Clinical management of oligometastatic cancer: Applying multidisciplinary tumor board recommendations in practice.

Aims: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs) are an integral part of ensuring high-quality, evidence-based and personalized cancer care. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the adherence to and implementation of MDT recommendations in patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD). Methods: We screened all oncologic positron emission tomography (PET) scans conducted at a single comprehensive cancer center in 2020. Patients were included if they had evidence of imaging-based OMD from a solid organ malignancy on the index scans, had their OMD case discussed at an MDT, and were treated and followed up at the same center. A switch away from the MDT-recommended treatment modalities was classified as a major deviation; non-MDT-mandated adjustments to a recommended treatment modality were coded as minor deviation. Clinical data was obtained via chart review; statistical calculations were computed using the R software. Results: After review of PET and/or concurrent brain scans, 787 cases of OMD were identified. Thereof, 347 (44.1 %) cases were discussed at MDT, of which 331 (42.1 %) were therapeutically managed and subsequently followed. The three most commonly recommended therapies were systemic therapy (35.6 %), multimodality treatment including definitive local therapy (17.8 %), and radiotherapy (13.9 %). A major deviation was recorded in 16.3 % of cases (most commonly: none of the MDT-recommended treatment modalities were performed: 19 (35.2 %); not all MDT-planned treatment modalities were performed: 12 (22.2 %); and additional treatment modality was performed: 11 (20.3 %). A minor deviation was found in 1.5 % of cases. On multivariable regression, number of distant metastases (n > 1) was associated with a major deviation (OR: 1.85; 95 % CI, 1.0-3.52). Major deviations were associated with a significantly worse OS (p = 0.0034). Conclusions: Adherence to and implementation of MDT recommendations in OMD patients was generally high (83.7%). Major deviations might be further reduced by more careful and elaborate discussions of OMD patient characteristics s and patient preferences.

Current aspects of the quality of head and neck cancer care - survey of the Scandinavian Society for Head and Neck Oncology.

BACKGROUND: All Nordic countries have national cancer registries collecting data on head and neck cancer (HNC) incidence and survival. However, there is a lack of consensus on how other quality aspects should be monitored. AIMS: We conducted a web-based survey to find opportunities for quality control and improvement. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to one otorhinolaryngology - head and neck (ORL-HN) surgeon, and one oncologist at each Nordic university hospital treating HNC. In total, 42 responses from all 21 university hospitals were included. RESULTS: In over half of the university hospitals, an oncologist, an ORL-HN surgeon, a pathologist, a radiologist, and a specialized nurse was always present at the multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) meeting. Of 42 respondents 35 (83%) agreed that treatment delays were systematically recorded for each patient. Eleven of 21 (52%) oncologists agreed that side-effects of (chemo)radiotherapy were systematically recorded. Less than half of the respondents agreed that complications of surgery, and post-treatment quality of life (QOL) were systematically recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In the Nordic countries, the importance of HNC treatment timelines is well acknowledged. There is a lack of consensus on the composition of MTB meeting, and how treatment-related morbidity should be monitored outside clinical trials.

A Rare Case of Metastatic Adrenal Melanoma.

Metastatic melanoma presents a significant clinical challenge, characterized by its aggressive nature and propensity to spread to multiple organ systems. Despite advances in detection and treatment, managing metastatic disease remains complex. Here, we present the case of a 43-year-old male with metastatic melanoma displaying an unusual pattern of involvement, affecting the adrenal gland, liver, spleen, and bones. The diagnostic process was intricate, involving atypical hormonal profiles and a negative BRAF status, necessitating a comprehensive approach for accurate characterization and treatment selection. Immunotherapy demonstrated efficacy but also highlighted the emergence of immune-related adverse events, notably hyperglycemia. This case discusses the heterogeneous nature of metastatic melanoma and underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach, close monitoring, and consideration of evolving treatment strategies in its management.

Assessing the role of advanced artificial intelligence as a tool in multidisciplinary tumor board decision-making for primary head and neck cancer cases.

