Show simple item record

Review at a multidisciplinary tumor board impacts critical management decisions of pediatric patients with cancer

dc.contributor.authorThenappan, Arun
dc.contributor.authorHalaweish, Ihab
dc.contributor.authorMody, Rajen J.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Ethan A.
dc.contributor.authorGeiger, James D.
dc.contributor.authorEhrlich, Peter F.
dc.contributor.authorJasty Rao, Rama
dc.contributor.authorHutchinson, Raymond
dc.contributor.authorYanik, Gregory
dc.contributor.authorRabah, Raja M.
dc.contributor.authorHeider, Amer
dc.contributor.authorStoll, Tammy
dc.contributor.authorNewman, Erika A.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-10T19:07:24Z
dc.date.available2018-04-02T18:03:23Zen
dc.date.issued2017-02
dc.identifier.citationThenappan, Arun; Halaweish, Ihab; Mody, Rajen J.; Smith, Ethan A.; Geiger, James D.; Ehrlich, Peter F.; Jasty Rao, Rama; Hutchinson, Raymond; Yanik, Gregory; Rabah, Raja M.; Heider, Amer; Stoll, Tammy; Newman, Erika A. (2017). "Review at a multidisciplinary tumor board impacts critical management decisions of pediatric patients with cancer." Pediatric Blood & Cancer 64(2): 254-258.
dc.identifier.issn1545-5009
dc.identifier.issn1545-5017
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/135428
dc.description.abstractBackgroundOptimal cancer care requires a multidisciplinary approach. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board on the treatment plans of children with solid tumors.ProceduresThe records of 158 consecutive patients discussed at a formal multidisciplinary pediatric tumor board between July 2012 and April 2014 were reviewed. Treatment plans were based on clinical practice guidelines and on current Children’s Oncology Group protocols. Alterations in radiologic, pathologic, surgical, and medical interpretations were analyzed to determine the impact on changes in recommendations for clinical management.ResultsOverall, 55 of 158 children (35%) had alterations in radiologic, pathologic, medical, or surgical interpretation of clinical data following multidisciplinary discussion. Of these, 64% had changes to the initial recommendation for clinical management. Review of imaging studies resulted in interpretation changes in 30 of 158 patients studied (19%), with 12 clinical management changes. Six of 158 patients (3.9%) had changes in pathologic interpretation, with four patients (2.5%) requiring treatment changes. In eight patients (5%), a change in medical management was recommended, while in 11 patients (7%) there were changes in surgical management that were based solely on discussion and not on interpretation of imaging or pathology.ConclusionsFormal multidisciplinary review led to alterations in interpretation of clinical data in 35% of patients, and the majority led to changes in recommendations for treatment. Comprehensive multidisciplinary tumor board incorporated into the care of children with cancer provides additional perspectives for families and care providers when delineating optimal treatment plans.
dc.publisherDepartment of Health
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.othermanagement
dc.subject.othermultidisciplinary
dc.subject.otheroncology
dc.subject.otherpediatric tumor board
dc.titleReview at a multidisciplinary tumor board impacts critical management decisions of pediatric patients with cancer
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPediatrics
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135428/1/pbc26201.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135428/2/pbc26201_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pbc.26201
dc.identifier.sourcePediatric Blood & Cancer
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeo F, Venissac N, Poudenx M, Otto J, Mouroux J. Multidisciplinary management of lung cancer: How to test its efficacy? J Thorac Oncol. 2007; 2 ( 1 ): 69 – 72.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWright FC, De Vito C, Langer B, Hunter A. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: a systematic review and development of practice standards. Eur J Cancer. 2007; 43 ( 6 ): 1002 – 1010.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePetty JK, Vetto JT. Beyond doughnuts: Tumor board recommendations influence patient care. J Cancer Educ. 2002; 17 ( 2 ): 97 – 100.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNyquist JG, Radecki SE, Gates JD, Abrahamson S. An educational intervention to improve hospital tumor conferences. J Cancer Educ. 1995; 10 ( 2 ): 71 – 77.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRadecki SE, Nyquist JG, Gates JD, Abrahamson S, Henson DE. Educational characteristics of tumor conferences in teaching and non‐teaching hospitals. J Cancer Educ. 1995; 9 ( 4 ): 204 – 216.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCroke JM, El‐Sayed S. Multidisciplinary management of cancer patients: Chasing a shadow or real value? An overview of the literature. Curr Oncol. 2012; 19 ( 4 ): e232 – e238.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBack MF, Ang EL, Ng WH et al. Improvements in quality of care resulting from a formal multidisciplinary tumour clinic in the management of high‐grade glioma. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2007; 36 ( 5 ): 347 – 351.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceExpert Advisory Group on Cancer. A policy framework for commissioning cancer services: A report to the chief medical officers of England and Wales. The Calman–Hine Report. Department of Health, London; 1995.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican College of Surgeons. Cancer Program Standards (2016 Edition). http://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/coc/standards. Accessed April 26, 2016.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFleissig A, Jenkins V, Catt S, Fallowfield L. Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: Are they effective in the UK? Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7 ( 11 ): 935 – 943.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJalil R, Akhter W, Lamb BW, et al. Validation of team performance assessment of multidisciplinary tumor boards. J Urol. 2014; 192 ( 3 ): 891 – 898.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLamb BW, Green JS, Benn J, et al. Improving decision making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: Prospective longitudinal evaluation of a multicomponent intervention for 1,421 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2013; 217 ( 3 ): 412 – 420.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLamb BW, Brown KF, Nagpal K, et al. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: A systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18 ( 8 ): 2116 – 2125.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlazeby JM, Wilson L, Metcalfe C, et al. Analysis of clinical decision‐making in multi‐disciplinary cancer teams. Ann Oncol. 2006; 17 ( 3 ): 457 – 460.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTattersall MH. Multidisciplinary team meetings: Where is the value? Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7 ( 11 ): 886 – 888.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStalfors J, Lundberg C, Westin T. Quality assessment of a multidisciplinary tumour meeting for patients with head and neck cancer. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007; 127 ( 1 ): 82 – 87.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBirchall M, Bailey D, King P. Effect of process standards on survival of patients with head and neck cancer in the south and west of England. Br J Cancer. 2004; 91 ( 8 ): 1477 – 1481.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStephens MR, Lewis WG, Brewster AE, et al. Multidisciplinary team management is associated with improved outcomes after surgery for esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2006; 19 ( 3 ): 164 – 171.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTraynor BJ, Alexander M, Corr B, Frost E, Hardiman O. Effect of a multidisciplinary amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) clinic on ALS survival: A population based study, 1996–2000. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003; 74 ( 9 ): 1258 – 1261.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceForrest 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. Br J Cancer. 2005; 93 ( 9 ): 977 – 978.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreer HO, Frederick PJ, Falls NM, et al. Impact of a weekly multidisciplinary tumor board conference on the management of women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010; 20 ( 8 ): 1321 – 1325.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNewman EA, Guest AB, Helvie MA, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer. 2006; 107 ( 10 ): 2346 – 2351.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePawlik TM, Laheru D, Hruban RH, et al. Evaluating the impact of a single‐day multidisciplinary clinic on the management of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15 ( 8 ): 2081 – 2088.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWheless SA, McKinney KA, Zanation AM. A prospective study of the clinical impact of a multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010; 143 ( 5 ): 650 – 654.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.