Wihl Jessica
Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Oncology and Pathology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; Regional Cancer Centre South, Region Skåne, Lund, Sweden; Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Acta Oncol. 2025 May 5;64:616-622. doi: 10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42756.
The Measure of Case-Discussion Complexity (MeDiC) tool was created to gauge case complexity at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) for case selection and prioritization. We aimed to assess applicability and association with MeDiC score and non-compliance with national guideline-recommendations for MDTM referral in a bladder cancer setting.
A modified MeDiC scoring system was applied in 8955 subjects with localized (T1-T4N0M0) or metastasized disease as per the Bladder Cancer Data Base Sweden (BladderBaSe) 2.0. Association between MeDiC score and not being discussed at MDTM was investigated by multivariable logistic regression, and further explored in relation to calendar time period, healthcare region, age at diagnosis and hospital volume.
Median total MeDiC score was lower in individuals not being discussed at an MDTM (7.0 Inter Quartile Range [IQR] 6.0-9.0) compared to those who were (8.0 IQR 6.0-10.0). Adjusted odds ratio for not being discussed at an MDTM was 2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-2.4) for a MeDiC score in the lower quartile, as compared to the highest quartile, with higher estimates when performing stratified analyses in later calendar years and in specific healthcare regions. Our data indicate that the MeDiC score is applicable in bladder cancer patients, and we identified an association between lower MeDiC score and not being discussed at an MDTM.
病例讨论复杂性测量(MeDiC)工具旨在评估多学科团队会议(MDTM)上的病例复杂性,以进行病例选择和优先级排序。我们旨在评估MeDiC评分在膀胱癌背景下的适用性、与MeDiC评分的关联以及MDTM转诊不符合国家指南建议的情况。
根据瑞典膀胱癌数据库(BladderBaSe)2.0,对8955例局限性(T1-T4N0M0)或转移性疾病患者应用改良的MeDiC评分系统。通过多变量逻辑回归研究MeDiC评分与未在MDTM上讨论之间的关联,并进一步探讨其与日历时间段、医疗保健区域、诊断时年龄和医院规模的关系。
与在MDTM上讨论的患者相比,未在MDTM上讨论的患者的MeDiC总分中位数较低(7.0,四分位间距[IQR] 6.0-9.0),而讨论过的患者为(8.0,IQR 6.0-10.0)。与最高四分位数相比,MeDiC评分处于最低四分位数时,未在MDTM上讨论的调整优势比为2.1(95%置信区间[CI] 1.8-2.4),在后期日历年份和特定医疗保健区域进行分层分析时估计值更高。我们的数据表明,MeDiC评分适用于膀胱癌患者,并且我们发现MeDiC评分较低与未在MDTM上讨论之间存在关联。