Review at a multidisciplinary tumor board impacts critical management decisions of pediatric patients with cancer. Issue 2 (31st August 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thenappan, Arun; Halaweish, Ihab; Mody, Rajen J.; Smith, Ethan A.; Geiger, James D.; Ehrlich, Peter F.; Jasty Rao, Rama; Hutchinson, Raymond; Yanik, Gregory; Rabah, Raja M.; Heider, Amer; Stoll, Tammy; Newman, Erika A.
• Is Part Of: Pediatric blood & cancer. Volume 64:Issue 2(2017)
• Page Start: 254
• Page End: 258
• Publication Date: 2016-08-31
• Subjects: management -- multidisciplinary -- oncology -- pediatric tumor board; Tumors in children -- Periodicals; Blood -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cancer in children -- Periodicals; 618.92
• DOI: 10.1002/pbc.26201
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1545-5009

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Optimal cancer care requires a multidisciplinary approach. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board on the treatment plans of children with solid tumors. Procedures: The records of 158 consecutive patients discussed at a formal multidisciplinary pediatric tumor board between July 2012 and April 2014 were reviewed. Treatment plans were based on clinical practice guidelines and on current Children's Oncology Group protocols. Alterations in radiologic, pathologic, surgical, and medical interpretations were analyzed to determine the impact on changes in recommendations for clinical management. Results: Overall, 55 of 158 children (35%) had alterations in radiologic, pathologic, medical, or surgical interpretation of clinical data following multidisciplinary discussion. Of these, 64% had changes to the initial recommendation for clinical management. Review of imaging studies resulted in interpretation changes in 30 of 158 patients studied (19%), with 12 clinical management changes. Six of 158 patients (3.9%) had changes in pathologic interpretation, with four patients (2.5%) requiring treatment changes. In eight patients (5%), a change in medical management was recommended, while in 11 patients (7%) there were changes in surgical management that were based solely on discussion and not on interpretation of imaging or pathology. Conclusions: Formal multidisciplinary review led to alterations in interpretation of clinical data in 35% of patients, and the majority led to changes in recommendations for treatment. Comprehensive multidisciplinary tumor board incorporated into the care of children with cancer provides additional perspectives for families and care providers when delineating optimal treatment plans.