Rob G. Stirling, Amelia Harrison, Joanna Huang, Vera Lee, John Taverner, Hayley Barnes
{"title":"Multidisciplinary meeting review in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Rob G. Stirling, Amelia Harrison, Joanna Huang, Vera Lee, John Taverner, Hayley Barnes","doi":"10.1183/16000617.0157-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<sec><st>Background:</st>\n<p>Lung cancer diagnosis, staging and treatment may be enhanced by multidisciplinary participation and presentation in multidisciplinary meetings (MDM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore literature evidence of clinical impacts of MDM exposure.</p>\n</sec>\n<sec><st>Methods:</st>\n<p>A study protocol was registered (PROSPERO identifier CRD42021258069). Randomised controlled trials and observational cohort studies including adults with nonsmall cell lung cancer and who underwent MDM review, compared to no MDM, were included. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 31 May 2021. Studies were screened and extracted by two reviewers. Outcomes included time to diagnosis and treatment, histological confirmation, receipt of treatments, clinical trial participation, survival and quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies – of Interventions) tool.</p>\n</sec>\n<sec><st>Results:</st>\n<p>2947 citations were identified, and 20 studies were included. MDM presentation significantly increased histological confirmation of diagnosis (OR 3.01, 95% CI 2.30–3.95; p<0.00001) and availability of clinical staging (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.43–4.56; p=0.002). MDM presentation significantly increased likelihood of receipt of surgery (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.29–3.12; p=0.002) and reduced the likelihood of receiving no active treatment (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21–0.50; p=0.01). MDM presentation was protective of both 1-year survival (OR 3.23, 95% CI 2.85–3.68; p<0.00001) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.55–0.72; p<0.00001).</p>\n</sec>\n<sec><st>Discussion:</st>\n<p>MDM presentation was associated with increased likelihood of histological confirmation of diagnosis, documentation of clinical staging and receipt of surgery. Overall and 1-year survival was better in those presented to an MDM, although there was some clinical heterogeneity in participants and interventions delivered. Further research is required to determine the optimal method of MDM presentation, and address barriers to presentation.</p>\n</sec>","PeriodicalId":12166,"journal":{"name":"European Respiratory Review","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Respiratory Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0157-2023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background:
Lung cancer diagnosis, staging and treatment may be enhanced by multidisciplinary participation and presentation in multidisciplinary meetings (MDM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore literature evidence of clinical impacts of MDM exposure.
Methods:
A study protocol was registered (PROSPERO identifier CRD42021258069). Randomised controlled trials and observational cohort studies including adults with nonsmall cell lung cancer and who underwent MDM review, compared to no MDM, were included. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 31 May 2021. Studies were screened and extracted by two reviewers. Outcomes included time to diagnosis and treatment, histological confirmation, receipt of treatments, clinical trial participation, survival and quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies – of Interventions) tool.
Results:
2947 citations were identified, and 20 studies were included. MDM presentation significantly increased histological confirmation of diagnosis (OR 3.01, 95% CI 2.30–3.95; p<0.00001) and availability of clinical staging (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.43–4.56; p=0.002). MDM presentation significantly increased likelihood of receipt of surgery (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.29–3.12; p=0.002) and reduced the likelihood of receiving no active treatment (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21–0.50; p=0.01). MDM presentation was protective of both 1-year survival (OR 3.23, 95% CI 2.85–3.68; p<0.00001) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.55–0.72; p<0.00001).
Discussion:
MDM presentation was associated with increased likelihood of histological confirmation of diagnosis, documentation of clinical staging and receipt of surgery. Overall and 1-year survival was better in those presented to an MDM, although there was some clinical heterogeneity in participants and interventions delivered. Further research is required to determine the optimal method of MDM presentation, and address barriers to presentation.
期刊介绍:
The European Respiratory Review (ERR) is an open-access journal published by the European Respiratory Society (ERS), serving as a vital resource for respiratory professionals by delivering updates on medicine, science, and surgery in the field. ERR features state-of-the-art review articles, editorials, correspondence, and summaries of recent research findings and studies covering a wide range of topics including COPD, asthma, pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, lung cancer, tuberculosis, and pulmonary infections. Articles are published continuously and compiled into quarterly issues within a single annual volume.