TY - JOUR
T1 - Analysis of 105.000 patients with cancer
T2 - have they been discussed in oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings? A nationwide population-based study in the Netherlands
AU - Walraven, J. E.W.
AU - Desar, I. M.E.
AU - Hoeven van der, J. J.M.
AU - Aben, K. K.H.
AU - Hillegersberg van, R.
AU - Rasch, C. R.N.
AU - Lemmens, V. E.P.P.
AU - Verhoeven, R. H.A.
N1 - Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/11/1
Y1 - 2019/11/1
N2 - Introduction: For optimal oncological care, it is recommended to discuss every patient with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM). This is a time consuming and expensive practice, leading to a growing demand to change the current workflow. We aimed to investigate the number of patients discussed in MDTMs and to identify characteristics associated with not being discussed. Methods: Data of patients with a newly diagnosed solid malignant tumour in 2015 and 2016 were analysed through the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). We clustered tumour types in groups that were frequently discussed within a tumour-specific MDTM. Tumour types without information about MDTMs in the NCR were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyse factors associated with not being discussed. Results: Out of 105.305 patients with cancer, 91% were discussed in a MDTM, varying from 74% to 99% between the different tumour groups. Significantly less frequently discussed were patients aged ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6–0.7), patients diagnosed with disease stage I (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.5–0.6), IV (OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.4–0.4) or unknown (OR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.2–0.2) and patients who received no treatment (OR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.3–0.3). Patients who received a multidisciplinary treatment were more likely to be discussed in contrary to a monodisciplinary treatment (OR = 4.6, 95% CI = 4.2–5.1). Conclusion: In general, most patients with cancer were actually discussed in a MDTM, although differences were observed between tumour groups. Factors associated with not being discussed may, at least partially, reflect the absence of a multidisciplinary question. These results form a starting point for debate on a more durable and efficient new MDTM strategy.
AB - Introduction: For optimal oncological care, it is recommended to discuss every patient with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM). This is a time consuming and expensive practice, leading to a growing demand to change the current workflow. We aimed to investigate the number of patients discussed in MDTMs and to identify characteristics associated with not being discussed. Methods: Data of patients with a newly diagnosed solid malignant tumour in 2015 and 2016 were analysed through the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). We clustered tumour types in groups that were frequently discussed within a tumour-specific MDTM. Tumour types without information about MDTMs in the NCR were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyse factors associated with not being discussed. Results: Out of 105.305 patients with cancer, 91% were discussed in a MDTM, varying from 74% to 99% between the different tumour groups. Significantly less frequently discussed were patients aged ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6–0.7), patients diagnosed with disease stage I (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.5–0.6), IV (OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.4–0.4) or unknown (OR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.2–0.2) and patients who received no treatment (OR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.3–0.3). Patients who received a multidisciplinary treatment were more likely to be discussed in contrary to a monodisciplinary treatment (OR = 4.6, 95% CI = 4.2–5.1). Conclusion: In general, most patients with cancer were actually discussed in a MDTM, although differences were observed between tumour groups. Factors associated with not being discussed may, at least partially, reflect the absence of a multidisciplinary question. These results form a starting point for debate on a more durable and efficient new MDTM strategy.
KW - Guideline adherence
KW - Interdisciplinary communication
KW - Multidisciplinary care
KW - Neoplasms/epidemiology
KW - Patient care team/ organisation and administration
KW - Process assessment (health care)
KW - Quality of health care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072598725&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.007
DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.007
M3 - Article
C2 - 31563730
AN - SCOPUS:85072598725
SN - 0959-8049
VL - 121
SP - 85
EP - 93
JO - European Journal of Cancer
JF - European Journal of Cancer
ER -