COVID-19 Outbreak Impact on Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings. A Multicenter French Experience.

Multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) became a standard of care in cancer management. The COVID-19 epidemic induced unprecedented pressure on the health system. The impact of this health crisis on MDTs held within a regional French health structures was analyzed. A decrease in the total number of records discussed in hematological, digestive, thoracic, gynecological and genitourinary MDTs was observed following the 1st wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This decrease was generally maintained during the 2nd and 3rd wave. MDTs activity back in order from the 4th wave. The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged MDTs settings. The implementation of virtual technologies offers an opportunity to improve MDTs organization.

Preoperative multidisciplinary team meeting improves the incidence of positive margins in pathological T2 prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Positive surgical margins (PSM) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer (PCa) can increase the risk of biochemical recurrence and PCa-specific mortality. We aimed to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) on reducing the incidence of PSM following RARP. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing RARP at Hiroshima University between February 2017 and October 2023. The MDTM, comprising a radiologist, uropathologist, and urologist, reviewed the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate biopsy results of each patient before RARP and considered the areas requiring attention during RARP. Surgeons were categorized as experienced or non-experienced based on the number of RARP procedures performed. RESULTS: In the pT2 population, the PSM rate was significantly lower in cases evaluated using the MDTM than in those not (11.1% vs. 24.0%; p = 0.0067). Cox regression analysis identified that a PSA level > 7 ng/mL (hazard ratio 2.2799) and nerve-sparing procedures (hazard ratio 2.2619) were independent predictors of increased PSM risk while conducting an MDTM (hazard ratio 0.4773) was an independent predictor of reduced PSM risk in the pT2 population. In the pathological T3 population, there was no significant difference in PSM rates between cases evaluated and not evaluated at an MDTM. In cases evaluated at an MDTM, similar PSM rates were observed regardless of surgeon experience (10.4% for non-experienced and 11.9% for experienced surgeons; p = 0.9999). CONCLUSIONS: An MDTM can improve the PSM rate of pT2 PCa following RARP.

The importance of integrating diagnostic modalities in patient selection for CRS-HIPEC in colorectal peritoneal metastases.

BACKGROUND: Despite thorough preoperative work-up for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC), so called open-close (OC) procedures as a result of irresectable disease remain common. Currently, diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS) is considered the gold standard, and consequently overrules the results of computed tomography (CT) scans; however, certain regions of the abdomen are difficult to assess and postoperative adhesion formation may further compromise staging during DLS. PURPOSE: To determine whether better clinical assessment could be achieved by combining the results of DLS and preoperative CT scans during a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who were eligible for CRS-HIPEC after DLS, but eventually underwent an OC procedure between 2010 and 2018 were selected. Radiological reassessment of CT scans was performed and combined with assessment of the DLS during a MDT meeting. The MDT was blinded for the outcome of the procedure (OC vs. CRS-HIPEC). RESULTS: The majority of the OC procedures (69%) was correctly predicted by the MDT. In most patients (88%), this conclusion was based on the combination of the radiological and surgical peritoneal cancer index (PCI). CT was particularly accurate for detection of larger tumor deposits in the abdominal regions, as 84%-86% was detected. Assessment of lesions in the small bowel regions is troublesome; 72% of lesions are missed on the preoperative CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of radiological and surgical assessment of the PCI may lead to improved preoperative patient selection for CRS-HIPEC.

