Jubane Maverick, Rennick Andrew C, Villavicencio Joseph J, Ferreira de Souza Felipe, Peters Vanessa, Jonczak Emily, Bialick Steven, Dhir Aditi, Grossman Julie, Trent Jonathan C, D'Amato Gina, Rosenberg Andrew E, Hornicek Francis J, Yechieli Raphael L, Subhawong Ty, Alessandrino Francesco
Department of Radiology, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
Cancers (Basel). 2024 Jul 26;16(15):2674. doi: 10.3390/cancers16152674.
Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) facilitate decision-making among subspecialists in the care of oncology patients, but the mechanisms by which they enhance outcomes remain incompletely understood. Our aim was to measure the agreement between sarcoma MTBs and radiology reports' disease assessment and management recommendations. This single-center IRB-approved retrospective study evaluated cases presented at a weekly sarcoma MTB from 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2021. Cases without clinical notes, imaging studies, or radiology reports were excluded. The data collected included the patient's clinical status at the time of the MTB, the treatment response assessment by the MTB and radiologists (stable disease; partial response; complete response; progressive disease/recurrence), and the recommendations of the radiology reports and of the MTB. The agreement between the initial radiologist review and MTB on disease assessment and recommendations was analyzed using kappa statistics. In total, 283 cases met the inclusion criteria. Radiology reports provided recommendations in 34.3% of cases, which were adhered to by the ordering providers in 73.2% of cases. The agreement between MTBs and radiology reports was moderate in disease assessment (86.2% agreement; κ = 0.78; < 0.0001) and negligible in recommendations (36% agreement; κ = 0.18; < 0.0001). Radiologists were more likely to assign progressive disease/recurrence than MTBs (54.4% vs. 44.4%; < 0.001) and to recommend short-term imaging follow-up more commonly than MTBs (46.4% vs. 21.7%; < 0.001). At a tertiary care center, radiologists' isolated interpretations of imaging findings and management recommendations frequently differ from the MTB's consensus, reflecting the value of multidisciplinary discussions incorporating the patient's clinical status and the available treatment options into the final radiographic assessment.
多学科肿瘤委员会(MTB)有助于肿瘤专科医生在肿瘤患者护理中做出决策,但其改善治疗结果的机制仍未完全明确。我们的目的是衡量肉瘤MTB与放射学报告的疾病评估及管理建议之间的一致性。这项经单中心机构审查委员会批准的回顾性研究评估了2020年8月1日至2021年7月31日每周肉瘤MTB上讨论的病例。排除没有临床记录、影像学检查或放射学报告的病例。收集的数据包括MTB讨论时患者的临床状况、MTB和放射科医生的治疗反应评估(疾病稳定;部分缓解;完全缓解;疾病进展/复发),以及放射学报告和MTB的建议。使用kappa统计分析放射科医生初始评估与MTB在疾病评估和建议方面的一致性。共有283例病例符合纳入标准。放射学报告在34.3%的病例中提供了建议,其中73.2%的病例中开单医生遵循了这些建议。MTB与放射学报告在疾病评估方面的一致性为中等(一致性86.2%;κ = 0.78;P < 0.0001),在建议方面可忽略不计(一致性36%;κ = 0.18;P < 0.0001)。放射科医生比MTB更倾向于判定疾病进展/复发(54.4%对44.4%;P < 0.001),且比MTB更常建议短期影像学随访(46.4%对21.7%;P < 0.001)。在三级医疗中心,放射科医生对影像学检查结果和管理建议的单独解读常常与MTB的共识不同,这反映了将患者临床状况和可用治疗方案纳入最终影像学评估的多学科讨论的价值。