Analysis of 105.000 patients with cancer: have they been discussed in oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings? A nationwide population-based study in the Netherlands

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... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Walraven, J. E.W.
Desar, I. M.E.
Hoeven van der, J. J.M.
Aben, K. K.H.
Hillegersberg van, R.
Rasch, C. R.N.
Lemmens, V. E.P.P.
Verhoeven, R. H.A.
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2019
Schlagwörter: Guideline adherence / Interdisciplinary communication / Multidisciplinary care / Neoplasms/epidemiology / Patient care team/ organisation and administration / Process assessment (health care) / Quality of health care / Oncology / Cancer Research
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-29202598
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/391418

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.