Expert Pathology for Gestational Trophoblastic Disease: Towards an International Multidisciplinary Team Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), comprising hydatidiform moles and gestational trophoblastic tumours, is extremely rare. Exact diagnosis is crucial to indicate the appropriate treatment and to prevent complications. The scarcity and variability in the number of cases available for reporting, lack of specialised training in GTD, and non-existence of refresher courses implies that the pathologist dealing with these rare and, at times, extremely challenging cases is not completely confident in their diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore the benefits of implementation of an international multidisciplinary conference (virtual) to aid diagnosis of difficult cases and support clinical management of GTD. METHODS: A short survey was circulated to all 46 members of the EOTTD pathology and genetics working party and further spread to other colleagues who practice GTD. This showed that the pathologists and geneticists working with GTD patients do not feel adequately supported and equipped with dealing with these rare diseases. OUTCOME: Virtual cross-border multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) were initiated in April 2022, bringing together participants from 11 European countries on a bi-yearly basis. Mean numbers of 3 patients are discussed during the MDTs followed by 3-4 quality assessment cases. A participant survey was conducted at the end of virtual meeting with an average satisfaction rate of 9.5. The pathologists felt supported and benefited from networking and clinical collaboration. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK: This international MDT continues to provide support in managing the uncertainty with difficult and rare cases and enhances the pathologists training and experience. The frequency of meetings and the number of cases discussed per meeting will be increased in 2023 given the positive response. This will empower individuals and organisations to work together and improve diagnosis and the prognosis for these young patients.

The influence of multidisciplinary team meetings on treatment decisions in advanced bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of specialised genitourinary multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) in decision-making and identify factors that influence the probability of receiving a treatment plan with curative intent for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data relating to patients with cT2-4aN0/X-1 M0 urothelial cell carcinoma, diagnosed between November 2017 and October 2019, were selected from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry ('BlaZIB study'). Curative treatment options were defined as radical cystectomy (RC) with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, chemoradiation or brachytherapy. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between MDTM factors and curative treatment advice and how this advice was followed. RESULTS: Of the 2321 patients, 2048 (88.2%) were discussed in a genitourinary MDTM. Advanced age (>80 years) and poorer World Health Organization performance status (score 1-2 vs 0) were associated with no discussion (P < 0.001). Being discussed was associated with undergoing treatment with curative intent (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-4.9), as was the involvement of a RC hospital (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.09-2.65). Involvement of an academic centre was associated with higher rates of bladder-sparing treatment (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.31-3.21). Patient preference was the main reason for non-adherence to treatment advice. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with MIBC, the probability of being discussed in a MDTM was associated with age, performance status and receiving treatment with curative intent, especially if a representative of a RC hospital was present. Future studies should focus on the impact of MDTM advice on survival data.

Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Discussing patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) is customary in cancer care worldwide and requires a significant investment in terms of funding and time. Efficient collaboration and communication between healthcare providers in all the specialisms involved is therefore crucial. However, evidence-based criteria that can guarantee high-quality functioning on the part of MDTMs are lacking. In this systematic review, we examine the factors influencing the MDTMs' efficiency, functioning and quality, and offer recommendations for improvement. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases (01-01-1990 to 09-11-2021), using different descriptions of 'MDTM' and 'neoplasm' as search terms. Inclusion criteria were: quality of MDTM, functioning of MDTM, framework and execution of MDTM, decision-making process, education, patient advocacy, patient involvement and evaluation tools. Full text assessment was performed by two individual authors and checked by a third author. RESULTS: Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and five themes were identified: 1) MDTM characteristics and logistics, 2) team culture, 3) decision making, 4) education, and 5) evaluation and data collection. The quality of MDTMs improves when the meeting is scheduled, structured, prepared and attended by all core members, guided by a qualified chairperson and supported by an administrator. An appropriate amount of time per case needs to be established and streamlining of cases (i.e. discussing a predefined selection of cases rather than discussing every case) might be a way to achieve this. Patient centeredness contributes to correct diagnosis and decision making. While physicians are cautious about patients participating in their own MDTM, the majority of patients report feeling better informed without experiencing increased anxiety. Attendance at MDTMs results in closer working relationships between physicians and provides some medico-legal protection. To ensure well-functioning MDTMs in the future, junior physicians should play a prominent role in the decision-making process. Several evaluation tools have been developed to assess the functioning of MDTMs. CONCLUSIONS: MDTMs would benefit from a more structured meeting, attendance of core members and especially the attending physician, streamlining of cases and structured evaluation. Patient centeredness, personal competences of MDTM participants and education are not given sufficient attention.

