The role of multidisciplinary decision making in oropharyngeal cancer: do we follow guidelines and are treatment decisions being implemented?
Decision implementation
Decision making
Human papillomavirus
Multi-disciplinary team
Oropharyngeal neoplasms
Patient preference
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
29
10
2019
accepted:
30
12
2019
pubmed:
10
1
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
entrez:
10
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to cancer management is gold-standard. With an increasing disease incidence and growing research into human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), updated UK management guidelines were recently published. This study aimed to evaluate the MDT decision-making process among OPC patients at a tertiary centre. MDT meetings over a 12-month period were analysed retrospectively. MDT decisions were compared with guidelines and patient records examined to identify decision implementation. Reasons behind any discordant decisions were explored. This study included 140 OPC patients. Thirty-three (23.6%) were not tested for HPV. Patients over 70 years with a smoking history treated palliatively were less likely to be tested (P = 0.017). Eighty-five percent of MDT decisions followed guidelines with the majority not complying (76.2%) related to patient comorbidity. Ten decisions (7.1%) were not implemented. Reasons included: Seven due to patient choice, of which four patients (57.1%) were only seen following the MDT meeting, and three due to clinician decisions as new clinical information emerged. The majority of MDT decisions followed guidelines and any discordant decisions were justifiable. Discussing management options with patients beforehand facilitates decision implementation as decisions can potentially change after seeing the patient. Progress is still needed with regards to HPV testing. Reasons for not testing could include subliminal decision-making among clinicians, and patients falling between centres. Crucially, the role of the MDT in head and neck cancer should be to ratify decisions rather than making them, hence the need to see patients prior to MDT discussion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31915919
doi: 10.1007/s00405-019-05781-2
pii: 10.1007/s00405-019-05781-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
947-952Références
Stewart BW, Wild CP (eds) (2014) World Cancer Report 2014. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) & World Health Organisation (WHO).
Singhi AD, Westra WH (2010) Comparison of human papillomavirus in situ hybridization and p16 immunohistochemistry in the detection of human papillomavirus-associated head and neck cancer based on a prospective clinical experience. Cancer 116:2166–2173
pubmed: 20186832
Fakhry C, Westra WH, Li S et al (2008) Improved survival of patients with human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in a prospective clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:261–269
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn011
Mehanna H, Evans M, Beasley M et al (2016) Oropharyngeal cancer: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines. J Laryngol Otol 130:S90–S96
doi: 10.1017/S0022215116000505
Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, Griffith C, Trevatt P, Richards M, Ramirez AJ (2010) Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ 340:C951
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c951
NHS (2015) National Head and Neck Cancer Audit 2014, DAHNO Tenth annual report. National Health Service Digital. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/national-head-and-neck-cancer-audit/national-head-and-neck-cancer-audit-2014-dahno-tenth-annual-report
Rajan S, Foreman J, Wallis MG, Caldas C, Britton P (2013) Multidisciplinary decisions in breast cancer: does the patient receive what the team has recommended? Br J Cancer 108:2442–2447
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.267
Brunner M, Gore SM, Read RL et al (2015) Head and neck multidisciplinary team meetings: effect on patient management. Head Neck 37:1046–1050
doi: 10.1002/hed.23709
Wood JJ, Metcalfe C, Paes A et al (2008) An evaluation of treatment decisions at a colorectal cancer multi-disciplinary team. Colorectal Dis 10:769–772
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01464.x
Blazeby JM, Wilson L, Metcalfe C, Nicklin J, English R, Donovan JL (2006) Analysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teams. Ann Oncol 17:457–460
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdj102
Mehanna H, Paleri V, West CM, Nutting C (2010) Head and neck cancer-Part 1: epidemiology, presentation, and prevention. BMJ 341:C4684
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4684
Deber RB (1994) Physicians in health care management: 8. The patient-physician partnership: decision making, problem solving and the desire to participate. CMAJ 151:423–427
pubmed: 8055402
pmcid: 1337094