Multidisciplinary tumor board analysis: validation study of a central tool in tumor centers

Abstract

Abstract The established standard to ensure state-of-the-art cancer treatment is through multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs), although resource- and time-intensive. In this validation study, the multiple myeloma (MM)-TB was reexamined, aiming to validate our previous (2012–2014) results, now using the TB data from March 2020 to February 2021. We assessed MM-TB protocols, physicians’ documentation, patient, disease, remission status, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) as left-truncated survival times. Moreover, TB-adherence, level of evidence according to grade criteria, time requirements, study inclusion rates, and referral satisfaction were determined. Within a 1-year period, 312 discussed patients were documented in 439 TB protocols. Patient and disease characteristics were typical for comprehensive cancer centers. The percentages of patients discussed at initial diagnosis (ID), with disease recurrence or in need of interdisciplinary advice, were 39%, 28%, and 33%, respectively. Reasons for the MM-TB presentation were therapeutic challenges in 80% or staging/ID-defining questions in 20%. The numbers of presentations were mostly one in 73%, two in 20%, and three or more in 7%. The TB adherence rate was 93%. Reasons for non-adherence were related to patients’ decisions or challenging inclusion criteria for clinical trials. Additionally, we demonstrate that with the initiation of TBs, that the number of interdisciplinarily discussed patients increased, that TB-questions involve advice on the best treatment, and that levels of compliance and evidence can be as high as ≥ 90%. Advantages of TBs are that they may also improve patients’, referrers’, and physicians’ satisfaction, inclusion into clinical trials, and advance interdisciplinary projects, thereby encouraging cancer specialists to engage in them.