Using guideline-based clinical decision support in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: A prospective, multicenter concordance study.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings formulate guideline-based individual treatment plans based on patient and disease characteristics and motivate reasons for deviation. Clinical decision trees could support multidisciplinary teams to adhere more accurately to guidelines. Every clinical decision tree is tailored to a specific decision moment in a care pathway and is composed of patient and disease characteristics leading to a guideline recommendation. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated (1) the concordance between multidisciplinary team and clinical decision tree recommendations and (2) the completeness of patient and disease characteristics available during multidisciplinary team meetings to apply clinical decision trees such that it results in a guideline recommendation. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational concordance study evaluated 17 selected clinical decision trees, based on the prevailing Dutch guidelines for breast, colorectal and prostate cancers. In cases with sufficient data, concordance between multidisciplinary team and clinical decision tree recommendations was classified as concordant, conditional concordant (multidisciplinary team specified a prerequisite for the recommendation) and non-concordant. RESULTS: Fifty-nine multidisciplinary team meetings were attended in 8 different hospitals, and 355 cases were included. For 296 cases (83.4%), all patient data were available for providing an unconditional clinical decision tree recommendation. In 59 cases (16.6%), insufficient data were available resulting in provisional clinical decision tree recommendations. From the 296 successfully generated clinical decision tree recommendations, the multidisciplinary team recommendations were concordant in 249 (84.1%) cases, conditional concordant in 24 (8.1%) cases and non-concordant in 23 (7.8%) cases of which in 7 (2.4%) cases the reason for deviation from the clinical decision tree generated guideline recommendation was not motivated. CONCLUSION: The observed concordance of recommendations between multidisciplinary teams and clinical decision trees and data completeness during multidisciplinary team meetings in this study indicate a potential role for implementation of clinical decision trees to support multidisciplinary team decision-making.

Preparing tomorrow's medical specialists for participating in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: perceived barriers, facilitators and training needs.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal treatment plan for patients with cancer is discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Effective meetings require all participants to have collaboration and communication competences. Participating residents (defined as qualified doctors in training to become a specialist) are expected to develop these competences by observing their supervisors. However, the current generation of medical specialists is not trained to work in multidisciplinary teams; currently, training mainly focuses on medical competences. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators among residents with respect to learning how to participate competently in MDTMs, and to identify additional training needs regarding their future role in MDTMs, as perceived by residents and specialists. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch residents and medical specialists participating in oncological MDTMs. Purposive sampling was used to maximise variation in participants' demographic and professional characteristics (e.g. sex, specialty, training duration, type and location of affiliated hospital). Interview data were systematically analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen residents and 16 specialists were interviewed. Three themes emerged: 1) awareness of the educational function of MDTMs among specialists and residents; 2) characteristics of MDTMs (e.g. time constraints, MDTM regulations) and 3) team dynamics and behaviour. Learning to participate in MDTMs is facilitated by: specialists and residents acknowledging the educational function of MDTMs beyond their medical content, and supervisors fulfilling their teaching role and setting conditions that enable residents to take a participative role (e.g. being well prepared, sitting in the inner circle, having assigned responsibilities). Barriers to residents' MDTM participation were insufficient guidance by their supervisors, time constraints, regulations hindering their active participation, a hierarchical structure of relations, unfamiliarity with the team and personal characteristics of residents (e.g. lack of confidence and shyness). Interviewees indicated a need for additional training (e.g. simulations) for residents, especially to enhance behavioural and communication skills. CONCLUSION: Current practice with regard to preparing residents for their future role in MDTMs is hampered by a variety of factors. Most importantly, more awareness of the educational purposes of MDTMs among both residents and medical specialists would allow residents to participate in and learn from oncological MDTMs. Future studies should focus on collaboration competences.

Participation of inpatients in multidisciplinary team meetings: An explorative study of mental healthcare workers' perception.