Background: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is a complex malignancy that requires a multidisciplinary approach in clinical practice, especially in tumor board discussions. In recent years, artificial intelligence has emerged as a tool to assist healthcare professionals in making informed decisions. This study investigates the application of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0, natural language processing models, in tumor board decision-making. Methods: We conducted a pilot study in October 2023 on 20 consecutive head and neck cancer patients discussed in our multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT). Patients with a primary diagnosis of head and neck cancer were included. The MDT and ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 recommendations for each patient were compared by two independent reviewers and the number of therapy options, the clinical recommendation, the explanation and the summarization were graded. Results: In this study, ChatGPT 3.5 provided mostly general answers for surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. For clinical recommendation, explanation and summarization ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 scored well, but demonstrated to be mostly an assisting tool, suggesting significantly more therapy options than our MDT, while some of the recommended treatment modalities like primary immunotherapy are not part of the current treatment guidelines. Conclusions: This research demonstrates that advanced AI models at the moment can merely assist in the MDT setting, since the current versions list common therapy options, but sometimes recommend incorrect treatment options and in the case of ChatGPT 3.5 lack information on the source material.

Improved Metastatic-Free Survival after Systematic Re-Excision Following Complete Macroscopic Unplanned Excision of Limb or Trunk Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether re-excision (RE) of a soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of limb or trunk should be systematized as adjuvant care and if it would improve metastatic free survival (MFS) are still debated. The impact of resection margins after unplanned macroscopically complete excision (UE) performed out of a NETSARC reference center or after second resection was further investigated. METHODS: This large nationwide series used data from patients having experienced UE outside of a reference center from 2010 to 2019, collected in a French nationwide exhaustive prospective cohort NETSARC. Patient characteristics and survival distributions in patients reexcised (RE) or not (No-RE) are reported. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was conducted to adjust for classical prognosis factors. Subgroup analysis were performed to identify which patients may benefit from RE. RESULTS: Out of 2371 patients with UE for STS performed outside NETSARC reference centers, 1692 patients were not reviewed by multidisciplinary board before treatment decision and had a second operation documented. Among them, 913 patients experienced re-excision, and 779 were not re-excised. Characteristics were significantly different regarding patient age, tumor site, size, depth, grade and histotype in patients re-excised (RE) or not (No-RE). In univariate analysis, final R0 margins are associated with a better MFS, patients with R1 margins documented at first surgery had a better MFS as compared to patients with first R0 resection. The study identified RE as an independent favorable factor for MFS (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.53-0.93; p = 0.013). All subgroups except older patients (>70 years) and patients with large tumors (>10 cm) had superior MFS with RE. CONCLUSIONS: RE might be considered in patients with STS of limb or trunk, with UE with macroscopic complete resection performed out of a reference center, and also in originally defined R0 margin resections, to improve LRFS and MFS. Systematic RE should not be advocated for patients older than 70 years, or with tumors greater than 10 cm.

Digital decision support for structural improvement of melanoma tumor boards: using standard cases to optimize workflow.

PURPOSE: Choosing optimal cancer treatment is challenging, and certified cancer centers must present all patients in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT). Our aim was to develop a decision support system (DSS) to provide treatment recommendations for apparently simple cases already at conference registration and to classify these as "standard cases". According to certification requirements, discussion of standard cases is optional and would thus allow more time for complex cases. METHODS: We created a smartphone query that simulated a tumor conference registration and requested all information needed to provide a recommendation. In total, 111 out of 705 malignant melanoma cases discussed at a skin cancer center from 2017 to 2020 were identified as potential standard cases, for which a digital twin recommendation was then generated by DSS. RESULTS: The system provided reliable advice in all 111 cases and showed 97% concordance of MDT and DSS for therapeutic recommendations, regardless of tumor stage. Discrepancies included two cases (2%) where DSS advised discussions at MDT and one case (1%) with deviating recommendation due to advanced patient age. CONCLUSIONS: Our work aimed not to replace clinical expertise but to alleviate MDT workload and enhance focus on complex cases. Overall, our DSS proved to be a suitable tool for identifying standard cases as such, providing correct treatment recommendations, and thus reducing the time burden of tumor conferences in favor for the comprehensive discussion of complex cases. The aim is to implement the DSS in routine tumor board software for further qualitative assessment of its impact on oncological care.

