Virtual multi-institutional tumor board: a strategy for personalized diagnoses and management of rare CNS tumors.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) integrate clinical, molecular, and radiological information and facilitate coordination of neuro-oncology care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, our MTB transitioned to a virtual and multi-institutional format. We hypothesized that this expansion would allow expert review of challenging neuro-oncology cases and contribute to the care of patients with limited access to specialized centers. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records from virtual MTBs held between 04/2020-03/2021. Data collected included measures of potential clinical impact, including referrals to observational or therapeutic studies, referrals for specialized neuropathology analysis, and whether molecular findings led to a change in diagnosis and/or guided management suggestions. RESULTS: During 25 meetings, 32 presenters discussed 44 cases. Approximately half (n = 20; 48%) involved a rare central nervous system (CNS) tumor. In 21% (n = 9) the diagnosis was changed or refined based on molecular profiling obtained at the NIH and in 36% (n = 15) molecular findings guided management. Clinical trial suggestions were offered to 31% (n = 13), enrollment in the observational NCI Natural History Study to 21% (n = 9), neuropathology review and molecular testing at the NIH to 17% (n = 7), and all received management suggestions. CONCLUSION: Virtual multi-institutional MTBs enable remote expert review of CNS tumors. We propose them as a strategy to facilitate expert opinions from specialized centers, especially for rare CNS tumors, helping mitigate geographic barriers to patient care and serving as a pre-screening tool for studies. Advanced molecular testing is key to obtaining a precise diagnosis, discovering potentially actionable targets, and guiding management.

Capacity building for pediatric neuro-oncology in Pakistan- a project by my child matters program of Foundation S.

Introduction: Initiated in June 2019, this collaborative effort involved 15 public and private sector hospitals in Pakistan. The primary objective was to enhance the capacity for pediatric neuro-oncology (PNO) care, supported by a My Child Matters/Foundation S grant. Methods: We aimed to establish and operate Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MTBs) on a national scale, covering 76% of the population (185.7 million people). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, MTBs transitioned to videoconferencing. Fifteen hospitals with essential infrastructure participated, holding monthly sessions addressing diagnostic and treatment challenges. Patient cases were anonymized for confidentiality. Educational initiatives, originally planned as in-person events, shifted to a virtual format, enabling continued implementation and collaboration despite pandemic constraints. Results: A total of 124 meetings were conducted, addressing 545 cases. To augment knowledge, awareness, and expertise, over 40 longitudinal lectures were organized for healthcare professionals engaged in PNO care. Additionally, two symposia with international collaborators and keynote speakers were also held to raise national awareness. The project achieved significant milestones, including the development of standardized national treatment protocols for low-grade glioma, medulloblastoma, and high-grade glioma. Further protocols are currently under development. Notably, Pakistan's first pediatric neuro-oncology fellowship program was launched, producing two graduates and increasing the number of trained pediatric neuro-oncologists in the country to three. Discussion: The initiative exemplifies the potential for capacity building in PNO within low-middle income countries. Success is attributed to intra-national twinning programs, emphasizing collaborative efforts. Efforts are underway to establish a national case registry for PNO, ensuring a comprehensive and organized approach to monitoring and managing cases. This collaborative initiative, supported by the My Child Matters/Foundation S grant, showcases the success of capacity building in pediatric neuro-oncology in low-middle income countries. The establishment of treatment protocols, fellowship programs, and regional tumor boards highlights the potential for sustainable improvements in PNO care.

Cancer Care by Committee to be Superseded by Personal Physician-Patient Partnership Informed by Artificial Intelligence.

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) have become the reference standard of cancer management, founded upon randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence-based guidelines. The inordinate delays inherent in awaiting formal regulatory agency approvals of novel therapeutic agents, and the rigidities and nongeneralizability of this regimented approach, often deny cancer patients timely access to effective innovative treatment. Reluctance of MTBs to accept theranostic care of patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer resulted in decades of delay in the incorporation of 177Lu-octreotate and 177Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) into routine clinical oncology practice. Recent developments in immunotherapy and molecular targeted precision therapy, based on N-of-One individual multifactorial genome analyses, have greatly increased the complexity of decision-making. Burgeoning specialist workload and tight time frames now threaten to overwhelm the logistically, and emotionally, demanding MTB system. It is hypothesized that the advent of advanced artificial intelligence technology and Chatbot natural language algorithms will shift the cancer care paradigm from a MTB management model toward a personal physician-patient shared-care partnership for real-world practice of precision individualized holistic oncology.

Physician compliance with multidisciplinary tumor board recommendations for managing gynecological cancers.