AIM: To explore the perception of mental healthcare workers about participation of inpatients during multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) and to determine which demographic and contextual factors are associated with this perception. METHODS: A cross-sectional multicentre study in 17 psychiatric hospitals with 701 mental healthcare workers was performed between 29 April and 19 May 2019. For measuring the perception of the mental healthcare workers, the Patient Participation during Multidisciplinary Team meetings Questionnaire was used. RESULTS: 93 % of the mental healthcare workers indicate that they are willing to allow patients to participate in a MTM. Most mental healthcare workers prefer an active role for the patient when participating in a MTM (93 %) and a collaborative role for the patient when making decisions in a MTM (75 %). Level of education, discipline, experience with patient participation in MTMs, working in a team where patient participation is applied, and recent training on patient participation, are associated with the mental healthcare worker's perception on patient participation in MTMs. CONCLUSION: Mental healthcare workers report a great willingness to involve inpatients in MTMs. However, social workers, nurses, and pedagogues feel less competent and are less positive about the effects of patient participation in MTMs. Mental healthcare workers with recent training in patient participation and experience in patient participation in MTMs feel more competent and believe more often that the patient should fulfil a more autonomous role when participating in a MTM. These results can be used to understand and improve patient participation in MTMs in mental healthcare.

Conduct of neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team meetings and closing the "gaps" in the clinical management of childhood central nervous system tumors in a middle-income country.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are essential in the clinical management of pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Evaluations of the impact of MDTMs on childhood CNS tumors and clinicians' perspectives on their effectiveness are scarce. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of pediatric patients (aged <18 years) with CNS tumors diagnosed and treated in the Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Division at the University Malaya Medical Center from 2008 to 2019. We also conducted a web-based survey of the core members of the multidisciplinary team to evaluate the impact of the MDTMs. RESULTS: During the pre-MDTM era (2008-2012), 29 CNS tumors were diagnosed and treated, and during the MDTM era (2014-2019), 49 CNS tumors were diagnosed and treated. The interval for histologic diagnosis was significantly shorter during the MDTM era (p=0.04), but the interval from diagnosis to chemotherapy or radiotherapy and the 5-year overall survival of the 78 patients did not improve (62.1% ± 9.0% vs. 68.8% ± 9.1%; p=0.184). However, the 5-year overall survival of patients with medulloblastoma or rare tumors significantly improved in the MDTM era (p=0.01). Key factors that contributed to delayed treatment and poor outcomes were postoperative complications, the facility's lack of infrastructure, poor parental education about early treatment, cultural beliefs in alternative medicine, and infection during chemotherapy. Eighteen clinicians responded to the survey; they felt that the MDTMs were beneficial in decision-making and enhanced the continuity of coordinated care. CONCLUSION: MDTMs significantly reduced the diagnostic interval and improved the overall outcomes. However, delayed treatment remains a major challenge that requires further attention.

Multidisciplinary team meetings: are all patients presented and does it impact quality of care and survival - a registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are part of the standard cancer care process in many European countries. In France, they are a mandatory condition in the authorization system for cancer care administration, with the goal to ensure that all new patients diagnosed with cancer are presented in MDTMs. AIM: Identify the factors associated with non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs, and study the impact of presentation in MDTMs on quality of care and survival in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: 3999 CRC patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 in the area covered by the "Calvados Registry of Digestive Tumours" were included. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with presentation in MDTMs. Univariate analyses were performed to study the impact of MDTMs on quality of care. Multivariate Cox model and the Log-Rank test were used to assess the impact of MDTMs on survival. RESULTS: Non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs were associated with higher age at diagnosis, dying within 3 months after diagnosis, unknown metastatic status, non-metastatic cancer and colon cancer. Non-presentation was associated with a diagnosis after 2010. Unknown presentation was associated with a diagnosis before 2007 and a longer travel time to the reference care centres. Presentation in MDTMs was associated with more chemotherapy administration for patients with metastatic cancer and more adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. After excluding poor prognosis patients, lower survival was significantly associated with higher age at diagnosis, unknown metastatic status or metastatic cancer, presence of comorbidities, rectal cancer and non-presentation in MDTMs (HR = 1.5 [1.1-2.0], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly and poor prognosis patients were less presented in MDTMs. Geriatric assessments before presentation in MDTMs were shown to improve care plan establishment. The 100% objective is not coherent if MDTMs are only to discuss diagnosis and curative cares. They could also be a place to discuss therapeutic limitations. MDTMs were associated with better treatment and longer survival. We must ensure that there is no inequity in presentation in MDTMs that could lead to a loss of chance for patients.