The Impact of a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB) on Treatment Decision Making for Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC): 5-Year Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients in a locoregional renal cancer network by evaluating shared decision making (SDM) and adherence to MTB recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective cohort study included all cases from a Dutch renal cancer network with suspicion of or histologically confirmed RCC discussed in MTBs between 2017-2022. Main endpoints were distribution of cases presented, proportion of recommendations with multiple treatment options enabling shared decision making (SDM), definite treatment after SDM and adherence to MTB recommendations. Further endpoints were definite treatment per tumor stage stratified by age and inclusion in clinical trials. Outcomes were displayed as means and proportions (%). Pearson's Chi-Squared test was used to analyze the effect of age on definite treatment advice. RESULTS: Overall, 2651 cases were discussed, of which 1900 (72%) were new referrals and 751 (28%) rediscussions. Majority of cases were cT1a-b tumors (46%) and 22% were local recurrences or metachronous metastatic. Adherence to MTB recommendation was 96% and in 30% multiple treatment options were recommended, allowing for SDM. In 45% of cases with cT1a tumors multiple treatment options were recommended by the MTB, resulting in (cryo)ablation (32%) and AS (30%) as most frequent definite treatments after SDM. Among patients with cT3-4 tumors the inclusion rate in clinical trials was 47%. CONCLUSIONS: A network MTB creates opportunity to discuss multiple treatment options and clinical trials in SDM with patients at a high rate of adherence to MTB recommendation.

Improved nationwide survival of sarcoma patients with a network of reference centers.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of the implementation of a network of reference centers for sarcomas (NETSARC) on the care and survival of sarcoma patients in France since 2010. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 reference sarcoma centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs), funded by the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) since 2010. Its aims are to improve the quality of diagnosis and care of sarcoma patients. Patients' characteristics, treatments, and outcomes are collected in a nationwide database. The objective of this analysis was to compare the survival of patients in three periods: 2010-2012 (non-exhaustive), 2013-2015, and 2016-2020. RESULTS: A total of 43 975 patients with sarcomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), or connective tissue tumors of intermediate malignancy were included in the NETSARC+ database since 2010 (n = 9266 before 2013, n = 12 274 between 2013 and 2015, n = 22 435 in 2016-2020). Median age was 56 years, 50.5% were women, and 13.2% had metastasis at diagnosis. Overall survival was significantly superior in the period 2016-2020 versus 2013-2015 versus 2010-2012 for the entire population, for patients >18 years of age, and for both metastatic and non-metastatic patients in univariate and multivariate analyses (P < 0.0001). Over the three periods, we observed a significantly improved compliance to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) nationwide: the proportion of patients biopsied before surgery increased from 62.9% to 72.6%; the percentage of patients presented to NETSARC MDTBs before first surgery increased from 31.7% to 44.4% (P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients with R0 resection on first surgery increased (from 36.1% to 46.6%), while R2 resection rate decreased (from 10.9% to 7.9%), with a better compliance and improvement in NETSARC centers. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the national reference network for sarcoma was associated with an improvement of overall survival and compliance to guidelines nationwide in sarcoma patients. Referral to expert networks for sarcoma patients should be encouraged, though a better compliance to CPGs can still be achieved.

