Utilisation and impact of predict prostate on decision-making among clinicians and patients in a specialist tertiary referral centre: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer are faced with the decision of whether to undergo radical treatment. Decision-making aids, such as Predict Prostate, can empower both clinicians and patients to make treatment decisions with personalised information, but their impact on multi-disciplinary team (MDT) decision-making and uptake of radical treatment remains unknown. Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the utilisation and utility of Predict Prostate in informing treatment decisions for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Cambridge University Hospitals (CUH) of patients referred to the prostate cancer specialist multi-disciplinary team (pcSMDT) and robotic prostatectomy clinic (ROPD) between September 2019 and August 2021 for consideration of radical prostatectomy (RARP). Data on patient characteristics, use of PredictProstate and management decisions were collected from the Epic electronic medical record (EMR) of 839 patients, of whom 386 had intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Results: The use of Predict Prostate at the pcSMDT increased in the second half of the study period (34.5% vs. 23.8%, p < 0.001). The use of Predict Prostate was associated with an increased likelihood of attending ROPD for men with CPG2 prostate cancer (OR = 2.155, 95% CI = 1.158-4.013, p = 0.015) but a reduced likelihood of proceeding with RARP for men with CPG2 (OR = 0.397, 95% CI = 0.209-0.753, p = 0.005) and CPG3 (OR = 0.305, 95% CI = 0.108-0.861, p = 0.025) prostate cancer. Conclusion: Our study showed that the use of Predict Prostate for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer is associated with increased attendance at specialist surgical clinic and a reduced chance of undergoing radical prostate surgery.

Robot-Assisted Pelvic Dissection for Enlarged Lymph Nodes in Melanoma Improves Recovery with Equivalent Oncological Outcomes to Open Pelvic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection (rPLND) has been reported in heterogenous groups of patients with melanoma, including macroscopic or at-high-risk-for microscopic metastasis. With changing indications for surgery in melanoma, and availability of effective systemic therapies, pelvic dissection is now performed for clinically detected bulky lymph node metastasis followed by adjuvant drug therapy. rPLND has not been compared with open pelvic lymph node dissection (oPLND) for modern practice. METHODS: All patients undergoing pelvic node dissection for macroscopic melanoma at a single institution were reviewed as a cohort, observational study. RESULTS: Twenty-two pelvic lymph node dissections were identified (8 oPLND; 14 rPLND). The number of pelvic lymph nodes removed was similar (median oPLND 6.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 6.0-12.5] versus rPLND 6.0 [3.75-9.0]), with frequent matted nodes (11/22, 50.0%). Operative time (median oPLND 130 min [IQR 95.5-182] versus rPLND 126 min [IQR 97.8-160]) and complications (Clavien-Dindo scale) were similar. Length of hospital stay (median 5.34 days (IQR 3.77-6.94) versus 1.98 days (IQR 1.39-3.50) and time to postoperative adjuvant therapy (median 11.6 weeks [IQR 10.6-18.5] versus 7.71 weeks [IQR 6.29-10.4]) were shorter in the rPLND group. No differences in pelvic lymph node recurrence (p = 0.984), distant metastatic recurrence (p = 0.678), or melanoma-specific survival (p = 0.655) were seen (median follow-up 21.1 months [rPLND] and 25.7 months [oPLND]). CONCLUSIONS: rPLND is an effective way to remove bulky pelvic lymph nodes in melanoma, with a shorter recovery and reduced interval to initiating adjuvant therapy compared with oPLND. This group of patients may especially benefit from neoadjuvant systemic approaches to management.

Analysis of communication styles underpinning clinical decision-making in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings.