Using virtual worlds as a platform for collaborative meetings in healthcare: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare teams often consist of geographically dispersed members. Virtual worlds can support immersive, high-quality, multimedia interaction between remote individuals; this study investigated use of virtual worlds to support remote healthcare quality improvement team meetings. METHODS: Twenty individuals (12 female, aged 25-67 [M = 42.3, SD = 11.8]) from 6 healthcare quality improvement teams conducted collaborative tasks in virtual world or face-to-face settings. Quality of collaborative task performances were measured and questionnaires and interviews were used to record participants' experiences of conducting the tasks and using the virtual world software. RESULTS: Quality of collaborative task outcomes was high in both face-to-face and virtual world settings. Participant interviews elicited advantages for using virtual worlds in healthcare settings, including the ability of the virtual environment to support tools that cannot be represented in equivalent face-to-face meetings, and the potential for virtual world settings to cause improvements in group-dynamics. Reported disadvantages for future virtual world use in healthcare included the difficulty that people with weaker computer skills may experience with using the software. Participants tended to feel absorbed in the collaborative task they conducted within the virtual world, but did not experience the virtual environment as being 'real'. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual worlds can provide an effective platform for collaborative meetings in healthcare quality improvement, but provision of support to those with weaker computer skills should be ensured, as should the technical reliability of the virtual world being used. Future research could investigate use of virtual worlds in other healthcare settings.

Multidisciplinary management of the bone and joint infection complicating treatment of an open fracture of the lower limb.

Bone and joint infections (BJI) of the lower limb can cause functional sequelae and in some cases have an impact on patient's life prognostic. One of the main objectives of multidisciplinary consultation team meetings (MTM) in the treatment of bone and joint infections is to provide an appropriate medical-surgical care, pooling skills of different organ specialists: infectious disease physicians, microbiologists, orthopedic surgeons and plastic surgeons. Treatment is based on aggressive debridement, bone stabilization, adequate antibiotic therapy, long-term coverage of the loss of skin substance and close clinical monitoring. The authors present their multidisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to BJI complicating an open fracture at a referent center in the management of complex bone and joint infections.

Multidisciplinary team meeting for complex bone and joint infections diagnosis: The PHICTOS study.

BACKGROUND: In France, the most severe bone and joint infections (BJI), called "complex" (CBJI), are assessed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MTM) in a reference center. However, the definition of CBJI, drawn up by the Health Ministry, is not consensual between physicians. The objective was to estimate the agreement for CBJI classification. METHODS: Initially, five experts from one MTM classified twice, one-month apart, 24 cases as non-BJI, simple BJI or CBJI, using the complete medical record. Secondly, six MTMs classified the same cases using standardized information. Agreements were estimated using Fleiss and Cohen kappa (κ) coefficients. RESULTS: Inter-expert agreement during one MTM was moderate (κ=0.49), and fair (κ=0.23) when the four non-BJIs were excluded. Intra-expert agreement was moderate (κ=0.50, range 0.27-0.90), not improved with experience. The overall inter-MTM agreement was moderate (κ=0.58), it was better between MTMs with professor (κ=0.65) than without (κ=0.51) and with longer median time per case (κ=0.60) than shorter (κ=0.47). When the four non-BJIs were excluded, the overall agreement decreased (κ=0.40). CONCLUSION: The first step confirmed the heterogeneity of CBJI classification between experts. The seemingly better inter-MTM than inter-expert agreement could be an argument in favour of MTMs, which are moreover a privileged place to enhance expertise. Further studies are needed to assess these results as well as the quality of care and medico-economic outcomes after a MTM.

Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study.