Impact of a Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Tumor Board on Treatment and Survival in Laryngeal Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pretherapeutic discussion in the head and neck tumor board (HNT) has been mandatory at the University Medical Center Freiburg since 01/2015, and it is intended to contribute to a survival benefit through interdisciplinary decision making. Prior to 2015, an optional HNT existed in which mainly advanced tumor stages were discussed. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of a pretherapeutic HNT on treatment and survival in laryngeal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective data analysis of 412 laryngeal carcinoma patients treated at the Head and Neck Cancer Center of the University Medical Center Freiburg between 01/2010 and 12/2020 was conducted. Differences regarding TNM status, UICC classification, tumor localization, gender and age at initial diagnosis, recurrence, secondary tumors, therapy, 5-year survival, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (5YSR/5Y-RFS) were assessed for therapy initiation with or without a pretherapeutic HNT. RESULTS: In total, 314 patients underwent a pretherapeutic HNT, and 98 received therapy initiation without an HNT. The HNT group showed significantly more advanced T stages and UICC classifications (p < 0.001; p = 0.003) and more frequent primary chemo/radiotherapy (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference regarding 5YSR (43 vs. 47 months, p = 0.96) or 5Y-RFS (48 vs. 52 months, p = 0.16). The time between initial diagnosis and therapy initiation was significantly longer when an HNT was performed (38 vs. 20 days, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The HNT group showed significantly more advanced tumor stages, suggesting that even before it became mandatory, it was frequently used for interdisciplinary case discussion in more complex cases. Due to the small number of T3/4 patients in the non-HNT group, a survival advantage of an HNT cannot be validly demonstrated in our study. However, the HNT led to broader patient counselling regarding their therapy options. At the same time, a significant delay in therapy initiation could be seen, suggesting that workflows between diagnosis, HNT presentation, and therapy initiation should be optimized.

Multidisciplinary tumor board for head and neck cancer from the perspective of medical oncologists-optimizing its effectiveness.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary, and patient characteristics vary. Therefore, a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) is essential in clinical practice. This review provides insights into the benefits and tips for improving head and neck MTB from the perspective of medical oncologists. The MTB is a platform to discuss the optimal application of the standard of care to each case, reach a consensus, and establish a recommendation to support patients' decision-making. A productive and educational MTB also provides an opportunity to share information on ongoing clinical trials with physicians. Case presentations should be systematic to discuss all new and challenging cases before, during, and after the treatment. Human resource development, particularly of head and neck medical oncologists, is crucial. The type of multidisciplinary network between medical staff and the extent of patient intervention differs among MTB teams. Subsequently, a virtual MTB can establish a medical network between institutions that will contribute to the equalization and centralization of head and neck oncologic care.

Guideline adherence of tumor board recommendations in lung cancer and transfer into clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Evaluating patients and treatment decisions in a multidisciplinary tumor board has led to better quality of care and longer survival in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate tumor board recommendations for thoracic oncology patients regarding guideline adherence and transferal of recommendations into clinical practice. METHODS: We evaluated tumor board recommendations of the thoracic oncology tumor board at Ludwig-Maximilians University (LMU) Hospital Munich between 2014 and 2016. We compared patient characteristics between guideline-adherent and non-guideline-adherent recommendations, as well as between transferred and non-transferred recommendations. We used multivariate logistic regression models to evaluate factors associated with guideline adherence. RESULTS: Over 90% of recommendations by the tumor board were either adherent to the guidelines (75.5%) or over fulfilling guidelines (15.6%). Almost 90% of recommendations were transferred to clinical practice. If a recommendation was not according to the guidelines, the reason was mostly associated with the general condition (age, Charlson comorbidity index, ECOG) of the patient or due to the patients' request. Surprisingly, sex also had a significant influence on the guideline adherence of recommendations, with females being more likely to get recommendations not according to the guidelines. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the results of this study are promising, as the guideline adherence of recommendations as well as the transferal of recommendations into clinical practice were high. In the future, a special focus should be put on fragile patients as well as female patients.

Evaluating ChatGPT as an adjunct for the multidisciplinary tumor board decision-making in primary breast cancer cases.

