Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MDTB) allow the review of cases and have been associated with improved decision making and outcomes. There is limited information regarding the performance of MDTBs in developing countries. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of MDTBs and its relationship with decision making at an academic hospital in Mexico City
We used a validated tool (MTB-MODe) to prospectively assess the quality of MDTBs at our institution. MTB-MODe assigns a score of 1-5 to various aspects of case presentations at a MDTB, including the quality of the information presented and the performance of team members, which are then averaged to obtain a mean score. The scores of MTDBs which reached a decision were compared against those who failed to do so using Mann-Whitney U-test.
100 cases presented at MDTBs between April and June 2015 were analyzed. Median patient age was 57 years (19 - 87). The most common diagnoses were hepatic (23%), breast (20%) and prostate cancer (15%). 50% of cases (n = 50) were localized. Mean MTB-MODe score was 3.27 (range 1.75-4.75), and a decision was reached in 83% of cases (n = 83). Cases in which a multidisciplinary decision was reached had a better MTB-MODe score than those without a decision (n = 17) (3.4 vs 2.8, p = 0.01). The ability of the MDTB to reach a decision was associated with the quality of case presentation (4.1 vs 3.2, p = 0.01), the presentation of comorbidities (3.5 vs 2.6, p = 0.006), better leadership of the coordinator (3.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.002) and better participation of team members (4.2 vs 2.9, p < 0.001). The patient's point of view was discussed in only 8% of cases (n = 8), while psychosocial issues were only considered in 10% of cases (n = 10).
We found that the quality of case presentations at MDTBs, and the performance of its members are associated with the ability to reach multidisciplinary decisions. In contrast with reports from developed nations, we found that the patient's point of view and psychosocial issues were not only largely ignored, but also irrelevant for decision making. The continuous evaluation and improvement of MDTBs is necessary for successful decision making in order to improve patient outcomes
Clinical trial identification
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.