INTRODUCTION: We sought to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) on altering treatment plans for genitourinary (GU) cancer patients. METHODS: All GU cancer patients seen at our tertiary care hospital are discussed at MTB. We prospectively collected data on adult patients discussed over a continuous, 20-month period. Physicians completed a survey prior to MTB to document their opinion on the likelihood of change in their patient's treatment plan. Logistic regression was used to asses for factors associated with a change by the MTB, including patient age or sex, malignancy type, the predicted treatment plan, and the provider's years of experience or fellowship training. RESULTS: A total of 321 cancer patients were included. Patients were primarily male (84.4%) with a median age of 67 (range 20-92) years old. Prostate (38.9%), bladder (31.8%), and kidney cancer (19.6%) were the most common malignancies discussed. A change in management plan following MTB was observed in 57 (17.8%) patients. The physician predicted a likely change in six (10.5%) of these patients. Multivariate logistic regression did not determine physician prediction to be associated with treatment plan change, and the only significant variable identified was a plan to discuss multiple treatment options with a patient (odds ratio 2.46; 95% confidence interval 1.09-9.54). CONCLUSIONS: Routine discussion of all urologic oncology cases at MTB led to a change in treatment plan in 17.8% of patients. Physicians cannot reliably predict which patients have their treatment plan altered. Selectively choosing patients to be presented likely undervalues the impact of a multidisciplinary approach to care.
INTRODUCTION: We sought to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) on altering treatment plans for genitourinary (GU) cancerpatients. METHODS: All GU cancerpatients seen at our tertiary care hospital are discussed at MTB. We prospectively collected data on adult patients discussed over a continuous, 20-month period. Physicians completed a survey prior to MTB to document their opinion on the likelihood of change in their patient's treatment plan. Logistic regression was used to asses for factors associated with a change by the MTB, including patient age or sex, malignancy type, the predicted treatment plan, and the provider's years of experience or fellowship training. RESULTS: A total of 321 cancerpatients were included. Patients were primarily male (84.4%) with a median age of 67 (range 20-92) years old. Prostate (38.9%), bladder (31.8%), and kidney cancer (19.6%) were the most common malignancies discussed. A change in management plan following MTB was observed in 57 (17.8%) patients. The physician predicted a likely change in six (10.5%) of these patients. Multivariate logistic regression did not determine physician prediction to be associated with treatment plan change, and the only significant variable identified was a plan to discuss multiple treatment options with a patient (odds ratio 2.46; 95% confidence interval 1.09-9.54). CONCLUSIONS: Routine discussion of all urologic oncology cases at MTB led to a change in treatment plan in 17.8% of patients. Physicians cannot reliably predict which patients have their treatment plan altered. Selectively choosing patients to be presented likely undervalues the impact of a multidisciplinary approach to care.
Authors: Heather O Greer; Peter J Frederick; Nicole M Falls; Emily B Tapley; Karen L Samples; Kristopher J Kimball; James E Kendrick; Michael G Conner; Lea Novak; J Michael Straughn Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: R M Poses; W R Smith; D K McClish; E C Huber; F L Clemo; B P Schmitt; D Alexander-Forti; E M Racht; C C Colenda; R M Centor Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 1997-05-12
Authors: Erika A Newman; Amy B Guest; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Alfred E Chang; Celina G Kleer; Kathleen M Diehl; Vincent M Cimmino; Lori Pierce; Daniel Hayes; Lisa A Newman; Michael S Sabel Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Steven Campbell; Robert G Uzzo; Mohamad E Allaf; Eric B Bass; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Anthony Chang; Peter E Clark; Brian J Davis; Ithaar H Derweesh; Leo Giambarresi; Debra A Gervais; Susie L Hu; Brian R Lane; Bradley C Leibovich; Philip M Pierorazio Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: David G Brauer; Matthew S Strand; Dominic E Sanford; Vladimir M Kushnir; Kian-Huat Lim; Daniel K Mullady; Benjamin R Tan; Andrea Wang-Gillam; Ashley E Morton; Marianna B Ruzinova; Parag J Parikh; Vamsi R Narra; Kathryn J Fowler; Majella B Doyle; William C Chapman; Steven S Strasberg; William G Hawkins; Ryan C Fields Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Raj Kurpad; William Kim; W Kim Rathmell; Paul Godley; Young Whang; Julia Fielding; LuAnn Smith; Ava Pettiford; Heather Schultz; Matthew Nielsen; Eric M Wallen; Raj S Pruthi Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Sam S Chang; Stephen A Boorjian; Roger Chou; Peter E Clark; Siamak Daneshmand; Badrinath R Konety; Raj Pruthi; Diane Z Quale; Chad R Ritch; John D Seigne; Eila Curlee Skinner; Norm D Smith; James M McKiernan Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 7.450