BACKGROUND: As the available information about breast cancer is growing every day, the decision-making process for the therapy is getting more complex. ChatGPT as a transformer-based language model possesses the ability to write scientific articles and pass medical exams. But is it able to support the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) in the planning of the therapy of patients with breast cancer? MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a pilot study on 10 consecutive cases of breast cancer patients discussed in MDT at our department in January 2023. Included were patients with a primary diagnosis of early breast cancer. The recommendation of MDT was compared with the recommendation of the ChatGPT for particular patients and the clinical score of the agreement was calculated. RESULTS: Results showed that ChatGPT provided mostly general answers regarding chemotherapy, breast surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and antibody therapy. It was able to identify risk factors for hereditary breast cancer and point out the elderly patient indicated for chemotherapy to evaluate the cost/benefit effect. ChatGPT wrongly identified the patient with Her2 1 + and 2 + (FISH negative) as in need of therapy with an antibody and called endocrine therapy "hormonal treatment". CONCLUSIONS: Support of artificial intelligence by finding individualized and personalized therapy for our patients in the time of rapidly expanding amount of information is looking for the ways in the clinical routine. ChatGPT has the potential to find its spot in clinical medicine, but the current version is not able to provide specific recommendations for the therapy of patients with primary breast cancer.

Teaching Potential of Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Meetings for Orthopedic Residents: Insights From a French Sarcoma Reference Center.

Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings (MTBMs) have been established in oncology to improve patient care. While their benefits for patients have been well-documented, there are no previous studies on the teaching opportunities they provide for residents and medical students. This study aimed to examine the teaching provided to residents during MTBM and identify areas for improvement. The study hypothesized that although the primary objective of MTBM is not teaching, they could still contribute to residents' learning. The study focused on the tumors board meeting for bone metastasis and musculoskeletal tumors/sarcoma in a French reference center for musculoskeletal oncology. The composition of the MTBM included specialists from various disciplines, and it convened on a weekly basis to discuss cases. The orthopedic oncology residents (OORs) actively participated in the MTBM as part of their training. A questionnaire was distributed to OORs who had served between 2014 and 2021, and their responses were analyzed. The results showed that the OOR perceived MTBM as interesting, beneficial for their training, and challenging. While opinions were divided on whether MTBM was a suitable place for education, the majority believed it improved their knowledge of different specialties and provided valuable elements applicable to daily practice. They also felt it facilitated future access to MTBs if needed. OORs recommended the rotation as an orthopedic oncology resident to younger residents. Recommendations for improvement included incorporating more dedicated teaching time, active involvement of residents in the learning process, availability of learning materials, and post-MTBM debriefing sessions. The study highlighted the importance of case presentations, public speaking skills, interdisciplinary collaboration, and clinical reasoning observed during MTBM. In conclusion, while not primarily designed for teaching, MTBM offers valuable learning opportunities for residents. Enhancing the teaching experience through dedicated debriefing sessions, resident involvement, and improved support can further optimize their educational impact. Future evaluations are needed to assess the effectiveness of these improvements. This study provides insights into the teaching potential within MTBM and can guide educational initiatives in the field of oncology.

Impact of 2 years of COVID-19 pandemic on ovarian cancer treatment in IRCCS-AUSL of Reggio Emilia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess compliance with the 2019 regional recommendation to centralize epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients and to assess whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the quality of care for EOC patients. METHODS: We compared data from EOC patients treated before the introduction of the 2019 regional recommendation (2018-2019) with data obtained from EOC patients treated after the regional recommendation was adopted during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). Data were retrieved from the Optimal Ovarian Cancer Pathway records. R software version 4.1.2 (the R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: 251 EOC patients were centralized. The number of EOC patients centralized increased from 2% to 49% despite the COVID-19 pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery. There was an improvement in the percentage of Stage III patients without gross residual disease following both primary and interval debulking surgery. The percentage of EOC cases discussed by the multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) increased from 66% to 89% of cases. CONCLUSION: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, centralization has increased and the quality of care has been preserved thanks to the MTB.

The Midwest Sarcoma Trials Partnership: Bridging Academic and Community Networks in a Collaborative Approach to Sarcoma.

