Impact of multidisciplinary discussion on pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, experience of a tertiary centre.

Abstract

Background: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNETs) are rapidly increasing. Their management implies considerable resources. Multidisciplinary discussion of tumours has become a cornerstone in clinical oncology but no studies demonstrate a clear clinical benefit. The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether the systematic discussion of patients with pNET in multidisciplinary meeting (MM) has changed their management.

Methods: This retrospective single-centre study was held from 2004 to 2023. Since 2018 all patients were discussed in MM; thus, they were divided into two groups (board and no board) to evaluate clinical and surgical outcomes and whether multidisciplinary discussion improved adherence to guidelines.

Results: A total of 128 patients were enrolled (55 board group and 73 no board). Groups were comparable for gender (36.4% female vs. 45.2%), mean age (60.3 vs. 61.7 years), mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2.66 vs. 2.71), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (CCI < 6, 80 vs. 79.45%), rate of functioning tumours (7.3 vs. 16.4%, P  = 0.2), and pre/postoperative grading. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was used more in board vs. no board (EUS: 90.9 vs. 71.2%, P  = 0.005, EUS with fine-needle aspiration 89.1 vs. 65.8%, P  = 0.002). More patients underwent surgery in no board (78.1 vs. 61.8%, P  = 0.045). Postoperative complications were comparable as well as mortality (9.1 vs. 9.6%) and adherence to guidelines (board vs no board adherents: 90.3 vs. 87.6%, P  = 0.9).

Conclusion: Systematic multidisciplinary discussion does not result in significant clinical impact in terms of surgical complications, recurrences, and reinterventions. A selective approach in multidisciplinary discussion would be worth considering.