Introduction: In cancer care, multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the gold standard. While they are trying to maximize productivity on the back of the steadily increasing workload, growing cancer incidence, financial constraints, and staff shortages, concerns have been raised with regards to the quality of team output, as reported by Cancer Research UK in 2017: "Sometimes we discuss up to 70 patients. This is after a whole day of clinics, and we do not finish until after 19.00. Would you want to be number 70?". This study aimed to explore systematically some of the dynamics of group interaction and teamwork in MDT meetings. Materials and methods: This was a prospective observational study conducted across three MDTs/university hospitals in the United Kingdom. We video-recorded 30 weekly meetings where 822 patient cases were reviewed. A cross-section of the recordings was transcribed using the Jefferson notation system and analyzed using frequency counts (quantitative) and some principles of conversation analysis (qualitative). Results: We found that, across teams, surgeons were the most frequent initiators and responders of interactional sequences, speaking on average 47% of the time during case discussions. Cancer nurse specialists and coordinators were the least frequent initiators, with the former speaking 4% of the time and the latter speaking 1% of the time. We also found that the meetings had high levels of interactivity, with an initiator-responder ratio of 1:1.63, meaning that for every sequence of interactions initiated, the initiator received more than a single response. Lastly, we found that verbal dysfluencies (laughter, interruptions, and incomplete sentences) were more common in the second half of meetings, where a 45% increase in their frequency was observed. Discussion: Our findings highlight the importance of teamwork in planning MDT meetings, particularly with regard to Cancer Research UK in 2017 cognitive load/fatigue and decision-making, the hierarchy of clinical expertise, and the increased integration of patients' psychosocial information into MDT discussion and their perspectives. Utilizing a micro-level methodology, we highlight identifiable patterns of interaction among participants in MDT meetings and how these can be used to inform the optimization of teamwork.

Evaluation of changes to work patterns in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A national mixed-method survey study.

BACKGROUND: It is not well understood the overall changes that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have had to make in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, nor the impact that such changes, in addition to the other challenges faced by MDTs, have had on decision-making, communication, or participation in the context of MDT meetings specifically. METHODS: This was a mixed method, prospective cross-sectional survey study taking place in the United Kingdom between September 2020 and August 2021. RESULTS: The participants were 423 MDT members. Qualitative findings revealed hybrid working and possibility of virtual attendance as the change introduced because of COVID-19 that MDTs would like to maintain. However, IT-related issues, slower meetings, longer lists and delays were identified as common with improving of the IT infrastructure necessary going forward. In contrast, virtual meetings and increased attendance/availability of clinicians were highlighted as the positive outcomes resulting from the change. Quantitative findings showed significant improvement from before COVID-19 for MDT meeting organisation and logistics (M = 45, SD = 20) compared to the access (M = 50, SD = 12, t(390) = 5.028, p = 0.001), case discussions (M = 50, SD = 14, t(373) = -5.104, p = 0.001), and patient representation (M = 50, SD = 12, t(382) = -4.537, p = 0.001) at MDT meetings. DISCUSSION: Our study explored the perception of change since COVID-19 among cancer MDTs using mixed methods. While hybrid working was preferred, challenges exist. Significant improvements in the meeting organisation and logistics were reported. Although we found no significant perceived worsening across the four domains investigated, there was an indication in this direction for the case discussions warranting further 'live' assessments of MDT meetings.

Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: impact of logistical challenges on communication and decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are widely used in cancer care. Recent research points to logistical challenges impeding MDT decision-making and dissatisfaction among members. This study sought to identify different types of logistical issues and how they impacted team processes. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs (breast, colorectal, and gynaecological) were recruited from UK hospitals. Validated observational instruments were used to measure decision-making (Metrics of Observational Decision-making, MDT-MODe), communication (Bales' Interaction Process Analysis, Bales' IPA), and case complexity (Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC), including logistical challenges (Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC), across 822 case discussions from 30 videoed meetings. Descriptive analysis and paired samples t tests were used to identify and compare frequency of different types of logistical challenges, along with partial correlations, controlling for clinical complexity of cases, to understand how such issues related to the MDT decision-making and communication. RESULTS: A significantly higher frequency of administrative and process issues (affecting 30 per cent of cases) was seen compared with the frequency of equipment issues (affecting 5 per cent of cases; P < 0.001) and the frequency of the attendance issues (affecting 16 per cent of cases; P < 0.001). The frequency of the attendance issues was significantly higher than the frequency of equipment issues (P < 0.001). Partial correlation analysis revealed that administrative and process issues, including attendance, were negatively correlated with quality of information (r = -0.15, P < 0.001; r = -0.11, P < 0.001), and equipment issues with the quality of contribution to meeting discussion (r = -0.14, P < 0.001). More questioning and answering by MDT members was evident with the administrative and process issues (r = 0.21, P < 0.001; r = 0.19, P < 0.001). Some differences were observed in teams' socioemotional reactions to the administrative and process issues with the gynaecological MDT showing positive correlation with positive socioemotional reactions (r = 0.20, P < 0.001), and the breast cancer MDT with negative socioemotional reactions (r = 0.17, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Administrative and process issues were the most frequent logistical challenges for the studied teams. Where diagnostic results were unavailable, and inadequate patient details provided, the quality of decision-making was reduced.

