Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Discussion - Public policy

3302 - Poster Discussion - Public policy - Analysis of 105.000 cancer patients; have they been discussed in oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings? A nationwide population-based study in the Netherlands

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Discussion - Public policy

Presenters

Janneke Walraven

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v671-v682. 10.1093/annonc/mdz263

Authors

J.E.W. Walraven1, I.M.E. Desar2, K.J..J..M. Hoeven, van der3, K.K.H. Aben4, R. Hillegersberg, van5, C.R.N. Rasch6, V.E.P.P. Lemmens7, R.H.A. Verhoeven8

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, 6525AG - Nijmegen/NL
  • 2 Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, 6525 GA - Nijmegen/NL
  • 3 Medical Oncology, Radboudumc, 6500HB - Nijmegen/NL
  • 4 Department Of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, 6533AA - Nijmegen/NL
  • 5 Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX - Utrecht/NL
  • 6 Radiotherapy, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333ZA - Leiden/NL
  • 7 Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, 5612 HZ - Eindhoven/NL
  • 8 Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, 5612HZ - Eindhoven/NL

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 3302

Background

For optimal oncological care it is recommended to discuss every patient with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM). Due to increasing incidence and prevalence of cancer and emergence of dedicated tumour specific MDTMs, the number of patients that needs to be discussed rises, and the time- and financial burden is growing. This leads to a growing demand to change the current workflow. We aimed to investigate the number of patients discussed in current daily practice of MDTMs and aimed to identify characteristics that associate with not being discussed.

Methods

Data of patients with a newly diagnosed solid malignant tumour in 2015 and 2016 were analyzed through the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). We clustered all different tumour types in 8 groups that were frequently discussed within a tumour specific MDTM; 1. upper gastro-intestinal- , 2. hepato-pancreatic-biliary- , 3. colorectal-, 4. gynaecological- , 5.central nervous system-, 6. head and neck-, 7. breast- and 8. prostate cancers. Tumour types without information about MDTMs in the NCR were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyze which factors were associated with not being discussed in a MDTM.

Results

Out of 105.305 patients, 91% were discussed in a MDTM; varying from 74%-99% between the different tumour groups. Significantly less frequently discussed were patients aged ≥ 75 years (OR = 0.7, 95%CI=0.6-0.7), 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 that received no treatment (OR = 0.3, 95%CI=0.3-0.3). Patients that received a multidisciplinary treatment were more likely to be discussed compared to patients with a monodisciplinary treatment (OR = 4.6, 95%CI=4.2-5.1).

Conclusions

In general most cancer patients are actually discussed in a MDTM in the Netherlands, 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 towards a more durable and efficient new MDTM strategy.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

V.E.P.P. Lemmens: Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche. R.H.A. Verhoeven: Research grant / Funding (self): Roche; Research grant / Funding (self): Bristol-Myers Squibb. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.