were collected confidentially before presentation and compared to post-MCC treatment plans. We defined changes in management plans as major (change in treatment modality) or minor (testing prior to original plan). RESULTS: A total of 149 cases were evaluated: 115 upper GI (gastric/small bowel-10 %, liver-32 %, pancreaticobiliary-36 %), and 34 lower GI (23 %). Reasons for presentation were: questions regarding progression/metastases (44 %), management (26 %), diagnosis (21 %), pathology (15 %), and resectability (7 %). Physicians were certain of their original plans being the final recommendations in 84 % (n = 125). Change in management was recommended in 36 %; 72 % were major and 28 % were minor. Patients underwent all recommended treatments at our institution in 77 % of cases, a portion in 5 %, and no recommended treatments in 18 %. On multivariate analysis, physician degree of certainty for original management plan was not predictive of a change in management plan (p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Although certainty of prediscussion treatment plan is high, changes in treatment recommendations occurred in more than one-third of patients after GI MCC. This prospective study demonstrates the value of MCC in GI cancer sites, even at a stand-alone cancer center.
Authors: Neena S Abraham; J Travis Gossey; Jessica A Davila; Sarah Al-Oudat; Jennifer K Kramer Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: J H Chang; E Vines; H Bertsch; D L Fraker; B J Czerniecki; E F Rosato; T Lawton; E F Conant; S G Orel; L Schuchter; K R Fox; N Zieber; J H Glick; L J Solin Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Knut M Augestad; Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo; Jonah Stulberg; Harry Reynolds; Anthony Senagore; Brad Champagne; Alexander G Heriot; Fabien Leblanc; Conor P Delaney Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Timothy M Pawlik; Daniel Laheru; Ralph H Hruban; Joann Coleman; Christopher L Wolfgang; Kurt Campbell; Syed Ali; Elliot K Fishman; Richard D Schulick; Joseph M Herman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-05-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: H A M Swellengrebel; E G Peters; A Cats; O Visser; H G T Blaauwgeers; V J Verwaal; M L van Velthuysen; H A Cense; S C Bruin; C A M Marijnen Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: C Eskicioglu; S Forbes; S Tsai; V Francescutti; A Coates; V Grubac; R Sonnadara; M Simunovic Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Maureen D Moore; Emily Postma; Katherine D Gray; Timothy M Ullmann; James R Hurley; Stanley Goldsmith; Vivian R Sobel; Aaron Schulman; Theresa Scognamiglio; Paul J Christos; Erin Hassett; Jessica Luick; Dana Whitehall; Rasa Zarnegar; Thomas J Fahey Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Banghyun Lee; Kidong Kim; Jin Young Choi; Dong Hoon Suh; Jae Hong No; Ho-Young Lee; Keun-Yong Eom; Haeryoung Kim; Sung Il Hwang; Hak Jong Lee; Yong Beom Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Sarah R Akkina; Roderick Y Kim; Chaz L Stucken; Melissa A Pynnonen; Carol R Bradford Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Date: 2018-08-09