Aims: Evaluation of compliance with gynecological multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) recommendations and its impact. Patients & methods: All patient records discussed in our MTB from 2018 to 2020 were analyzed. Results: We analyzed 437 MTB recommendations concerning 166 patients. Each patient was discussed an average of 2.6 (1.0-4.2) times. Of the 789 decisions, the decision was not followed 102 times (12.9%), corresponding to 85 MTB meetings (19.5%). Of these, 72 recommendations concerned therapeutic changes (70.5%), and 30 concerned non-therapeutic changes (29.5%). Of these 85 MTB decisions, 60 (71%) led to a new MTB submission. Noncompliance with MTB decisions decreased the overall survival (46 vs 138 months; p = 0.003). Conclusion: Improving compliance with MTB decisions is crucial to enhance patient outcomes.

In multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) meetings, a team of experts discuss the diagnosis and management of cancer patients. While MTB treatment decisions and the reasoning behind them are well documented, the application of these decisions in practice and the associated impact on survival are unknown. This study evaluated compliance with recommendations made during gynecological weekly MTB meetings and the resulting impact on patient management. Between 2018 and 2020, 166 patients were discussed in 437 MTB meetings (each patient was discussed an average of 2.6 times during this period). Noncompliance with the MTB recommendations affected 85/437 MTB meetings (19.5%). Of these, 57 recommendations were therapeutic changes (67.1%) and 28 were non-therapeutic changes (32.9%). In 60 cases (71%), noncompliance with the MTB led to resubmission of the patient data to the MTB. Noncompliance with the board recommendations led to a decrease in patient survival (46 vs 138 months; p = 0.003). This study is expected to raise awareness among practitioners. Considered an essential part of the delivery of high-quality cancer treatment, the implementation of MTB decisions requires further verification.

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.

A Prospective Observational Study on the Structuring Process and Implementation of a Large Regional, Inter-hospital, Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumor Board on Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: At present, multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTB) are considered best practice in oncology. However, web-based virtualization of MDTB may increase participation in meetings, the number of cases discussed, and adherence to guidelines, deliver better treatment, and eventually improve outcomes for patients with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an observational study focused on exploring the structuring process and implementing a multi-institutional virtual MDTB in Sicily, Italy. Other endpoints included the analysis of cooperation between participants, adherence to guidelines, patient outcomes, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall, 126 patients were referred to the virtual MDTB for a total of 302 cases discussed in an 18-month period. Nearly 45% of cases were referred from general hospitals or tertiary centers, 38% from comprehensive cancer centers, and only 17% from academic ones. Most health professional participants (95%) reported eliminating geographical barriers and consequently reducing costs and saving time as key advantages of virtual meetings over face-to-face ones. Using a specifically designed platform for virtual MDTBs was another excellent point, especially to geolocate clinical trials and time-lapse data storage. The majority of referred patients had stage T 3-4 prostate cancer (79%). Overall, 71% of proposals discussed were approved unchanged, while 19% changed after the virtual MDTB discussion. Debated points were mostly radiologic, surgical, medical, or radiation treatment-related issues. In particular, the prescriptive appropriateness of positron emission tomography with 68Ga-prostatic specific membrane antigen, newer drugs, radiation versus surgical approach, stage T3-4 cases, and adjuvant therapy represented the most debated issues. The proposed diagnostic and/or therapeutic options were controlled for adherence to the guidelines and/or updated scientific evidence. Overall, 98% of approved proposals and changes were in line with the guidelines. Overall, most participants felt virtual MDTB was very useful and case discussions led to a major change of strategy in 19% of cases. CONCLUSION: Virtual MDTBs are a very useful way to achieve best management of prostate cancer while saving time and fostering cooperation.

Establishing a Multicenter Network for Patients With Thyroid Nodules and Cancer: Effects on Referral Patterns.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative evaluation of the Thyroid Network, with a quantitative analysis of second opinion referrals for patients in the southwestern part of the Netherlands who have thyroid nodules and cancer. METHODS: This prospective observational study registered all patients with thyroid nodules and cancer who were referred to the academic hospital from 2 years before and 4 years after the foundation of the Thyroid Network. We implemented biweekly regional multidisciplinary tumor boards using video conference and a regional patient care pathway for patients with thyroid nodules and cancer. For qualitative evaluation, interviews were conducted with a broad selection of stakeholders via maximum variation sampling. The primary outcome was the change in second opinions after the foundation of the Thyroid Network. RESULTS: Second opinions from Thyroid Network hospitals to the academic hospital decreased from 10 (30%) to 2 (7%) two years after the start of the Thyroid Network (P = .001), while patient referrals remained stable (n = 108 to 106). Qualitative evaluation indicated that the uniform care pathway and the regional multidisciplinary tumor board were valued high. DISCUSSION: Establishing a regional network, including multidisciplinary tumor boards and a care pathway for patients with thyroid nodules and cancer, resulted in a decrease in second opinions of in-network hospitals and high satisfaction of participating specialists. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The concept of the Thyroid Network could spread to other regions as well as to other specialties in health care. Future steps would be to assess the effect of regional collaboration on quality of care and patient satisfaction.

