A study of the decision outcomes and financial costs of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) in oncology.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of multidisciplinary working in oncology are now accepted as the norm and widely accepted as being pivotal to the delivery of optimal cancer care. Central to this are the multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) and we have evaluated decision outcomes and financial costs of these. METHODS: We reviewed the electronic patient records of 551 newly referred patients, discussed at 14 tumour site-specific MDMs for adult solid tumours and lymphoma (paediatric oncology and acute leukaemia were excluded) over a 1-month period, a total of 52 MDMs were studied. In addition, the records of a further 81 patients from 10 different MDMs were reviewed where the treating consultant had clearly recorded their opinion of how the patient should be managed and this was compared with the final MDM's consensus view. We also costed the MDMs utilising two different methodologies. RESULTS: The mean age of the 551 patients in the study was 62 years. In all, 536 (97.3%) patients were treatment naive before MDM discussion and 15 (2.7%) had prior treatment. Median time to treatment after the MDM was 16 days. In 535 (97.1%) cases, the MDM discussions were clearly documented, 16 (2.9%) were not clearly documented. In total, 319 (57.9%) patients were discussed once, and 232 (42.1%) were re-discussed (one to six occasions). In 62 (12.7%) patients, there were delays in MDM discussion, 30 (48.4%) were related to radiology, 26 (41.9%) to histopathology and 6 (9.7%) a combination of both. Adherence to the MDM management plan decision occurred 503 times (91.3%) with 48 (8.7%) deviations. In the smaller cohort of 81 patients, the consultant management plan and MDM consensus was compatible 71 (87.6%) times. On four occasions, there were major alterations in management while six were minor. The cost per month of our MDMs ranged from £2192 to £10 050 (median £5136) with total cost of £80 850 per month and the cost per new patient discussed was £415. CONCLUSION: Adherence to MDM decisions by health-care professionals occurs in the majority of patients. MDMs are costly, which may have relevance in the currently challenged health-care financial environment. There is a need to improve MDM efficiency without losing the considerable benefits associated with regular MDMs.

Breast cancer brain metastases - A 12 year review of treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is the 2nd commonest cause of brain metastases (BM). This retrospective review investigates the applicability of prognostic scores and highlights different outcomes for patients with HER2 positive compared to triple negative (TN) subtypes. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy four patients received whole brain radiotherapy for BC BM (01/2000-12/2011). The primary objective was to determine factors influencing overall survival (OS). All information relevant to primary BC, disease recurrence, treatment, outcome and cause of death (either neurological (NP) or systemic progression (SP)) were collected. Univariate (UV) and multivariate (MV) Cox regression analysis were used. RESULTS: One hundred and forty four patients (53%) were ER positive, 104 (38%) HER2 positive and 57 (21%) TN. Median age at BM was 53 (27-81) years and median OS from BM diagnosis 7.3 (5.7-8.9) months. On MV analysis, Her2 status, RPA score, surgery, stereotactic radiotherapy, and absence of TN disease were independent prognostic factor for OS. NP was the cause of death in 69.2% of HER2 positive patients and 17.3% had SP. Of the TN patients, 29.8% had NP and 54.4% SP (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A consistent OS advantage is noted for HER2 positive BM cases and inclusion of BC subtype in the breast GPA score should improve the prognostic factors' sensitivity. The unique presentations, response to treatment and causes of death for HER2 positive patients means more aggressive focal therapy should be considered and studied in the context of clinical trials. For TN BM patients with poor performance status, best supportive care may be appropriate.