Management decisions for patients with cancer are frequently taken within the context of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT). There is little known, however, about decision-making at team meetings and whether MDT decisions are all implemented. This study evaluated team decision-making in upper gastrointestinal cancer. Consecutive MDT treatment decisions were recorded for patients with oesophageal, gastric, pancreatic and peri-ampullary tumours. Implementation of MDT decisions was investigated by examining hospital records. Where decisions were implemented it was recorded as concordant and discordant if the decision changed. Reasons for changes in MDT decisions were identified. 273 decisions were studied and 41 (15.1%) were discordant (not implemented), (95% confidence interval 11.1-20.0%). Looking at the reasons for discordance, 18 (43.9%) were due to co-morbid health issues, 14 (34.2%) related to patient choice and 8 (19.5%) decisions changed when more clinical information was available. For one discordant decision, the reason was not apparent. Discordant decisions were more frequent for patients with pancreatic or gastric carcinoma as compared to oesophageal cancer (P = 0.001). Results show that monitoring concordance between MDT decisions and final treatment implementation is useful to inform team decision-making. For upper gastrointestinal cancer, MDTs require more information about co morbid disease and patient choice to truly optimize the implementation of multi-disciplinary expertise.

Background The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.

Peer-marking did not have a substantial effect on examination performance, although a modest effect cannot be excluded. Students gained insight into examination technique but may not have gained deeper knowledge. Given its potential positive educational value, further work is required to understand how peer-marking can be used more effectively to enhance the learning experience.

This randomized study, which was powered for size effect, failed to show any benefit from fibrin sealant in minimizing back seromas after LD procedures.