Multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers.

The established standard to ensure state-of-the-art cancer treatment is through multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs), although resource- and time-intensive. In this validation study, the multiple myeloma (MM)-TB was reexamined, aiming to validate our previous (2012-2014) results, now using the TB data from March 2020 to February 2021. We assessed MM-TB protocols, physicians' documentation, patient, disease, remission status, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) as left-truncated survival times. Moreover, TB-adherence, level of evidence according to grade criteria, time requirements, study inclusion rates, and referral satisfaction were determined. Within a 1-year period, 312 discussed patients were documented in 439 TB protocols. Patient and disease characteristics were typical for comprehensive cancer centers. The percentages of patients discussed at initial diagnosis (ID), with disease recurrence or in need of interdisciplinary advice, were 39%, 28%, and 33%, respectively. Reasons for the MM-TB presentation were therapeutic challenges in 80% or staging/ID-defining questions in 20%. The numbers of presentations were mostly one in 73%, two in 20%, and three or more in 7%. The TB adherence rate was 93%. Reasons for non-adherence were related to patients' decisions or challenging inclusion criteria for clinical trials. Additionally, we demonstrate that with the initiation of TBs, that the number of interdisciplinarily discussed patients increased, that TB-questions involve advice on the best treatment, and that levels of compliance and evidence can be as high as ≥ 90%. Advantages of TBs are that they may also improve patients', referrers', and physicians' satisfaction, inclusion into clinical trials, and advance interdisciplinary projects, thereby encouraging cancer specialists to engage in them.

Multidisciplinary tumor boards and their analyses: the yin and yang of outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: The standard to ensure utmost cancer treatment is a prerequisite in national cancer plans for comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) and ensured through multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs). Despite these being compulsory for CCCs, various analyses on MTBs have been performed, since MTBs are resource-intensive. Outcome measures in these prior analyses had been survival (OS), MTB-adherence and -satisfaction, inclusion of patients into clinical trials and better cancer care. MAIN BODY: A publication from Freytag et al. performed an analysis in multiple tumor entities and assessed the effect of number of MTBs. By matched-pair analysis, they compared response and OS of patients, whose cases were discussed in MTBs vs. those that were not. The analysis included 454 patients and 66 different tumor types. Only patients with > 3 MTBs showed a significantly better OS than patients with no MTB meeting. Response to treatment, relapse free survival and time to progression were not found to be better, nor was there any difference for a specific tumor entity with vs. without MTB discussions. An in-depth discussion of these results, with respect to the literature (PubMed search: "MTBs AND cancer") and within the author group, including statisticians specialized in data analysis of cancer patients and questions addressed in MTBs, was performed to interpret these findings. We conclude that the results by Freytag et al. are deceiving due to an "immortal time bias" that requires more careful data interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: The result of Freytag et al. of a seemingly positive impact of higher number of MTBs needs to be interpreted cautiously: their presumed better OS in patients with > 3 MTB discussions is misleading, due to an immortal time bias. Here patients need to survive long enough to be discussed more often. Therefore, these results should not lead to the conclusion that more MTBs will "automatically" increase cancer patients' OS, rather than that the insightful discussion, at best in MTBs and with statisticians, will generate meaningful advice, that is important for cancer patients.

Reduction of epileptiform activity through local valproate-implants in a rat neocortical epilepsy model.

PURPOSE: Pharmacotherapy of epilepsies is limited due to low concentrations at epileptogenic foci, side effects of high systemic doses and that some potentially efficient substances do not pass the blood-brain barrier. To overcome these limitations, we tested the efficacy of local valproate (VPA)-containing polymer implants in a model of necocortical injected tetanus toxin (TeT) in the rat. METHODS: Tetanus toxin was injected intracortically and cobalt (II) chloride (CoCl2) was applied on the cortical surface. Video-electrocorticography recordings with intracortical electrodes were performed. VPA-containing polymers were implanted above the cortical focus. Antiepileptic effects were evaluated as reductions of epileptiform potentials (EPs) per hour in comparison to saline (NaCl)-containing polymer implants. RESULTS: Triple 50ng TeT injections plus CoCl2 application (20/10mg) showed consistent EPs. NaCl-implanted animals (n=6) showed a mean of 10.5EPs/h after the first week, the EP frequency increased to 53.5EPs/h after the second week. VPA-implant animals (n=5) showed a reduction in EP frequency from 71.6 to 4.8EPs/h after the second week. The EP frequency after the second week was higher in the NaCl-implanted animals than in the VPA-implanted (p=0.0303). The mean EPs/h increase in NaCl-implanted rats (+42.9EPs/h) was different (p=0.0087) from the mean EPs/h decrease in VPA-implanted rats (-66.8EPs/h). CONCLUSION: Despite former publications no clear seizures could be reproduced but it was possible to establish focal EPs, which proved to be a reliable marker for epileptic activity. Local antiepileptic therapy with VPA has shown efficacy in decreasing EP frequency.