Emanuele Neri1, Michela Gabelloni2, Tobias Bäuerle3, Regina Beets-Tan4, Damiano Caruso5, Melvin D'Anastasi6, Julien Dinkel7, Laure S Fournier8, Sofia Gourtsoyianni9, Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann10, Marius Erik Mayerhöfer11, Daniele Regge12, Heinz Peter Schlemmer13, Andrea Laghi5. 1. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Translational Research, University of Pisa, Via Roma 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy. emanuele.neri@med.unipi.it. 2. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Translational Research, University of Pisa, Via Roma 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy. 3. Institute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, University of Rome "Sapienza", Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy. 6. Medical Imaging Department, Mater Dei Hospital, University of Malta, Valletta, Malta. 7. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 8. Radiology Department, Hôpital européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, Université de Paris, 20 Rue Leblanc, F-75015, Paris, France. 9. 1st Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Areteion Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 10. Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie Universitätsklinikum Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 11. Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, A-1090, Vienna, Austria. 12. Radiology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, University of Torino, Strada Provinciale 142 km 3.95, 10060, Candiolo, TO, Italy. 13. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Foundation Under Public Law, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary tumour boards (MTBs) play an increasingly important role in managing cancer patients from diagnosis to treatment. However, many problems arise around the organisation of MTBs, both in terms of organisation-administration and time management. In this context, the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) conducted a survey among its members, aimed at assessing the quality and amount of involvement of radiologists in MTBs, their role in it and related issues. METHODS: All members were invited to fill in a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions with both open and multiple-choice answers. Simple descriptive analyses and graphs were performed. RESULTS: A total of 292 ESOI members in full standing for the year 2018 joined the survey. Most respondents (89%) declared to attend MT-Bs, but only 114 respondents (43.9%) review over 70% of exams prior to MTB meetings, mainly due to lack of time due to a busy schedule for imaging and reporting (46.6%). Perceived benefits (i.e. surgical and histological feedback (86.9%), improved knowledge of cancer treatment (82.7%) and better interaction between radiologists and referring clinicians for discussing rare cases (56.9%)) and issues (i.e. attending MTB meetings during regular working hours (71.9%) and lack of accreditation with continuing medical education (CME) (85%)) are reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the value and benefits of radiologists' participation in MTBs, issues like improper preparation due to a busy schedule and no counterpart in CME accreditation require efforts to improve the role of radiologists for a better patient care. KEY POINTS: • Most radiologists attend multidisciplinary tumour boards, but less than half of them review images in advance, mostly due to time constraints. • Feedback about radiological diagnoses, improved knowledge of cancer treatment and interaction with referring clinicians are perceived as major benefits. • Concerns were expressed about scheduling multidisciplinary tumour boards during regular working hours and lack of accreditation with continuing medical education.
OBJECTIVES:Multidisciplinary tumour boards (MTBs) play an increasingly important role in managing cancerpatients from diagnosis to treatment. However, many problems arise around the organisation of MTBs, both in terms of organisation-administration and time management. In this context, the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) conducted a survey among its members, aimed at assessing the quality and amount of involvement of radiologists in MTBs, their role in it and related issues. METHODS: All members were invited to fill in a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions with both open and multiple-choice answers. Simple descriptive analyses and graphs were performed. RESULTS: A total of 292 ESOI members in full standing for the year 2018 joined the survey. Most respondents (89%) declared to attend MT-Bs, but only 114 respondents (43.9%) review over 70% of exams prior to MTB meetings, mainly due to lack of time due to a busy schedule for imaging and reporting (46.6%). Perceived benefits (i.e. surgical and histological feedback (86.9%), improved knowledge of cancer treatment (82.7%) and better interaction between radiologists and referring clinicians for discussing rare cases (56.9%)) and issues (i.e. attending MTB meetings during regular working hours (71.9%) and lack of accreditation with continuing medical education (CME) (85%)) are reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the value and benefits of radiologists' participation in MTBs, issues like improper preparation due to a busy schedule and no counterpart in CME accreditation require efforts to improve the role of radiologists for a better patient care. KEY POINTS: • Most radiologists attend multidisciplinary tumour boards, but less than half of them review images in advance, mostly due to time constraints. • Feedback about radiological diagnoses, improved knowledge of cancer treatment and interaction with referring clinicians are perceived as major benefits. • Concerns were expressed about scheduling multidisciplinary tumour boards during regular working hours and lack of accreditation with continuing medical education.
Entities:
Keywords:
Interdisciplinary communication; Medical oncology; Radiologists; Surveys and questionnaires
Authors: D Chaillou; G Mortuaire; V Deken-Delannoy; B Rysman; D Chevalier; F Mouawad Journal: Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 2.080
Authors: Josep M Borras; Tit Albreht; Riccardo Audisio; Erik Briers; Paolo Casali; Hélène Esperou; Birgitte Grube; Marc Hamoir; Geoffrey Henning; Joan Kelly; Susan Knox; Maria Nabal; Marco Pierotti; Claudio Lombardo; Wim van Harten; Graeme Poston; Joan Prades; Milena Sant; Luzia Travado; Vincenzo Valentini; Cornelis van de Velde; Saskia van den Bogaert; Marc van den Bulcke; Elke van Hoof; Ingrid van den Neucker; Robin Wilson Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Nagi S El Saghir; Raghid N Charara; Firas Y Kreidieh; Vanessa Eaton; Kate Litvin; Rania A Farhat; Katia E Khoury; Juliana Breidy; Hani Tamim; Toufic A Eid Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2015-10-28
Authors: Maria Antonietta Mazzei; Giulio Bagnacci; Francesco Gentili; Iacopo Capitoni; Gianni Mura; Daniele Marrelli; Roberto Petrioli; Luca Brunese; Salvatore Cappabianca; Marco Catarci; Maurizio Degiuli; Giovanni De Manzoni; Marco De Prizio; Annibale Donini; Uberto Fumagalli Romario; Luigi Funicelli; Andrea Laghi; Giuseppe Minetti; Paolo Morgagni; Enrico Petrella; Frida Pittiani; Stefano Rausei; Laura Romanini; Riccardo Rosati; Amato Antonio Stabile Ianora; Guido A M Tiberio; Luca Volterrani; Franco Roviello; Roberto Grassi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 5.315
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