An Analysis of a Multidisciplinary Lymphoma Virtual Tumor Board with Regional and International Participation

Abstract

Introduction: Outcomes of multidisciplinary and molecular tumor boards have been reported. Lymphoma specific tumor board outcomes have not been reported in the molecular era. In addition, the utility of multi-site, interactive tumor boards using videoconference technology are not widely reported. We prospectively followed the outcomes of a multidisciplinary multi-site lymphoma tumor board in the molecular era and during a change in the revision of the World Health Organization Classification in first published in 2016. Methods: The Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board is a component of the international Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN). The format includes the clinical case presentation, presentation of radiology and hematopathology findings by the appropriate specialist, proposed treatment options, review of the literature pertinent to the case, and discussion followed by recommendations. Requirement for presentation includes having a diagnosis of lymphoma with pathology reviewed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (MCR). Pathology and radiology material, when relevant to the case, are required to be reviewed at MCR and presented by MCR pathologists/radiologists. Patients must be presented prospectively, and have active clinical issues or questions to be addressed. Four cases are presented per 60-minute meeting. 309 consecutive highly selected cases with a diagnosis of lymphoma were presented at the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board from 2014 to 2018. The pathology material was independently reviewed by the presenting hematopathologists and radiology material by the presenting radiologist. Participants are office based and included multiple members of the health care team which also incudes pharmacists, clinical research associates affiliated with lymphoma research, and physicians in training. Recommendations were prospectively tracked for changes in radiology interpretation, pathologic diagnosis, and treatment approaches. Actual follow-up of all patients after the meeting was not allowed in the MCCN. Participation in the meeting can be either via in-room attendance at MCR, video conference at a participating MCCN site, or via non-participatory live-stream online. Results: 309 cases were presented were presented from 2014-2018. 258 cases were from MCR, and 51 were not physically seen at MCR. 16 cases were presented at a subsequent meeting for further recommendations in the course of their disease after the initial presentation. 54% of patients presented had changes in some aspect of their care as a result of the meeting. Changes in radiologic interpretation occurred in 5 (1.6%) patients. The pathologic diagnosis changed in 27 (8.7%). Additional testing was recommended in 44 (14%). Clinical management changes were recommended in 90 (29%) cases. These included alterations in treatment approach in 43 (14%), change from undecided to pursuit of treatment 10 (3%), change from undecided regarding treatment approach to further diagnostic testing 4 (1.3%), change from observation to treatment 9 (3%), change from treatment to observation 4 (1.3%), and treatment to further tests in 2 (0.6%) Site in room average attendance (internal/external) was 16.8/8.6. Non-participatory live-stream attendance was not possible to track. In an annual electronic evaluation of this activity, 93% of the responders reported an improvement in knowledge and competence, and 100% recommended no changes to the format of the conference. Enhancements over time have included Continuous Medical Education credit, an in room microscope, and real-time radiology images. Selected cases will now be on line on an international web site. Conclusion: In this highly selected group of lymphoma cases from multiple sites over a 4-year period, 54% of the (167/309) case presentations resulted in changes to some aspect of care as a direct result of this tumor board. A multidisciplinary lymphoma tumor board approach was of value, efficacious, and meaningfully impacted lymphoma patients while substantially enhancing interdisciplinary interactions. Disclosures Ansell: Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding.

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

“… 9 Virtual MTBs have been adapted by various specialties evaluating lung cancer, breast cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphoma, and head, and neck cancer. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 The virtual MTB plays an important role in changing management. A study of the multidisciplinary lymphoma virtual tumor board demonstrated changes in radiologic interpretation (1.9%), pathologic diagnosis (9.4%), and clinical management (30%).…”

“…A study of the multidisciplinary lymphoma virtual tumor board demonstrated changes in radiologic interpretation (1.9%), pathologic diagnosis (9.4%), and clinical management (30%). 11 Virtual programs have been shown to improve quality, adherence, and timelines of multidisciplinary care while reducing travel burdens. 12 Despite some limitations that include technical difficulties and technological costs, virtual tumor boards have been proven to be proficient in facilitating cancer care.…”

“…The virtual MTB plays an important role in changing management. A study of the multidisciplinary lymphoma virtual tumor board demonstrated changes in radiologic interpretation (1.9%), pathologic diagnosis (9.4%), and clinical management (30%) 11 . Virtual programs have been shown to improve quality, adherence, and timelines of multidisciplinary care while reducing travel burdens 12 .…”

“…A 6‐month survey of participants in the lung cancer virtual MTB found that 95% believed the virtual MTB to be feasible and acceptable as well as impactful with regards to optimizing the flow of clinical information (91%), equity of care (96%) and specialist collaboration (88%) 9 . Virtual MTBs have been adapted by various specialties evaluating lung cancer, breast cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphoma, and head, and neck cancer 8‐13 . The virtual MTB plays an important role in changing management.…”

Association between facility volume and mortality of patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma

“…centers in collaboration with more experienced centers by means of a tumor board, which might help in reducing the mortality differences between centers. 28 Patient and community education through websites and blogs may be another measure for improving awareness of critical issues.…”