An IT Platform Supporting Rectal Cancer Tumor Board Activities: Implementation Process and Impact Analysis.

Colorectal cancer (RC) is the third most common cancer, with an increasing incidence in recent years. Digital health solutions supporting multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) could improve positive outcomes for RC patients. This paper describes the implementation process of a digital solution within the RC-MTB and its impact analysis in the context of the Fondazione Policlinico 'A. Gemelli' in Italy. Adopting a two-phase methodological approach, the first phase qualitatively describes each phase of the implementation of the IT platform, while the second phase quantitatively describes the analysis of the impact of the IT platform. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed for all variables, with a p-value < 0.05 being considered statistically significant. The implementation of the platform allowed more healthcare professionals to attend meetings and resulted in a decrease in patients sent to the RC-MTB for re-staging and further diagnostic investigations and an increase in patients sent to the RC-MTB for treatment strategies. The results could be attributed to the facilitated access to the platform remotely for specialists, partly compensating for the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to the integration of the platform into the hospital's IT system. Furthermore, the early involvement of healthcare professionals in the process of customizing the platform to the specific needs of the RC-MTB may have facilitated its use and contributed to the encouraging quantitative results.

Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: A Narrative Review Focused on Lung Cancer.

To date, the virtual multidisciplinary tumor boards (vMTBs) are increasingly used to achieve high-quality treatment recommendations across health-care regions, which expands and develops the local MTB team to a regional or national expert network. This review describes the process of lung cancer-specific MTBs and the transition process from face-to-face tumor boards to virtual ones. The review also focuses on the project organization's description, advantages, and disadvantages. Semi-structured interviews identified five major themes for MTBs: current practice, attitudes, enablers, barriers, and benefits for the MTB. MTB teams exhibited positive responses to modeled data feedback. Virtualization reduces time spent for travel, allowing easier and timely patient discussions. This process requires a secure web platform to assure the respect of patients' privacy and presents the same unanswered problems. The implementation of vMTB also permits the implementation of networks especially in areas with geographical barriers facilitating interaction between large referral cancer centers and tertiary or community hospitals as well as easier access to clinical trial opportunities. Studies aimed to improve preparations, structure, and conduct of MTBs, research methods to monitor their performance, teamwork, and outcomes are also outlined in this article. Analysis of literature shows that MTB participants discuss 5-8 cases per meeting and that the use of a vMTB for lung cancer and in particular stage III NSCLC and complex stage IV cases is widely accepted by most health professionals. Despite still-existing gaps, overall vMTB represents a unique opportunity to optimize patient management in a patient-centered approach.

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.

Clinical questions on rehabilitation in cancer patients with skeletal metastasis: a content analysis of the multidisciplinary tumor board records.

PURPOSE: Cancer rehabilitation addresses the functional needs of patients who have various impairments. Disease control is a critical oncological consideration, while physical intervention increased weights of importance in several situations. To identify the clinical status that necessitates active physical intervention in cancer patients with skeletal metastasis, we performed a content analysis in the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) records. METHODS: From January 2017 to September 2019, the MDTB discussed 168 consecutive patients with skeletal metastasis. We reviewed the MDTB records and asked responsible physicians to frame clinical questions. Based on these data, we identified the predictor valuables with the association to rehabilitation-related clinical questions using univariate and multivariate analyses. Moreover, we investigated a predictor of the change in Barthel index (BI) scores using univariate analyses. RESULTS: Rehabilitation-related questions arose more frequently in older patients (p = 0.011), in patients with slow-growth vs. rapid-growth tumor (p = 0.002), and in patients with skeletal-related events (p = 0.001) at MDTB. The tumor growth speed was associated with the change in BI scores, as slower-growth tumors had the benefit of BI gains (p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding rehabilitation in patients with skeletal metastasis, we should pay attention to three parameters: occurrence of skeletal events, patient age, and growth speed of tumors. Rehabilitation-related questions may reflect patients' functional needs that occur more frequently in patients with pathological fractures or neurological symptoms, older patients, and patients with slow-growth tumors.

Organizing a multidisciplinary clinic.

Multidisciplinary cancer care models have become increasingly more popular in recent years. This comprehensive approach to care delivery has evolved to address numerous medical and social aspects critical to all patients diagnosed with cancer. Because of the sheer number of specialists involved in the care trajectory of patients with cancer, multidisciplinary care models add significant value in facilitating communication between specialists and in coordinating care. Multidisciplinary models also allow for new and innovative therapies to be incorporated more quickly than is seen in single provider care. Two principal modes of multidisciplinary care have been described-the tumor board and the multidisciplinary clinic. While tumor boards are well established in oncology literature and practice, there is growing support favoring the use of multidisciplinary clinics, bringing providers together at the point of care. In this section, we describe recent data demonstrating the value of the multidisciplinary approach, with particular focus on the creation and potential benefits of a formal multidisciplinary clinic.