The treatment of sarcoma necessitates a collaborative approach, given its rarity and complex management. At a single institution, multidisciplinary teams of specialists determine and execute treatment plans involving surgical, radiation, and medical management. Treatment guidelines for systemic therapies in advanced or nonresectable soft tissue sarcoma have advanced in recent years as new immunotherapies and targeted therapies become available. Collaboration between institutions is necessary to facilitate accrual to clinical trials. Here, we describe the success of the Midwest Sarcoma Trials Partnership (MWSTP) in creating a network encompassing large academic centers and local community sites. We propose a new model utilizing online platforms to expand the reach of clinical expertise for the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

Management of Patients with Spine Tumors Strengthened by a Dedicated Multidisciplinary Spine Tumor Board: A 15-Year Single-Institutional Experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients with spine tumors frequently require timely, multistep, and multidisciplinary care. A Spine Tumor Board (STB) provides a consistent forum wherein diverse specialists can interact, facilitating complex coordinated care for these patients. This study aims to present a single, large academic center's STB experience specifically reviewing case diversity, recommendations, and quantifying growth over time. METHODS: All patient cases discussed at STB from May 2006 (STB inception) to May 2021 were evaluated. Collected data submitted by presenting physicians and formal documentation completed during the STB are summarized. RESULTS: A total of 4549 cases were reviewed by STB over the study period, representing 2618 unique patients. Over the course of the study, a 266% increase in number of cases presented per week was observed (4.1 to 15.0). Cases were presented by surgeons (74%), radiation oncologists (18%), neurologists (2%), and other specialists (6%). The most common pathologic diagnoses discussed were spinal metastases (n = 1832; 40%), intradural extramedullary tumors (n = 798; 18%), and primary glial tumors (n = 567; 12%). Treatment recommendations included surgery, radiation therapy, or systemic therapy for 1743 cases (38%), continued routine follow-up/expectant management for 1592 cases (35%), supplementary imaging to better clarify the diagnosis for 549 cases (12%), and variable tailored recommendations for the remainder of cases (18%). CONCLUSIONS: Care of patients with spine tumors is complex. We believe that the formation of a stand-alone STB is instrumental to accessing multidisciplinary input, enhancing confidence in management decisions for both patients and providers, assisting with care orchestration, and improving quality of care for patients with spine tumors.

Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on neuro-oncology multidisciplinary tumor board in the pre-vaccine era: the Normandy experience.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID19 pandemic had a strong impact on the healthcare system, particularly in oncology. Brain tumor are usually revealed by acute and life threatening symptoms. We wanted to evaluate the possible consequences of the COVID19 pandemic in 2020 on the activity of neuro-oncology multidisciplinary tumor board in a Normandy region (France). METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective, multicenter study was conducted in the four referent centers (two universitary hospitals and two cancer centers). The main objective was to compare the average number of neuro-oncology patients presented per multidisciplinary tumor board per week between a pre-COVID19 reference period (period 1 from December 2018 to December 2019) and the pre-vaccination period (period 2 from December 2019 to November 2020). RESULTS: Across Normandy, 1540 cases were presented in neuro-oncology multidisciplinary tumor board in 2019 and 2020. No difference was observed between period 1 and 2: respectively 9.8 per week versus 10.7, P=0.36. The number of cases per week also did not significantly differ during the lockdown periods: 9.1/week versus 10.4 during the non-lockdown periods, P=0.26. The only difference observed was a higher proportion of tumor resection during the lockdown periods: 81.4% (n=79/174) versus 64.5% (n=408/1366), P=0.001. CONCLUSION: The pre-vaccination era of the COVID19 pandemic did not impact the activity of neuro-oncology multidisciplinary tumor board in the Normandy region. The possible consequences in terms of public health (excess mortality) due to this tumor location should now be investigated.

Regionalization of Head and Neck Oncology Tumor Boards: Perspectives of Collaborating Physicians.

Objectives: To survey academic and community physician preferences regarding the virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) for further improvement and expansion. Study Design: This anonymous 14-question survey was sent to individuals that participated in the head and neck virtual MTBs. The survey was sent via email beginning August 3, 2021, through October 5, 2021. Setting: The University of Maryland Medical Center and regional practices in the state of Maryland. Methods: Survey responses were recorded and presented as percentages. Subset analysis was performed to obtain frequency distributions by facility and provider type. Results: There were 50 survey responses obtained with a response rate of 56%. Survey participants included 11 surgeons (22%), 19 radiation oncologists (38%), and 8 medical oncologists (16%), amongst others. More than 96% of participants found the virtual MTB to be useful when discussing complex cases and impactful to future patient care. A majority of respondents perceived a reduction in time to adjuvant care (64%). Community and academic physician responses strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improved communication (82% vs 73%), provided patient-specific information for cancer care (82% vs 73%), and improved access to other specialties (66% vs 64%). Academic physicians, more so than community physicians, strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improves access to clinical trial enrollment (64% vs 29%) and can be useful in obtaining CME (64% vs 55%). Conclusion: Academic and community physicians view the virtual MTB favorably. This platform can be adapted regionally and further expanded to improve communication between physicians and improve multidisciplinary care for patients.