The multispeciality approach to the management of localised kidney cancer.

Historically, kidney cancer was approached in a siloed single-speciality way, with urological surgeons managing the localised stages of the disease and medical oncologists caring for patients if metastases developed. However, improvements in the management of localised kidney cancer have occurred rapidly over the past two decades with greater understanding of the disease biology, diagnostic options, and innovations in curative treatments. These developments are favourable for patients but provide a substantially more complex landscape for patients and clinicians to navigate, with associated challenging decisions about who to treat, how, and when. As such, the skill sets needed to manage the various aspects of the disease and guide patients appropriately outstrips the capabilities of one particular specialist, and the evolution of a multispeciality approach to the management of kidney cancer is now essential. In this Review, we summarise the current best multispeciality practice for the management of localised kidney cancer and the areas in need of further research and development.

Value of the capsular enhancement sign on dynamic contrast-enhanced prostate multiparametric MRI for the detection of extracapsular extension.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the prevalence and diagnostic performance of the capsular enhancement sign (CES) on multiparametric (mp) MRI for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) extracapsular extension (ECE). METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who underwent mpMRI prior to radical prostatectomy. CES was defined as an area of asymmetrical early hyperenhancement on DCE-MRI adjacent to a peripheral zone tumour, matched or exceeded the tumour circumferential diameter, and with persistent enhancement. Two uro-radiologists evaluated the presence of CES on mpMRI, independently and in consensus, with interobserver agreement calculated using bias and prevalence-adjusted kappa (PABAK). CES performance for predicting ECE was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: The study included 146 patients, with 91/146 (62%) having ECE on surgical pathology. Following initial review, Reader 1 identified 12/146 (8%) CES-positive cases, while Reader 2 reported 14/146 (10%) CES-positive cases, with 15/146 (10%) lesions determined as demonstrating the CES sign on consensus reading. PABAK for CES between the two readers was high at 0.90. All consensus determined CES-positive lesions represented pathological stage ≥ T3a disease, with the overall prevalence of CES among tumours with confirmed ECE being 15/91 (17%). The sign showed high specificity (100%) and PPV (100%) for ECE detection, but with low sensitivity, NPV, and accuracy at 16.5%, 41.3%, and 47.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CES was demonstrated to be a rare but highly specific ECE predictor on mpMRI that may improve local staging in the patients in whom it is demonstrated.

Integration of Prostate Biopsy Results with Pre-Biopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings Improves Local Staging of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the added value of histological information for local staging of prostate cancer (PCa) by comparing the accuracy of multiparametric MRI alone (mpMRI) and mpMRI with biopsy Gleason grade (mpMRI+Bx). METHODS: 133 consecutive patients who underwent preoperative 3T-MRI and subsequent radical prostatectomy for PCa were included in this single-centre retrospective study. mpMRI imaging was reviewed independently by two uroradiologists for the presence of extracapsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) on a 5-point Likert scale. For second reads, the radiologists received results of targeted fused MR/US biopsy (mpMRI+Bx) prior to re-staging. RESULTS: The median patient age was 63 years (interquartile range (IQR) 58-67 years) and median PSA was 6.5 ng/mL (IQR 5.0-10.0 ng/mL). Extracapsular extension was present in 85/133 (63.9%) patients and SVI was present in 22/133 (16.5%) patients. For ECE prediction, mpMRI showed sensitivity and specificity of 63.5% and 81.3%, respectively, compared to 77.7% and 81.3% achieved by mpMRI+Bx. At an optimal cut-off value of Likert score ≥ 3, areas under the curves (AUCs) was .85 for mpMRI+Bx and .78 for mpMRI, P < .01. For SVI prediction, AUC was .95 for mpMRI+Bx compared to .92 for mpMRI; P = .20. Inter-reader agreement for ECE and SVI prediction was substantial for mpMRI (k range, .78-.79) and mpMRI+Bx (k range, .74-.79). CONCLUSIONS: MpMRI+Bx showed superior diagnostic performance with an increased sensitivity for ECE prediction but no significant difference for SVI prediction. Inter-reader agreement was substantial for both protocols. Integration of biopsy information adds value when staging prostate mpMRI.

Hyperpolarised 13C-MRI identifies the emergence of a glycolytic cell population within intermediate-risk human prostate cancer.

