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

E-Poster Display

46P - Adherence to treatment recommendations from multidisciplinary tumour boards

Date

17 Sep 2020

Session

E-Poster Display

Topics

Basic Science

Tumour Site

Presenters

Julia Roeper

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_4): S245-S259. 10.1016/annonc/annonc265

Authors

J. Roeper1, L. Ansmann2, L. Kathmann1, A. Blanksma1, M. Hoheisel1, F. Griesinger3

Author affiliations

  • 1 Department Of Internal Medicine-oncology, Pius Hospital Oldenburg, University of Oldenburg, 26121 - Oldenburg/DE
  • 2 Department Of Organizational Health Services Research, University Oldenburg, Oldenburg/DE
  • 3 Hematology And Oncology, Pius Hospital, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg/DE

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

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

Abstract 46P

Background

As a consequence of the German National Cancer Plan, cancer centres have been established in each region of the country. Lung cancer centres are responsible for coordinating the care of lung cancer patients in each region and to diagnose and treat them according to the latest evidence-based knowledge. For this purpose, every patient should be reviewed by a multidisciplinary tumour board. In the tumour board, an individual treatment plan is discussed, and treatment recommendations are given. We investigated: 1.) adherence to the recommendations from tumour boards; 2.) which factors determine the adherence to tumour board recommendations and 3.) what is the relationship between the adherence to tumour board recommendations and patient outcomes in terms of overall survival (OS).

Methods

Data from 1784 newly-diagnosed patients with lung cancer discussed in tumour boards in one certified lung cancer centre in Northern Germany between 2014 and 2018 were documented and evaluated according to the adherence to tumour board recommendations. A preliminary analysis of the first 161 cases is presented. Data was analysed descriptively.

Results

Median age of the 161 patients was 66 years (36-88 yrs) and 58% (n=94/161) of them were male. Most of the patients had an ECOG status of 0/1 (73%; n=118/161) and 84% of them were current/ex heavy smokers (n=135/161). 67% (n=108/161) of the patients that were discussed in the tumour board subsequently received treatment at the same lung cancer centre. Treatment recommendations from the tumour boards were completely adhered to in 78% (n=125/161) of patients. There were different reasons for non-adherence, e.g. patient’s wish, patient characteristics and death before starting therapy. Median OS for the 161 patients was 15 months. Patients with complete adherence to the tumour board recommendation had an OS of 15 months (n=127) compared to 5 months (n=17) for patients with a partial adherence compared to 1 month (n=17) for patients with a non-adherent treatment (P<0.000).

Conclusions

Preliminary results suggests that patients whose treatments adhere to recommendations from a multidisciplinary tumour board after first diagnosis had a longer OS than patients with received other therapy. More cases will be presented at the meeting using a multivariate analysis which includes patient characteristics and healthcare organizations that took over further treatment as predictors.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Carl-v-Ossietzky University of Oldenburg.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

J. Roeper: Honoraria (self): Boehringer Ingelheim; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Roche. F. Griesinger: Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Celgene; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: BMS; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Takeda; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Siemens; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: AbbVie. 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.