The Emerging Boon of Information and Communication Technology in Multidisciplinary Cancer Care: A Force Multiplier With a Human Touch.

Cancer care (CC) is incredibly complex and requires the coordination of multiple disciplines for optimal outcomes. Historically, this has been accomplished with multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs), but the benefits, while perhaps intuitive, have not always been demonstrated with sufficient research robustness and validity. We hypothesize that this difficulty in demonstrating the benefit of MDTBs may be related to a delay in decision-making and operationalizing those decisions. The history and value of MDTBs are presented as well as their weaknesses and limited demonstration of improved outcomes. A major weakness highlighted by the challenges of MDTBs is the concept of total package time (TPT) (rather, the inability to keep it as short as possible); any significant delays in CC for any discipline may have a deleterious impact on any given patient's care outcome. Drawing on our own experience with utilizing information and communication technology (ICT) during an effort to apply accountability theory to improve specifically radiation therapy package time (RTPT), we argue that similar principles will be applicable in the improvement of not only the TPT which relies on multiple disciplines, but other factors of CC as well, such as coordination. Experience with improvement in RTPT is discussed and the underlying theory is demonstrated as a sound methodology to apply beyond RTPT to TPT involving coordination of multiple disciplines and stands to lead to the full realization of the benefits of the multidisciplinary approach. The complexity of cancer means that real solutions to optimal outcomes are also, by nature, complex, but here simple accountability theory is demonstrated that may unlock the next phase of multidisciplinary coordination. In this work, we argue that the benefits of the MDTB format can be fully realized with the addition of ICT, a technological breakthrough in the past two decades, while not forgetting about continued human factors.

Management and outcomes of adolescent and young adult sarcoma patients: results from the French nationwide database NETSARC.

BACKGROUND: The initial management of patients with sarcoma is a critical issue. We used the nationwide French National Cancer Institute-funded prospective sarcoma database NETSARC to report the management and oncologic outcomes in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) patients with sarcoma at the national level. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NETSARC database gathers regularly monitored and updated data from patients with sarcoma. NETSARC was queried for patients (15-30 years) with sarcoma diagnosed from 2010 to 2017 for whom tumor resection had been performed. We reported management, locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in AYA treated in French reference sarcoma centers (RSC) and outside RSC (non-RSC) and conducted multivariable survival analyses adjusted for classical prognostic factors. RESULTS: Among 3,227 patients aged 15-30 years with sarcoma diagnosed between 2010 and 2017, the study included 2,227 patients with surgery data available, among whom 1,290 AYAs had been operated in RSC, and 937 AYAs in non-RSC. Significant differences in compliance to guidelines were observed including pre-treatment biopsy (RSC: 85.9%; non-RSC 48.1%), pre-treatment imaging (RSC: 86.8%; non-RSC: 56.5%) and R0 margins (RSC 57.6%; non-RSC: 20.2%) (p < 0.001). 3y-OS rates were 81.1% (95%CI 78.3-83.6) in AYA in RSC and 82.7% (95%CI 79.4-85.5) in AYA in non-RSC, respectively. Whereas no significant differences in OS was observed in AYAs treated in RSC and in non-RSC, LRFS and PFS were improved in AYAs treated in RSC compared to AYAs treated in non-RSC (Hazard Ratios (HR): 0.58 and 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance for AYA patients with sarcoma to be managed in national sarcoma reference centers involving multidisciplinary medical teams with paediatric and adult oncologists.