BACKGROUND: The quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the processes involved in decision-making in MDTMs, document the outcomes in terms of whether a treatment recommendation was given (none vs. singular vs. multiple), and to identify factors related to type of treatment recommendation. METHODS: An adaptation of the observer rating scale Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MDT-MODe) was used to assess the quality of the presented information and team processes in MDTMs. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: N = 249 cases were observed in N = 29 MDTMs. While cancer-specific medical information was judged to be of high quality, psychosocial information and information regarding patient views were considered to be of low quality. In 25% of the cases no, in 64% one, and in 10% more than one treatment recommendations were given (1% missing data). Giving no treatment recommendation was associated with duration of case discussion, duration of the MDTM session, quality of case history, quality of radiological information, and specialization of the MDTM. Higher levels of medical and treatment uncertainty during discussions were found to be associated with a higher probability for more than one treatment recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of different aspects of information was observed to differ greatly. In general, we did not find MDTMs to be in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Recommendation outcome varied substantially between different specializations of MDTMs. The quality of certain information was associated with the recommendation outcome. Uncertainty during discussions was related to more than one recommendation being considered. Time constraints were found to play an important role. Some of those aspects seem modifiable, which offers possibilities for the reorganization of MDTMs.

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting and Radiologist workload, a prospective review in a tertiary care hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the increase in workload associated with multidisciplinary team meetings for radiologists in a tertiary care hospital over a period of 15 months. METHODS: Data was collected prospectively regarding number of multidisciplinary team meetings, number of clinical cases discussed, number of individual imaging studies reviewed, and preparation time of residents, senior registrar and consultants and the delivery time of meeting. RESULTS: Total 223 meetings were held over 15 months (April 2014 to June 2015) for 12 clinical specialty areas. There were 1120 clinical case discussions and a total of 2759 documented individual imaging studies reviewed. Resident's preparation time was 74.6 hours/month, senior registrar's preparation time was 47.93 hours/month, consultant's preparation time was 18.67 hours/month and the total duration time for meetings was 18 hours/month. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary team meetings now represent a significant workload of radiology and has reduced the time for other academic activities within the department.

The effectiveness of lung cancer MDT and the role of respiratory physicians.

There is an increasing trend for the use of multi-disciplinary teams (MDT) in the management of complex medical conditions. The latter may include various cancers, including lung cancer. However, the use of MDT is not restricted to cancer management, but may include complex conditions like diabetes and other non-malignant disorders. There is an increasing trend to use MDT in the investigation and management of patients with suspected or proven lung cancer. This review examines the evidence that supports the efficacy, or otherwise, of lung cancer management in a MDT as opposed to individual care, who should be a member of a lung cancer MDT, and the specific role of the respiratory physician in a lung cancer MDT. Although it may seem to make common sense to manage lung cancer in a MDT setting, there is actually little in the way of high quality data to support this concept. The logistic and ethical difficulties in researching this issue are highlighted in this review.

Experience of multidisciplinary team meetings in vestibular schwannoma: a preliminary report.

To assess the contribution of multidisciplinary team meetings (MTM) on vestibular schwannoma management as well as to (1) compare professional compliance to national guidelines and (2) study the percentage of loss to follow-up in cases of conservative management by radiologic observation. A retrospective descriptive study of MTMs held between January 2011 and May 2013 in a tertiary referral center. Patients were classified in three groups according to the MTM decision (observation, surgery or radiotherapy). A total of 363 cases were discussed during the study period (29 months). One hundred and ninety-four decisions (53.4%) were for conservative management with radiologic observation, 130 (35.8%) for surgery, and 39 (10.7%) for radiation therapy. The sex ratio was 0.94, and the patients had a median age of 59 years (range 18-86 years). Most of the vestibular schwannomas (74.2%) were small (stages I and II). Global concordance between the MTM decision and International Radiosurgery Association guidelines was 88.7%. Twenty-three percent of the 104 files that were discussed in MTMs between January 2011 and July 2012, for which conservative management was decided, were lost to follow-up by 18 months. Management of vestibular schwannoma remains controversial, but it usually depends on the evolutive status. MTMs improve practice and facilitate the creation and maintenance of local registries. Future studies in MTMs are warranted to evaluate the benefit and evaluated if MTM could optimize long-term follow-up, limiting loss to follow-up in the observation of vestibular schwannomas that may be evolutive.