Lower MeDiC score is associated with non-referral to multidisciplinary team meeting discussion in bladder cancer patients: a nationwide and population-based study.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Jessica Wihl, Oskar Hagberg, Firas Aljabery, Truls Gårdmark, Abolfazl Hosseini, Staffan Jahnson, Tomas Jerlström, Viveka Ströck, Karin Söderkvist, Anders Ullén, Lars Holmberg, Christel Häggström, Fredrik Liedberg
{"title":"Lower MeDiC score is associated with non-referral to multidisciplinary team meeting discussion in bladder cancer patients: a nationwide and population-based study.","authors":"Jessica Wihl, Oskar Hagberg, Firas Aljabery, Truls Gårdmark, Abolfazl Hosseini, Staffan Jahnson, Tomas Jerlström, Viveka Ströck, Karin Söderkvist, Anders Ullén, Lars Holmberg, Christel Häggström, Fredrik Liedberg","doi":"10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results and interpretation: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":7110,"journal":{"name":"Acta Oncologica","volume":"64 ","pages":"616-622"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12067983/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Oncologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42756","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

Background and purpose: 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.

Material and methods: 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.

Results and interpretation: 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.

较低的MeDiC评分与膀胱癌患者未转诊至多学科小组会议讨论相关:一项全国性和基于人群的研究。
背景和目的:创建病例-讨论复杂性测量(MeDiC)工具是为了在多学科团队会议(MDTM)中评估病例的复杂性,以便进行病例选择和优先排序。我们的目的是评估在膀胱癌患者中,MDTM转诊与MeDiC评分和不遵守国家指南推荐的适用性和相关性。材料和方法:根据瑞典膀胱癌数据库(BladderBaSe) 2.0,对8955例局限性(T1-T4N0M0)或转移性疾病患者采用改进的MeDiC评分系统。通过多变量logistic回归研究MeDiC评分与MDTM未被讨论之间的关系,并进一步探讨与日历时间段、医疗保健地区、诊断年龄和医院数量的关系。结果和解释:在MDTM中未被讨论的个体(7.0四分位间距[IQR] 6.0-9.0)的中位总MeDiC评分低于被讨论的个体(8.0 IQR 6.0-10.0)。与最高四分位数相比,低四分位数的MeDiC评分在MDTM中未被讨论的调整优势比为2.1(95%置信区间[CI] 1.8-2.4),在以后历年和特定医疗保健区域进行分层分析时,其估计值更高。我们的数据表明,MeDiC评分适用于膀胱癌患者,我们发现较低的MeDiC评分与MDTM不讨论之间存在关联。
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
Acta Oncologica
Acta Oncologica 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
301
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Acta Oncologica is a journal for the clinical oncologist and accepts articles within all fields of clinical cancer research. Articles on tumour pathology, experimental oncology, radiobiology, cancer epidemiology and medical radio physics are also welcome, especially if they have a clinical aim or interest. Scientific articles on cancer nursing and psychological or social aspects of cancer are also welcomed. Extensive material may be published as Supplements, for which special conditions apply.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信