Fieke Hoeijmakers1, David J Heineman2, Johannes M Daniels3, Naomi Beck4, Rob A E M Tollenaar4, Michel W J M Wouters5, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen6, Wilhelmina H Schreurs7. 1. Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands. Electronic address: f.hoeijmakers@lumc.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands. 5. Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute / Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis and staging are crucial to ensure uniform allocation to the optimal treatment methods for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but may differ among multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs). Discordance between clinical and pathologic TNM stage is particularly important for patients with locally advanced NSCLC (stage IIIA) because it may influence their chance of allocation to curative-intent treatment. We therefore aimed to study agreement on staging and treatment to gain insight into MDT decision-making. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the level of agreement on clinical staging and treatment recommendations among MDTs in stage IIIA NSCLC patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Eleven MDTs each evaluated the same 10 pathologic stage IIIA NSCLC patients in their weekly meeting (n = 110). Patients were selected purposively for their challenging nature. All MDTs received exactly the same clinical information and images per patient. We tested agreement in cT stage, cN stage, cM stage (TNM 8th edition), and treatment proposal among MDTs using Randolph's free-marginal multirater kappa. RESULTS: Considerable variation among the MDTs was seen in T staging (κ, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.75]), N staging (κ, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-0.83]), overall TNM staging (κ, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]), and treatment recommendations (κ, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56]). Most variation in T stage was seen in patients with suspicion of invasion of surrounding structures, which influenced such treatment recommendations as induction therapy and type. For N stage, distinction between N1 and N2 disease was an important source of discordance among MDTs. Variation occurred between 2 patients even regarding M stage. A wide range of additional diagnostics was proposed by the MDTs. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrated high variation in staging and treatment of patients with stage IIIA NSCLC among MDTs in different hospitals. Although some variation may be unavoidable in these challenging patients, we should strive for more uniformity.
BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis and staging are crucial to ensure uniform allocation to the optimal treatment methods for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but may differ among multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs). Discordance between clinical and pathologic TNM stage is particularly important for patients with locally advanced NSCLC (stage IIIA) because it may influence their chance of allocation to curative-intent treatment. We therefore aimed to study agreement on staging and treatment to gain insight into MDT decision-making. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the level of agreement on clinical staging and treatment recommendations among MDTs in stage IIIA NSCLCpatients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Eleven MDTs each evaluated the same 10 pathologic stage IIIA NSCLCpatients in their weekly meeting (n = 110). Patients were selected purposively for their challenging nature. All MDTs received exactly the same clinical information and images per patient. We tested agreement in cT stage, cN stage, cM stage (TNM 8th edition), and treatment proposal among MDTs using Randolph's free-marginal multirater kappa. RESULTS: Considerable variation among the MDTs was seen in T staging (κ, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.75]), N staging (κ, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-0.83]), overall TNM staging (κ, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]), and treatment recommendations (κ, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56]). Most variation in T stage was seen in patients with suspicion of invasion of surrounding structures, which influenced such treatment recommendations as induction therapy and type. For N stage, distinction between N1 and N2 disease was an important source of discordance among MDTs. Variation occurred between 2 patients even regarding M stage. A wide range of additional diagnostics was proposed by the MDTs. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrated high variation in staging and treatment of patients with stage IIIA NSCLC among MDTs in different hospitals. Although some variation may be unavoidable in these challenging patients, we should strive for more uniformity.
Authors: S V Kemp; S H El Batrawy; R N Harrison; K Skwarski; M Munavvar; A Rosell; A Roselli; K Cusworth; P L Shah Journal: Thorax Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Laurence M M Crombag; Christophe Dooms; Jos A Stigt; Kurt G Tournoy; Olga C J Schuurbiers; Maarten K Ninaber; Wieneke A Buikhuisen; Sayed M S Hashemi; Peter I Bonta; Daniël A Korevaar; Jouke T Annema Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: W E E Eberhardt; D De Ruysscher; W Weder; C Le Péchoux; P De Leyn; H Hoffmann; V Westeel; R Stahel; E Felip; S Peters Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Martijn Ten Berge; Naomi Beck; David Jonathan Heineman; Ronald Damhuis; Willem Hans Steup; Pieter Jan van Huijstee; Jan Peter Eerenberg; Eelco Veen; Alexander Maat; Michel Versteegh; Thomas van Brakel; Wilhemina Hendrika Schreurs; Michel Wilhelmus Wouters Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-04-22 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Ramón Rami-Porta; Vanessa Bolejack; John Crowley; David Ball; Jhingook Kim; Gustavo Lyons; Thomas Rice; Kenji Suzuki; Charles F Thomas; William D Travis; Yi-Long Wu Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Nichole T Tanner; Mario Gomez; Chelsea Rainwater; Paul J Nietert; George R Simon; Mark R Green; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Herbert Decaluwé; Christophe Dooms; Xavier Benoit D'Journo; Sergi Call; David Sanchez; Benedikt Haager; Roel Beelen; Volkan Kara; Thomas Klikovits; Clemens Aigner; Kurt Tournoy; Mahmood Zahin; Johnny Moons; Geoffrey Brioude; Juan Carlos Trujillo; Walter Klepetko; Akif Turna; Bernward Passlick; Laureano Molins; Ramon Rami-Porta; Pascal Thomas; Paul De Leyn Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Henner M Schmidt; John M Roberts; Artur M Bodnar; Sonia Kunz; Steven H Kirtland; Richard P Koehler; Michal Hubka; Donald E Low Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: David Jonathan Heineman; Martijn Geert Ten Berge; Johannes Marlene Daniels; Michaël Ignatius Versteegh; Perla Jacqueline Marang-van de Mheen; Michael Wilhelmus Wouters; Wilhelmina Hendrika Schreurs Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Wilfried Ernst Erich Eberhardt; Christoph Pöttgen; Thomas Christoph Gauler; Godehard Friedel; Stefanie Veit; Vanessa Heinrich; Stefan Welter; Wilfried Budach; Werner Spengler; Martin Kimmich; Berthold Fischer; Heinz Schmidberger; Dirk De Ruysscher; Claus Belka; Sebastian Cordes; Rodrigo Hepp; Diana Lütke-Brintrup; Nils Lehmann; Martin Schuler; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Georgios Stamatis; Martin Stuschke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Merle I Ronden; Idris Bahce; Niels J M Claessens; Nicole Barlo; Max R Dahele; Johannes M A Daniels; Caroline Tissing-Tan; Edo Hekma; Sayed M S Hashemi; Antoinet van der Wel; Femke O B Spoelstra; Wilko F A R Verbakel; Marian A Tiemessen; Marjolein van Laren; Annemarie Becker; Svitlana Tarasevych; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Karen Maassen van den Brink; Chris Dickhoff; Suresh Senan Journal: JTO Clin Res Rep Date: 2021-06-06