Should All Cases of Lung Cancer be Presented at Tumor Board Conferences?

Riquet, Marc; Mordant, Pierre; Henni, M.; Wermert, Delphine; Fabre-Guillevin, Élizabeth; Cazes, Aurélie; Pimpec-Barthes, Françoise Le

doi:10.1016/j.thorsurg.2013.01.003

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suggestions to enhance efficiency of these conferences include limiting pathology to malignant diagnoses or only presenting cases where no standard treatment exists or the patient may be unfit to tolerate the standard treatment 36 . In an attempt to identify clinical scenarios that might benefit most from MDTB discussion, we analyzed all cases with a change in the pre-conference plan but were unable to link any recorded variables to this outcome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal diseases: an observational study

Brauer

Strand

Sanford

et al. 2017

HPB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background & Objectives Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) are frequently employed in cancer centers but their value has been debated. We reviewed the decision-making process and resource utilization of our MDTB to assess its utility in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal tract conditions. Methods A prospectively-collected database was reviewed over a 12-month period. The primary outcome was change in management plan as a result of case discussion. Secondary outcomes included resources required to hold MDTB, survival, and adherence to treatment guidelines. Results 470 cases were reviewed. MDTB resulted in a change in the proposed plan of management in 101 of 402 evaluable cases (25.1%). New plans favored obtaining additional diagnostic workup. No recorded variables were associated with a change in plan. For newly-diagnosed cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n=33), survival time was not impacted by MDTB (p=.154) and adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was 100%. The estimated cost of physician time per case reviewed was $190. Conclusions Our MDTB influences treatment decisions in a sizeable number of cases with excellent adherence to national guidelines. However, this requires significant time expenditure and may not impact outcomes. Regular assessments of the effectiveness of MDTBs should be undertaken.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal diseases: an observational study

Brauer

Strand

Sanford

et al. 2017

HPB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Themes Site Summary Riquet et al (2013) MDT Lung Tumour board discussion benefits, costs and role Anderson (2016)…”

Section: Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2008), ASCO-ESMO (2006), ACoSCo (2016), Edwards (2016), National Quality Forum (NQF) (2009), Grunfeld et al (2008), Jensen, Torring et al (2014), Jensen et al (2016), Levit et al (2013), Parker et al (2007), Raval et al (2010), Vargas, Ryan, Jackson, Rodriguez, and Freeman al. (2008), Almeida et al (2013), Arrighi et al (2015), ASCO (2006), Barocas and Penson (2010), Burmeister et al (2016), ACoSCo (2016), Earle (2007), Feld and Feld (2010), Forum (2009), Grunfeld et al (2008), Holland and Weiss (2008), Holland, Watson, and Dunn (2011), Langer and Stern (2007), Lebeau et al (2011), Levit et al (2013), Manchon-Walsh et al (2011), Mano et al (2008), Mathis and Cima (2014), Meert and Sculier (2008), Numico et al (2014), Ost, Niu, Elting, Buchholz, and Giordano (2014), Pagano et al (2010), Raval et al (2010), Rizzo et al (2011), Saini et al (2016), Samson, Porter, Hurley, Adams, and Eberth (2016), Schrader et al (2010), Spencer et al (2008), Stordeur et al (2015), Taflampas et al (2008), van de Velde et al (2013), Wang et al ), AielloBowles et al (2008),Anderson (2016),Arrighi et al (2015),ASCO (2006),Burmeister et al (2016),Earle (2007),Grooss, Hjertholm, Carlsen, and Vedsted (2016),Grunfeld et al (2008),Holland and Weiss (2008),Lamb, Brown, et al (2011), Lamb, Sevdalis, Mostafid, Vincent, and Green (2011), Lamb, Sevdalis, Vincent, and Green (2012,Lebeau et al (2011),Levit et al (2013),Nazareth et al (2008), NQF (2009),Riquet et al (2013),Rizzo et al (2011), Stordeur et al (2015,Tremblay et al (2011), Vargas et al (2008,Wang et al (2012)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A narrative synthesis of the quality of cancer care and development of an integrated conceptual framework

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The general paradigms that exist to guide measures in quality of care do not sufficiently deal with the changing needs of cancer management. The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding the quality of cancer care and develop a conceptual framework relevant to current practice. A textual narrative review of the literature was conducted by searching electronic databases from the last 10 years. Articles were then screened and included if they were both relevant to the management of cancer and standards in quality of care. Thematic analysis of the included articles was performed. Eighty-three articles were included and 12 domains identified and integrated with current models to develop a conceptual framework. These included: healthcare delivery system; timeliness; access; appropriateness of care; multidisciplinary and coordinated care; patient experience; technical aspects; safety; patient-centred outcomes; disease-specific outcomes; innovation and improvement and value. We propose a conceptual framework for the quality of cancer care based on relevant and current oncology practice. This presents a more practical and comprehensive approach than general models, and can be used by healthcare providers, managers and policy makers to guide and identify the need for metrics for quality improvements.

show abstract

“…Patients need to have access to specialists of the different disciplines in order to get the best possible treatment. Multidisciplinary teamwork seems to improve survival for example of breast cancer patients [10] and multidisciplinary tumour boards have been advocated as an important tool to improve care of lung cancer [11]. However, the latter remains controversial [12].…”

Section: @Erspublicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thoracic Oncology HERMES syllabus: setting the basis for thoracic oncology training in Europe

Gamarra¹,

Boffetta

Ruysscher³

et al. 2013

Eur Respir J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Should All Cases of Lung Cancer be Presented at Tumor Board Conferences?

Cited by 16 publications

References 30 publications

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal diseases: an observational study

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal diseases: an observational study

A narrative synthesis of the quality of cancer care and development of an integrated conceptual framework

Thoracic Oncology HERMES syllabus: setting the basis for thoracic oncology training in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About