Hyperpolarised magnetic resonance imaging (HP 13C-MRI) is an emerging clinical technique to detect [1-13C]lactate production in prostate cancer (PCa) following intravenous injection of hyperpolarised [1-13C]pyruvate. Here we differentiate clinically significant PCa from indolent disease in a low/intermediate-risk population by correlating [1-13C]lactate labelling on MRI with the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) disease. Using immunohistochemistry and spatial transcriptomics, we show that HP 13C-MRI predominantly measures metabolism in the epithelial compartment of the tumour, rather than the stroma. MRI-derived tumour [1-13C]lactate labelling correlated with epithelial mRNA expression of the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase (LDHA and LDHB combined), and the ratio of lactate transporter expression between the epithelial and stromal compartments (epithelium-to-stroma MCT4). We observe similar changes in MCT4, LDHA, and LDHB between tumours with primary Gleason patterns 3 and 4 in an independent TCGA cohort. Therefore, HP 13C-MRI can metabolically phenotype clinically significant disease based on underlying metabolic differences in the epithelial and stromal tumour compartments.

Team functioning across different tumour types: Insights from a Swiss cancer center using qualitative and quantitative methods.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary care is pivotal in cancer centres and the interaction of all cancer disease specialists in decision making processes is state-of-the-art. AIM: To describe differences of MDTMs by tumour type. METHODS: Twelve multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) with participation of different cancer disease specialists at a tertiary hospital were assessed by an exploratory sequential mixed method approach with interviews, observations and a survey to address the following five topics: organisational structure and supporting technology; leadership; teamwork; decision-making, perceived value and motivation. Thirteen persons with different tumour specialities and levels of seniority were interviewed. The 12 MDTMs were observed twice by uninvolved persons and evaluated by the participating physicians with a survey. RESULTS: There were no systematic differences between MDTMs for different tumour types with the exception of the non-disease specific type MDTM, which was the only one for which the organisational structure was not driven by an electronic tool. However, several factors could be identified that generally influenced the functioning of the MDTMs. In particular, the quality of decision-making was highly dependent on the availability of case-based information and the presence of relevant cancer disease specialists. Leadership and teamwork were rated as important and were comparable across the MDTM. Team participants' motivation and perceived value of MDTMs was high across all meetings. CONCLUSION: MDTM at a single institution did not demonstrate disease specific characteristics. An effective MDTM, irrespective of the tumour type, can be successfully structured by technical means and a chairperson coordinating the interaction of cancer disease specialists to improve the decision-making process.

Immediate post-operative PDE5i therapy improves early erectile function outcomes after robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

To assess whether the timing of post-operative Phosphodiesterase Inhibitor (PDE5i) therapy after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) is associated with a change in early erectile function (EF) outcomes, continence or safety outcomes. Data were prospectively collected from a single surgeon in one tertiary centre. 158 patients were treated with PDE5i therapy post RARP over a 2-year period. PDE5i therapy was started: immediately (day 1-2) post-op in 29%, early (day 3-14) post-op in 37% and late (after day 14) post-op in 34%. EPIC-26 EF scores were collected pre-op and post-op. There were no significant differences in pre-operative characteristics between the therapy groups. Drop in EF scores and percentage return to baseline for unilateral nerve sparing was, respectively, 9 and 11.1% of immediate therapy, 7 and 14.8% of early therapy and 9.7 and 9.5% of late therapy (p = 0.9 and p = 0.6). For bilateral nerve sparing, this was, respectively, 3.5 and 42.9% immediate therapy, 5.5 and 35.5% early therapy and 7.3 and 25% late therapy (p = 0.017 and p = 0.045). Pad free and social continence were achieved in 54% and 37% of those receiving immediate therapy, 60% and 33% for early therapy and 26% and 54% for late therapy. There were no differences in compliance, complication or readmission outcomes. In patients with bilateral nerve sparing RARP, immediate post-operative PDE5i therapy can protect EF and improve early continence outcomes. Therefore, immediate PDE5i therapy should be considered in patients following nerve sparing RARP to maximise functional outcomes.

Comparison of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI for the detection of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion in biopsy naïve patients.

