Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: evidence, challenges, and the role of clinical decision support technology

Vivek Patkar, Dionisio Acosta, Tim Davidson, Alison Jones, John Fox, Mohammad Keshtgar, Vivek Patkar, Dionisio Acosta, Tim Davidson, Alison Jones, John Fox, Mohammad Keshtgar

Abstract

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) model in cancer care was introduced and endorsed to ensure that care delivery is consistent with the best available evidence. Over the last few years, regular MDT meetings have become a standard practice in oncology and gained the status of the key decision-making forum for patient management. Despite the fact that cancer MDT meetings are well accepted by clinicians, concerns are raised over the paucity of good-quality evidence on their overall impact. There are also concerns over lack of the appropriate support for this important but overburdened decision-making platform. The growing acceptance by clinical community of the health information technology in recent years has created new opportunities and possibilities of using advanced clinical decision support (CDS) systems to realise full potential of cancer MDT meetings. In this paper, we present targeted summary of the available evidence on the impact of cancer MDT meetings, discuss the reported challenges, and explore the role that a CDS technology could play in addressing some of these challenges.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Composite screenshot describing some of the functionalities of an example CDS tool developed for breast cancer MDT meeting. Upper left: the summary screen for the patient. Upper right: one of the many prognostication tools available, Lower left: decision panel where system recommendations and eligible clinical trials are highlighted in blue. Lower right: the evidential justification for each recommended option.

References

    1. Fennell ML, Das IP, Clauser S, Petrelli N, Salner A. The organization of multidisciplinary care teams: modeling internal and external influences on cancer care quality. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. 2010;(40):72–80.
    1. Berman HL. The tumor board: is it worth saving? Military Medicine. 1975;140(8):529–531.
    1. Gross GE. The role of the tumor board in a community hospital. Ca: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 1987;37(2):88–92.
    1. Calman-Hine Report. Expert Advisory Group on Cancer. A policy framework for commissioning cancer services: a report to the chief medical officers of England and Wales. Department of Health, 1995.
    1. van Leeuwen AF, Voogt E, Visser A, van der Rijt CCD, van der Heide A. Considerations of healthcare professionals in medical decision-making about treatment for clinical end-stage cancer patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 2004;28(4):351–355.
    1. van Nes JGH, van de Velde CJH. The multidisciplinary breast cancer care team: promoting better care. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. 2005;149(35):1929–1931.
    1. Murray PV, O’Brien MER, Sayer R, et al. The pathway study: results of a pilot feasibility study in patients suspected of having lung carcinoma investigated in a conventional chest clinic setting compared to a centralised two-stop pathway. Lung Cancer. 2003;42(3):283–290.
    1. Back MF, Ang ELL, Ng WH, et al. Improvements in quality of care resulting from a formal multidisciplinary tumour clinic in the management of high-grade glioma. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore. 2007;36(5):347–351.
    1. Martin-Ucar AE, Waller DA, Atkins JL, Swinson D, O’Byrne KJ, Peake MD. The beneficial effects of specialist thoracic surgery on the resection rate for non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2004;46(2):227–232.
    1. Stephens MR, Lewis WG, Brewster AE, et al. Multidisciplinary team management is associated with improved outcomes after surgery for esophageal cancer. Diseases of the Esophagus. 2006;19(3):164–171.
    1. Forrest LM, McMillan DC, McArdle CS, Dunlop DJ. An evaluation of the impact of a multidisciplinary team, in a single centre, on treatment and survival in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. British Journal of Cancer. 2005;93(9):977–978.
    1. Junor EJ, Hole DJ, Gillis CR. Management of ovarian cancer: referral to a multidisciplinary team matters. British Journal of Cancer. 1994;70(2):363–370.
    1. Dillman RO, Chico SD. Cancer patient survival improvement is correlated with the opening of a community cancer center: comparisons with intramural and extramural benchmarks. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2005;1(3):84–92.
    1. Price A. The impact of multidisciplinary teams and site specialisation on the use of radiotherapy in elderly people with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2004;64(supplement 1):p. 80.
    1. Gabel M, Hilton NE, Nathanson SD. Multidisciplinary breast cancer clinics: do they work? Cancer. 1997;79(12):2380–2384.
    1. Davison AG, Eraut CD, Haque AS, et al. Telemedicine for multidisciplinary lung cancer meetings. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2004;10(3):140–143.
    1. Bouvier A-M, Bauvin E, Danzon A, et al. Place of multidisciplinary consulting meetings and clinical trials in the management of colorectal cancer in France in 2000. Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique. 2007;31(3):286–291.
    1. Davies AR, Deans DAC, Penman I, et al. The multidisciplinary team meeting improves staging accuracy and treatment selection for gastro-esophageal cancer. Diseases of the Esophagus. 2006;19(6):496–503.
    1. Fader DJ, Wise CG, Normolle DP, Johnson TM. The multidisciplinary melanoma clinic: a cost outcomes analysis of specialty care. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 1998;38(5 I):742–751.
    1. Kee F, Owen T, Leathem R. Decision making in a multidisciplinary cancer team: does team discussion result in better quality decisions? Medical Decision Making. 2004;24(6):602–613.
    1. Haward R, Amir Z, Borrill C, et al. Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectiveness. British Journal of Cancer. 2003;89(1):15–22.
    1. Burton S, Brown G, Daniels IR, Norman AR, Mason B, Cunningham D. MRI directed multidisciplinary team preoperative treatment strategy: the way to eliminate positive circumferential margins? British Journal of Cancer. 2006;94(3):351–357.
    1. Fleissig A, Jenkins V, Catt S, Fallowfield L. Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK? The Lancet Oncology. 2006;7(11):935–943.
    1. Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, et al. Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ. 2010;340:p. c951.
    1. Wright FC, de Vito C, Langer B, Hunter A. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: a systematic review and development of practice standards. European Journal of Cancer. 2007;43(6):1002–1010.
    1. Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ. 2007;334(7591):455–459.
    1. Macaskill EJ, Thrush S, Walker EM, Dixon JM. Surgeons’ views on multi-disciplinary breast meetings. European Journal of Cancer. 2006;42(7):905–908.
    1. Sharma RA, Shah K, Glatstein E. Multidisciplinary team meetings: what does the future hold for the flies raised in Wittgenstein’s bottle? The Lancet Oncology. 2009;10(2):98–99.
    1. Berlin A, Sorani M, Sim I. A taxonomic description of computer-based clinical decision support systems. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2006;39(6):656–667.
    1. Fox J, Patkar V, Chronakis I, Begent R. From practice guidelines to clinical decision support: closing the loop. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2009;102(11):464–473.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren