University of Freiburg Medical Center, Hematology & Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hugstetterstr. 53, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Comprehensive Cancer Center Freiburg (CCCF), Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
BMC Cancer. 2021 Feb 17;21(1):173. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-07878-6.
The standard to ensure utmost cancer treatment is a prerequisite in national cancer plans for comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) and ensured through multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs). Despite these being compulsory for CCCs, various analyses on MTBs have been performed, since MTBs are resource-intensive. Outcome measures in these prior analyses had been survival (OS), MTB-adherence and -satisfaction, inclusion of patients into clinical trials and better cancer care.
A publication from Freytag et al. performed an analysis in multiple tumor entities and assessed the effect of number of MTBs. By matched-pair analysis, they compared response and OS of patients, whose cases were discussed in MTBs vs. those that were not. The analysis included 454 patients and 66 different tumor types. Only patients with > 3 MTBs showed a significantly better OS than patients with no MTB meeting. Response to treatment, relapse free survival and time to progression were not found to be better, nor was there any difference for a specific tumor entity with vs. without MTB discussions. An in-depth discussion of these results, with respect to the literature (PubMed search: "MTBs AND cancer") and within the author group, including statisticians specialized in data analysis of cancer patients and questions addressed in MTBs, was performed to interpret these findings. We conclude that the results by Freytag et al. are deceiving due to an "immortal time bias" that requires more careful data interpretation.
The result of Freytag et al. of a seemingly positive impact of higher number of MTBs needs to be interpreted cautiously: their presumed better OS in patients with > 3 MTB discussions is misleading, due to an immortal time bias. Here patients need to survive long enough to be discussed more often. Therefore, these results should not lead to the conclusion that more MTBs will "automatically" increase cancer patients' OS, rather than that the insightful discussion, at best in MTBs and with statisticians, will generate meaningful advice, that is important for cancer patients.
确保癌症治疗的最高标准是综合癌症中心(CCC)国家癌症计划的前提,并通过多学科肿瘤委员会(MTB)来保证。尽管这是 CCC 的强制性要求,但由于 MTB 资源密集,对 MTB 进行了各种分析。这些先前分析中的结果衡量标准包括生存率(OS)、MTB 参与度和满意度、患者纳入临床试验以及更好的癌症治疗。
Freytag 等人发表的一篇文章在多个肿瘤实体中进行了分析,并评估了 MTB 数量的影响。通过配对分析,他们比较了在 MTB 中讨论的病例与未讨论的病例的患者反应和 OS。该分析包括 454 名患者和 66 种不同的肿瘤类型。只有接受了 >3 次 MTB 的患者,其 OS 明显好于未接受 MTB 的患者。治疗反应、无复发生存率和进展时间都没有更好,MTB 讨论与不讨论的特定肿瘤实体之间也没有差异。为了解释这些结果,我们在文献(PubMed 搜索:“MTBs AND cancer”)和作者组内对这些结果进行了深入讨论,包括专门研究癌症患者数据分析的统计学家和 MTB 中提出的问题。我们得出的结论是,Freytag 等人的结果由于“不朽时间偏差”而具有欺骗性,需要更仔细地解释数据。
Freytag 等人的结果表明,更高数量的 MTB 似乎会产生积极影响,需要谨慎解释:他们假定在接受 >3 次 MTB 讨论的患者中,OS 更好是误导性的,因为存在不朽时间偏差。在这里,患者需要存活足够长的时间才能进行更多的讨论。因此,这些结果不应导致更多 MTB 将“自动”提高癌症患者 OS 的结论,而应表明在 MTB 中并与统计学家一起进行深入讨论将产生有意义的建议,这对癌症患者很重要。