Alina Krause1,2, Gertraud Stocker1,2, Ines Gockel3, Daniel Seehofer3, Albrecht Hoffmeister1, Hendrik Bläker4, Timm Denecke5, Regine Kluge6, Florian Lordick1,2, Maren Knödler7,8. 1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Onkologie, Gastroenterologie, Hepatologie, Pneumologie und Infektiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 2. Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Universitäres Krebszentrum Leipzig (UCCL), Leipzig, Germany. 3. Klinik und Poliklinik für Viszeral-, Transplantations-, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 4. Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 5. Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 6. Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 7. Klinik und Poliklinik für Onkologie, Gastroenterologie, Hepatologie, Pneumologie und Infektiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. maren.knoedler@medizin.uni-leipzig.de. 8. Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Universitäres Krebszentrum Leipzig (UCCL), Leipzig, Germany. maren.knoedler@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although participation in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) is an obligatory quality criterion for certification, there is scarce evidence, whether MTB recommendations are consistent with consensus guidelines and whether they are followed in clinical practice. Reasons of guideline and tumor board deviations are poorly understood so far. METHODS: MTB's recommendations from the weekly MTB for gastrointestinal cancers at the University Cancer Center Leipzig/Germany (UCCL) in 2020 were analyzed for their adherence to therapy recommendations as stated in National German guidelines and implementation within an observation period of 3 months. To assess adherence, an objective classification system was developed assigning a degree of guideline and tumor board adherence to each MTB case. For cases with deviations, underlying causes and influencing factors were investigated and categorized. RESULTS: 76% of MTBs were fully adherent to guidelines, with 16% showing deviations, mainly due to study inclusions and patient comorbidities. Guideline adherence in 8% of case discussions could not be determined, especially because there was no underlying guideline recommendation for the specific topic. Full implementation of the MTBs treatment recommendation occurred in 64% of all cases, while 21% showed deviations with primarily reasons of comorbidities and differing patient wishes. Significantly lower guideline and tumor board adherences were demonstrated in patients with reduced performance status (ECOG-PS ≥ 2) and for palliative intended therapy (p = 0.002/0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of guideline deviations and adherence to MTB decisions by a systematic and objective quality assessment tool could become a meaningful quality criterion for cancer centers in Germany.
PURPOSE: Although participation in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) is an obligatory quality criterion for certification, there is scarce evidence, whether MTB recommendations are consistent with consensus guidelines and whether they are followed in clinical practice. Reasons of guideline and tumor board deviations are poorly understood so far. METHODS: MTB's recommendations from the weekly MTB for gastrointestinal cancers at the University Cancer Center Leipzig/Germany (UCCL) in 2020 were analyzed for their adherence to therapy recommendations as stated in National German guidelines and implementation within an observation period of 3 months. To assess adherence, an objective classification system was developed assigning a degree of guideline and tumor board adherence to each MTB case. For cases with deviations, underlying causes and influencing factors were investigated and categorized. RESULTS: 76% of MTBs were fully adherent to guidelines, with 16% showing deviations, mainly due to study inclusions and patient comorbidities. Guideline adherence in 8% of case discussions could not be determined, especially because there was no underlying guideline recommendation for the specific topic. Full implementation of the MTBs treatment recommendation occurred in 64% of all cases, while 21% showed deviations with primarily reasons of comorbidities and differing patient wishes. Significantly lower guideline and tumor board adherences were demonstrated in patients with reduced performance status (ECOG-PS ≥ 2) and for palliative intended therapy (p = 0.002/0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of guideline deviations and adherence to MTB decisions by a systematic and objective quality assessment tool could become a meaningful quality criterion for cancer centers in Germany.
Authors: Julian H Barth; Shivani Misra; Kristin Moberg Aakre; Michel R Langlois; Joseph Watine; Patrick J Twomey; Wytze P Oosterhuis Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: A R Davies; D A C Deans; I Penman; J N Plevris; J Fletcher; L Wall; H Phillips; H Gilmour; D Patel; A de Beaux; S Paterson-Brown Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: Ryaz Chagpar; Yan Xing; Yi-Ju Chiang; Barry W Feig; George J Chang; Y Nancy You; Janice N Cormier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Genevieve M Boland; George J Chang; Alex B Haynes; Yi-Ju Chiang; Ryaz Chagpar; Yan Xing; Chung-Yuan Hu; Barry W Feig; Y Nancy You; Janice N Cormier Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J-Y Blay; P Soibinet; N Penel; E Bompas; F Duffaud; E Stoeckle; O Mir; J Adam; C Chevreau; S Bonvalot; M Rios; P Kerbrat; D Cupissol; P Anract; F Gouin; J-E Kurtz; C Lebbe; N Isambert; F Bertucci; M Toumonde; A Thyss; S Piperno-Neumann; P Dubray-Longeras; P Meeus; F Ducimetière; A Giraud; J-M Coindre; I Ray-Coquard; A Italiano; A Le Cesne Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: A A Abukar; A Ramsanahie; K Martin-Lumbard; E R Herrington; V Winslow; S Wong; S Ahmed; M A Thaha Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 2.571