Prostate cancer management at an Italian tertiary referral center: does multidisciplinary team meeting influence diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making process? A snapshot of the everyday clinical practice

Luca, Stefano De; Fiori, Cristian; Tucci, Marco; Poggio, M.; Allis, Simona; Bollito, Enrico; Solitro, Federica; Passera, Roberto; Buttigliero, Consuelo; Porpiglia, Francesco

doi:10.23736/s0393-2249.19.03231-4

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Forty-one articles investigated the effect of MDTMs on cancer care pathways in colorectal cancer (21/41) , lung cancer (10/41) [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47], prostate cancer (6/41) [48][49][50][51][52][53] and breast cancer (4/41) [54][55][56][57] (Table 1). All studies were conducted in adults (total n = 82,073, range 42-32,569 study subjects per study, mean 2002), with studies originating from in Oceania (8/41) [20,26,29,38,39,43,45,52], Asia (9/41) [18,21,23,35,41,46,50,56,57], Europe (13/41) [17,19,24,25,27,31,32,34,36,37,44,…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies were conducted in adults (total n = 82,073, range 42-32,569 study subjects per study, mean 2002), with studies originating from in Oceania (8/41) [20,26,29,38,39,43,45,52], Asia (9/41) [18,21,23,35,41,46,50,56,57], Europe (13/41) [17,19,24,25,27,31,32,34,36,37,44,48,49], North America (10/41) [22,28,30,33,40,42,47,51,53,54] or Africa (1/41) [55]. Studies were performed in multicenter (6/41) [34,37,38,40,41,56] or single-center (35/41) [17][18]…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In general, members of MDTMs include surgeons, (radiation) oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, residents and nurses. The frequency of MDTMs ranged from 4 times a week [21], to weekly [17,19,20,[22][23][24][25]29,[33][34][35][36]38,39,[42][43][44][45][46]49,[52][53][54][55] to biweekly [26,28,30,40,47,48]. Ten articles provided limited or no information on the frequency of MDTMs [18,27,31,32,37,41,50,51,56,57].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies using a before-after study design (12/41) [17,23,24,26,28,32,[34][35][36]44,46,55] or a casecontrol study design (13/41) [18,20,25,27,31,33,[37][38][39][40]43,47,56] investigated a combination of all three outcome groups. When a cohort study design (16/41) [19,21,22,29,30,41,42,45,[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]57] was used, most investigated patient management (13/16).…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Clinical Practice for Colorectal, Lung, Prostate and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Kočo

Weekenstroo

Lambregts

et al. 2021

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of our systematic review is to identify the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) for lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Methods: Our systematic review, performed following PRISMA guidelines, included studies examining the impact of MDTMs on treatment decisions, patient and process outcomes. Electronic databases PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for articles published between 2000 and 2020. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and GRADE scale. Results: 41 of 13,246 articles were selected, evaluating colorectal (21), lung (10), prostate (6) and breast (4) cancer. Results showed that management plans were changed in 1.6–58% of cases after MDTMs. Studies reported a significant impact of MDTMs on surgery type, and a reduction of overall performed surgery after MDTM. Results also suggest that CT and MRI imaging significantly increased after MDTM implementation. Survival rate increased significantly with MDTM discussions according to twelve studies, yet three studies did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Despite heterogeneous data, MDTMs showed a significant impact on management plans, process outcomes and patient outcomes. To further explore the impact of MDTMs on the quality of healthcare, high-quality research is needed.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Clinical Practice for Colorectal, Lung, Prostate and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Kočo

Weekenstroo

Lambregts

et al. 2021

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, this shared decision‐making process is proven to improve patient satisfaction, change patients' management plans and lead to greater adherence to treatment guidelines. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Specifically, in prostate cancer patients, MDT brings timely oncological treatment with a reduced effort, 4 such as increased treatment plan alteration, cross‐referral rate, and clinical trial inclusion rate. 5 Patients receiving radical prostatectomy can have a better prognosis if they participate in MDT discussions and adhere to the adjuvant radiotherapy recommendations accordingly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic multidisciplinary team discussions can improve the prognosis of metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer patients

Zhu

Chen

et al. 2021

The Prostate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) management is a popular treatment paradigm in managing cancer patients, which provides fully-discussed, interdisciplinary treatment recommendations for patients. However, there has been a lack of data on its actual impact on the overall survival (OS) of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. mCRPC is the end stage of prostate cancer, facing a treatment dilemma of overwhelming options; therefore, we hypothesize dynamic MDT discussions can be helpful in comprehensively managing these patients.Methods: We retrospectively collected 422 mCRPC patients' clinical information from 2013 to 2020 from our institute. Patients can voluntarily choose whether to enroll in the dynamic MDT group, which includes discussions at CRPC diagnosis and subsequent disease progression. All patients were followed up regularly, and OS from CRPC diagnosis to death was set as the endpoint of this study. Results: Participating in MDT discussions is a favorable independent indicator of longer overall survival (median OS: MDT (+): 39.7 months; MDT (−): 27.0 months, This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings

Wihl,

Falini,

Borg

et al. 2023

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) provide an integrated team approach to ensure individualized and evidence‐based treatment recommendations and best expert advice in cancer care. A growing number of patients and more complex treatment options challenge MDTM resources and evoke needs for case prioritization. In this process, decision aids could provide streamlining and standardize evaluation of case complexity. We applied the recently developed Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC, instrument with the aim to validate its performance in another healthcare setting and diagnostic area as a means to provide cases for full MDTM discussions. Methods The 26‐item MeDiC instrument evaluates case complexity and was applied to 364 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden. MeDiC scores were generated from individual‐level health data and were correlated with clinicopathological parameters, healthcare setting, and the observed clinical case selection for MDTMs. Results Application of the MeDiC instrument was feasible with rapid scoring based on available clinical data. Patients with high‐risk prostate cancers had significantly higher MeDiC scores than patients with low or intermediate‐risk cancers. In the total study, population affected lymph nodes and metastatic disease significantly influenced MDTM referral, whereas comorbidities and age did not predict MDTM referral. When individual patient MeDiC scores were compared to the clinical MDTM case selection, advanced stage, T3/T4 tumors, involved lymph nodes, presence of metastases and significant physical comorbidity were identified as key MDTM predictive factors. Conclusions Application of the MeDiC instrument in prostate cancer may be used to streamline case selection for MDTMs in cancer care and may complement clinical case selection.

show abstract

Prostate cancer management at an Italian tertiary referral center: does multidisciplinary team meeting influence diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making process? A snapshot of the everyday clinical practice

Cited by 19 publications

References 23 publications

The Effects of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Clinical Practice for Colorectal, Lung, Prostate and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

The Effects of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Clinical Practice for Colorectal, Lung, Prostate and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Dynamic multidisciplinary team discussions can improve the prognosis of metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer patients

Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About