4.4 Article

Influence of endocrine multidisciplinary tumor board on patient management and treatment decision making

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 223, Issue 1, Pages 76-80

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.07.013

Keywords

Thyroid cancer; Tumor board; Evidence-based medicine; Thyroid imaging; Multidisciplinary

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [T32CA148062]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the impact of an institutional Endocrine MDT, finding that MDT presentations led to a higher rate of management changes, especially for recurrent TC patients, and increased evidenced-based practice among attendees. Attendees reported that the conference exceeded educational expectations, with a growing trend towards using evidence and guideline-based approaches.
Background: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MDT) are used to obtain input regarding cancer man-agement. This study assessed the impact of our institutional Endocrine MDT. Methods: MDT notes on patients with thyroid cancer treated during 2012-2018 were abstracted retrospectively from the electronic medical record. Management change (MC) was prospectively collected by the MDT coordinator. Biannual evaluations reviewed the impact of the MDT as observed by attendees. Results: MC was recommended in 47 (15%) of 286 presentations, with additional imaging being the most frequent (43%). Presentation of recurrences were more likely to result in MC (24% vs. 13% initial, p = 0.03). Overall, 98% of attendees found the conference exceeded educational expectations. About 24% reported intending to use a more evidence/guideline-based approach after attending and this trend increased over time (p = 0.002). Conclusion: MDT presentations led to a higher rate of MC particularly in recurrent TC patients and increased evidenced-based practice for attendees. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available