Julie Massoubre1, Michel Lapeyre2, Rémy Pastourel1, Vincent Dupuch1, Julian Biau2, Anne-Francoise Dillies3, Thierry Mom1, Bruno Pereira4, Laurent Gilain1, Nicolas Saroul1. 1. a Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery , University Hospital Center CHU Gabriel Montpied, University d'Auvergne Clermont 1 , Clermont-Ferrand , France. 2. b Radiotherapy Department , Centre Jean Perrin , Clermont-Ferrand , France. 3. c Medical Oncology Department , Centre Jean Perrin , Clermont-Ferrand , France. 4. d Clinical Research Department , CHU Clermont-Ferrand , Clermont-Ferrand , France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MTM) are essential in the choice of a therapeutic strategy in head and neck cancer. In many centres patients attend MTMs and are examined by the team. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of the patient's presence on therapeutic decisions. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study of 119 consecutive patients. METHODS: Two therapeutic situations were compared: the therapeutic decision taken following discussion of the patient's file in the MTM (D1) and the therapeutic decision taken after examination of the patient during MTMs (D2). Concordance between the two situations was measured. RESULTS: Concordance between D1 and D2 was 97%. No factors likely to decrease concordance were identified. Decisions taken during MTMs were acted upon for 97% of the patients. CONCLUSION: The presence of the patient during MTMs is not essential if the files are thoroughly presented and discussed.
OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MTM) are essential in the choice of a therapeutic strategy in head and neck cancer. In many centres patients attend MTMs and are examined by the team. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of the patient's presence on therapeutic decisions. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study of 119 consecutive patients. METHODS: Two therapeutic situations were compared: the therapeutic decision taken following discussion of the patient's file in the MTM (D1) and the therapeutic decision taken after examination of the patient during MTMs (D2). Concordance between the two situations was measured. RESULTS: Concordance between D1 and D2 was 97%. No factors likely to decrease concordance were identified. Decisions taken during MTMs were acted upon for 97% of the patients. CONCLUSION: The presence of the patient during MTMs is not essential if the files are thoroughly presented and discussed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Head and neck cancer; multidisciplinary team meetings; presence of the patient; therapeutic decision
Authors: Janneke E W Walraven; Olga L van der Hel; J J M van der Hoeven; Valery E P P Lemmens; Rob H A Verhoeven; Ingrid M E Desar Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 2.908