Evidence-based cancer care: assessing guideline adherence of multidisciplinary tumor board recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer in a non-academic medical center.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Carl-Stephan Leonhardt, Leopold Lanzenberger, Raphael Puehringer, Ulla Klaiber, Irene Hauser, Oliver Strobel, Gerald Prager, Martin Bodingbauer
{"title":"Evidence-based cancer care: assessing guideline adherence of multidisciplinary tumor board recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer in a non-academic medical center.","authors":"Carl-Stephan Leonhardt, Leopold Lanzenberger, Raphael Puehringer, Ulla Klaiber, Irene Hauser, Oliver Strobel, Gerald Prager, Martin Bodingbauer","doi":"10.1007/s00432-024-06049-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB) are associated with improved outcomes. Yet, most patients in Western countries receive cancer care at non-academic medical centers. Guideline adherence of MTB recommendations in non-academic medical centers as well as factors contributing to non-adherence remain largely unexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study followed the STROBE recommendations. All cases discussed at the MTB of the Landesklinikum Baden-Moedling, Austria, were eligible for inclusion. Guideline non-adherence was assessed by two reviewers independently using the AWMF S3 guidelines. Factors associated with guideline non-adherence were investigated using multivariable ordinal regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 579 patients were included in the final analysis: 486 were female (83.9%) and 93 were male (16.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 60-80). Most had breast cancer (n = 451; 77.9%), while 128 had colorectal cancer (22.1%). Complete adherence to guidelines was observed in 453 patients (78.2%), major deviations in 60 (10.4%), and minor deviations in 66 (11.4%) patients. Non-adherence was primarily due to patient preferences (n = 24; 40.0%), lack of surgical treatment recommendation (n = 24; 40.0%), and comorbidities (n = 9; 15.0%). After adjusting for relevant variables, predictors of non-adherence included older age at diagnosis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04), colorectal cancer (OR 3.84, 95% CI 1.99-7.42), higher ECOG status (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.18-2.16), and a more recent MTB conference (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.41).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, guideline adherence was high for colorectal and breast cancer and comparable to results from academic medical centers. However, results need to be confirmed in other tumor entities.</p>","PeriodicalId":15118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology","volume":"151 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11618208/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-024-06049-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB) are associated with improved outcomes. Yet, most patients in Western countries receive cancer care at non-academic medical centers. Guideline adherence of MTB recommendations in non-academic medical centers as well as factors contributing to non-adherence remain largely unexplored.

Methods: This retrospective study followed the STROBE recommendations. All cases discussed at the MTB of the Landesklinikum Baden-Moedling, Austria, were eligible for inclusion. Guideline non-adherence was assessed by two reviewers independently using the AWMF S3 guidelines. Factors associated with guideline non-adherence were investigated using multivariable ordinal regression.

Results: In total, 579 patients were included in the final analysis: 486 were female (83.9%) and 93 were male (16.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 60-80). Most had breast cancer (n = 451; 77.9%), while 128 had colorectal cancer (22.1%). Complete adherence to guidelines was observed in 453 patients (78.2%), major deviations in 60 (10.4%), and minor deviations in 66 (11.4%) patients. Non-adherence was primarily due to patient preferences (n = 24; 40.0%), lack of surgical treatment recommendation (n = 24; 40.0%), and comorbidities (n = 9; 15.0%). After adjusting for relevant variables, predictors of non-adherence included older age at diagnosis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04), colorectal cancer (OR 3.84, 95% CI 1.99-7.42), higher ECOG status (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.18-2.16), and a more recent MTB conference (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.41).

Conclusion: Overall, guideline adherence was high for colorectal and breast cancer and comparable to results from academic medical centers. However, results need to be confirmed in other tumor entities.

基于证据的癌症护理:评估非学术医学中心多学科肿瘤委员会对乳腺癌和结直肠癌建议的指南依从性
目的:多学科肿瘤委员会(MTB)与改善预后相关。然而,在西方国家,大多数患者在非学术医疗中心接受癌症治疗。在非学术医疗中心,MTB建议的指南依从性以及导致不依从性的因素在很大程度上仍未被探索。方法:本回顾性研究遵循STROBE推荐。在奥地利巴登-莫德林Landesklinikum Baden-Moedling的MTB讨论的所有病例都有资格纳入。指南不依从性由两名审稿人使用AWMF S3指南独立评估。使用多变量有序回归研究与指南不遵守相关的因素。结果:最终纳入579例患者,其中女性486例(83.9%),男性93例(16.1%),中位年龄70岁(IQR 60-80)。大多数患有乳腺癌(n = 451;77.9%), 128人患结直肠癌(22.1%)。453例(78.2%)患者完全遵守指南,60例(10.4%)患者出现严重偏差,66例(11.4%)患者出现轻微偏差。不依从性主要是由于患者的偏好(n = 24;40.0%),缺乏手术治疗建议(n = 24;40.0%)和合并症(n = 9;15.0%)。在调整相关变量后,不依从性的预测因子包括诊断时年龄较大(OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04),结直肠癌(OR 3.84, 95% CI 1.99-7.42),较高的ECOG状态(OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.18-2.16),以及最近的MTB会议(OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.41)。结论:总体而言,结直肠癌和乳腺癌的指南依从性很高,与学术医疗中心的结果相当。然而,结果需要在其他肿瘤实体中得到证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
2.80%
发文量
577
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The "Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology" publishes significant and up-to-date articles within the fields of experimental and clinical oncology. The journal, which is chiefly devoted to Original papers, also includes Reviews as well as Editorials and Guest editorials on current, controversial topics. The section Letters to the editors provides a forum for a rapid exchange of comments and information concerning previously published papers and topics of current interest. Meeting reports provide current information on the latest results presented at important congresses. The following fields are covered: carcinogenesis - etiology, mechanisms; molecular biology; recent developments in tumor therapy; general diagnosis; laboratory diagnosis; diagnostic and experimental pathology; oncologic surgery; and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信