PURPOSE: To compare biparametric MRI (bpMRI) with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) staging accuracy in assessing extracapsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI). METHOD: Biopsy-naïve patients undergoing 3 T-MRI before radical prostatectomy for clinically significant prostate cancer were included in this single-centre retrospective study. Two uroradiologists separately evaluated bpMRI and mpMRI for presence of ECE and SVI using a 5-point Likert scale (1: ECE/SVI highly unlikely, 5: ECE/SVI highly likely). RESULTS: 110 men of median age 63 years and PSA 8.5 ng/mL were included. ECE and SVI was confirmed histologically in 71/110 (64.5 %) and 18/110 (16.4 %) patients, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of bpMRI versus mpMRI for predicting ECE was 59.1 % and 87.2 % versus 66.2 % and 84.6 %, respectively. For SVI detection, the sensitivity and specificity for bpMRI versus mpMRI was 66.7 % and 92.4 % versus 83.3 % and 97.8 %, respectively. At an optimal cut-off Likert score ≥3 for ECE prediction, mpMRI area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was 0.80 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.87) versus 0.78 (95 % CI 0.69-0.86) for bpMRI (p = 0.52) and for SVI, mpMRI AUC was 0.91 (95 % CI 0.84-0.96) versus 0.86 (95 % CI 0.78-0.92) for bpMRI (p = 0.02), respectively. Inter-reader agreement for both ECE and SVI prediction was substantial, with a marginally higher k-value for mpMRI (k range, 0.67-0.75) than bpMRI (k range, 0.65-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performance of bpMRI and mpMRI was comparable for detection of ECE, however, mpMRI with contrast was superior for SVI detection and improved the inter-reader agreement.

The cancer multidisciplinary team meeting: in need of change? History, challenges and future perspectives.

Two decades since their inception, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are widely regarded as the 'gold standard' of cancer care delivery. Benefits of MDT working include improved patient outcomes, adherence to guidelines, and even economic benefits. Benefits to MDT members have also been demonstrated. An increasing body of evidence supports the use of MDTs and provides guidance on best practise. The system of MDTs in cancer care has come under increasing pressure of late, due to the increasing incidence of cancer, the popularity of MDT working, and financial pressures. This pressure has resulted in recommendations by national bodies to implement streamlining to reduce workload and improve efficiency. In the present review we examine the historical evidence for MDT working, and the scientific developments that dictate best practise. We also explore how streamlining can be safely and effectively undertaken. Finally, we discuss the future of MDT working including the integration of artificial intelligence and decision support systems and propose a new model for improving patient centredness.

Degrees of Multidisciplinarity Underpinning Care Planning for Patients with Cancer in Weekly Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: Conversation Analysis.

PURPOSE: Despite an increase in research on multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, the implementation of MDT-driven decision-making, ie, its fidelity, remains unstudied. We report fidelity using an observational protocol measuring degree to which MDTs in their weekly meetings in the UK adhere to 1) the stages of group decision-making as per the 'Orientation-Discussion-Decision-Implementation' framework, and 2) cancer guidelines on the composition and characteristics of their weekly meetings produced by the UK's Department of Health, UK's National Cancer Action Team, Cancer Research UK, World Health Organization, and The Expert Advisory Group on Cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cross-sectional observational study of MDT meetings in the UK. Breast, colorectal, and gynecological cancer MDTs across three hospitals in the UK were video recorded over 12 weekly meetings, respectively, encompassing 822 case-reviews. A cross-section of 24 case-reviews was analysed with the main outcomes being adherence to the 'Orientation-Discussion-Decision-Implementation' framework, and the cancer guidelines. RESULTS: Eight percent of case-reviews in the MDT meetings involved all five core disciplines including surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, histopathologists, and specialist cancer nurses, and 38% included four. The majority of case-reviews (54%) were between two (25%) or three (29%) disciplines only. Surgeons (83%) and oncologists (8%) most consistently engaged in all stages of decision-making. While all patients put forward for MDT meeting were actually reviewed, 4% of them either bypassed the orientation (case presentation), and 8% did not articulate the final decision to the entire team. CONCLUSION: We found that, despite being a set policy, cancer case-reviews in MDT meetings are not entirely MDT-driven, with more than half of the case-reviews not adhering to the cancer guidelines, and just over 10% not adhering to the group decision-making framework. The findings are in line with the UK recommendation on streamlining MDT meetings and could help decide how to re-organise the meetings to be most efficient. Implications are discussed in relation to quality and safety of care.

Quality improvement for cancer multidisciplinary teams: lessons learned from the Anglian Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group.

Shamash and colleagues describe how their supra-regional germ cell tumour multidisciplinary team achieved standardisation of treatment and improved survival. We discuss some of the insights the study provides into prioritising complex patients, streamlining processes, the use of telemedicine, and the centrality of good data collection to continuous quality improvement.