Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Proposal and Final Therapeutic Choice in Early Breast Cancer: Is There an Agreement?
breast unit
chemotherapy - oncology
clinical decision
early breast cancer (EBS)
elderly patients
endocrine therapy
multidisciplinary team (MDT)
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
28
02
2022
accepted:
12
05
2022
entrez:
24
6
2022
pubmed:
25
6
2022
medline:
25
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) approach in breast cancer (BC) management is a standard of care. One of the roles of MDMs is to identify the best diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for patients (pts) with new diagnosis of early BC. The purpose of this study was to define whether there was an agreement between the planned program (i.e., MDMs-based decision) and that actually applied. In addition, the study explored factors associated with discordance. We conducted a retrospective study of a consecutive series of 291 patients with new diagnosis of early BC, discussed at MDMs at the University Hospital of Udine (Italy), from January 2017 to June 2018. The association between clinico-biological factors and discordance between what was decided during the MDMs and what was consequently applied by the oncologist was explored through uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The median age was 62 years (range 27-88 years). Among invasive early BC patients, the most frequent phenotype was luminal A (38%), followed by luminal B (33%), HER2-positive (12%), and triple-negative (5%). The results of our study could be useful for enhancing the role of MDMs in the clinical decision-making process in early BC.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
A multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) approach in breast cancer (BC) management is a standard of care. One of the roles of MDMs is to identify the best diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for patients (pts) with new diagnosis of early BC. The purpose of this study was to define whether there was an agreement between the planned program (i.e., MDMs-based decision) and that actually applied. In addition, the study explored factors associated with discordance.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We conducted a retrospective study of a consecutive series of 291 patients with new diagnosis of early BC, discussed at MDMs at the University Hospital of Udine (Italy), from January 2017 to June 2018. The association between clinico-biological factors and discordance between what was decided during the MDMs and what was consequently applied by the oncologist was explored through uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The median age was 62 years (range 27-88 years). Among invasive early BC patients, the most frequent phenotype was luminal A (38%), followed by luminal B (33%), HER2-positive (12%), and triple-negative (5%).
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The results of our study could be useful for enhancing the role of MDMs in the clinical decision-making process in early BC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35747814
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.885992
pmc: PMC9209643
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
885992Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Bortot, Targato, Noto, Giavarra, Palmero, Zara, Bertoli, Dri, Andreetta, Pascoletti, Poletto, Russo, Seriau, Mansutti, Cedolini, Basile, Fasola, Bonotto and Minisini.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Cancer. 1997 Jun 15;79(12):2380-4
pubmed: 9191526
Ann Oncol. 2013 May;24(5):1211-9
pubmed: 23334117
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jul;26(7):1325-32
pubmed: 25605751
Am J Otolaryngol. 2013 Jan-Feb;34(1):57-60
pubmed: 23218113
Colorectal Dis. 2009 Mar;11(3):291-5
pubmed: 18477019
Ann Oncol. 2013 Sep;24(9):2206-23
pubmed: 23917950
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998 May;38(5 Pt 1):742-51
pubmed: 9591819
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Oncologist. 2014 Jun;19(6):608-15
pubmed: 24794159
Ann Oncol. 2006 Mar;17(3):457-60
pubmed: 16322114
Am J Clin Oncol. 2013 Apr;36(2):121-5
pubmed: 22307214
Breast. 2012 Feb;21(1):50-7
pubmed: 21865043
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Apr;21(4):1287-95
pubmed: 24318095
Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2007 Mar;31(3):286-91
pubmed: 17396087
Curr Oncol. 2019 Jun;26(3):e385-e397
pubmed: 31285683
Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Mar 15;173(6):676-82
pubmed: 21330339
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Feb;72:244-250
pubmed: 28064097
Breast. 2019 Aug;46:170-177
pubmed: 31226572
Ann Oncol. 2019 Oct 1;30(10):1674
pubmed: 31236598
Int J Breast Cancer. 2011;2011:831605
pubmed: 22295234
Cancer. 2011 Nov 15;117(22):5112-20
pubmed: 21523766
Br J Cancer. 2005 Oct 31;93(9):977-8
pubmed: 16234818
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 Jan;71(1):7-33
pubmed: 33433946
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010 Jul;38(1):1-5
pubmed: 20206544
Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2013 Aug 30;5:79-85
pubmed: 24648761
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011 Aug;79(2):196-204
pubmed: 20655243
Breast. 2020 Jun;51:65-84
pubmed: 32217457
Ann Oncol. 2012 Apr;23(4):853-9
pubmed: 21821551
Colorectal Dis. 2008 Oct;10(8):769-72
pubmed: 18215197
J Korean Surg Soc. 2012 Jun;82(6):340-6
pubmed: 22708095
Korean J Intern Med. 2020 Jan;35(1):205-214
pubmed: 31795023
Cancer Treat Rev. 2016 Jan;42:56-72
pubmed: 26643552