暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings formulate guideline-based individual treatment plans based on patient and disease characteristics and motivate reasons for deviation. Clinical decision trees could support multidisciplinary teams to adhere more accurately to guidelines. Every clinical decision tree is tailored to a specific decision moment in a care pathway and is composed of patient and disease characteristics leading to a guideline recommendation.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated (1) the concordance between multidisciplinary team and clinical decision tree recommendations and (2) the completeness of patient and disease characteristics available during multidisciplinary team meetings to apply clinical decision trees such that it results in a guideline recommendation.
METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational concordance study evaluated 17 selected clinical decision trees, based on the prevailing Dutch guidelines for breast, colorectal and prostate cancers. In cases with sufficient data, concordance between multidisciplinary team and clinical decision tree recommendations was classified as concordant, conditional concordant (multidisciplinary team specified a prerequisite for the recommendation) and non-concordant.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine multidisciplinary team meetings were attended in 8 different hospitals, and 355 cases were included. For 296 cases (83.4%), all patient data were available for providing an unconditional clinical decision tree recommendation. In 59 cases (16.6%), insufficient data were available resulting in provisional clinical decision tree recommendations. From the 296 successfully generated clinical decision tree recommendations, the multidisciplinary team recommendations were concordant in 249 (84.1%) cases, conditional concordant in 24 (8.1%) cases and non-concordant in 23 (7.8%) cases of which in 7 (2.4%) cases the reason for deviation from the clinical decision tree generated guideline recommendation was not motivated.
CONCLUSIONS: The observed concordance of recommendations between multidisciplinary teams and clinical decision trees and data completeness during multidisciplinary team meetings in this study indicate a potential role for implementation of clinical decision trees to support multidisciplinary team decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical guidelines provide evidence-based management recommendations to guide practice. This study aimed to evaluate whether patients discussed at a lung cancer multidisciplinary team meeting received guideline-recommended treatment and determine reasons for not receiving guideline-recommended treatment.
METHODS: All new lung cancer patients discussed at the Liverpool/Macarthur lung cancer multidisciplinary team meeting between 1 December 2005 and 31 December 2010 were included. Guideline-recommended treatment was assigned according to pathology, stage and ECOG (Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group) performance status as per the 2004 Australian Lung Cancer Guidelines. This was compared with actual treatment received to determine adherence to guidelines. For those patients who did not receive guideline-recommended treatment, the medical record was reviewed to determine the reason(s) for this. Survival was compared between those who did and did not receive guideline-recommended treatment.
RESULTS: 808 new patients were discussed at the multidisciplinary team meeting. Guideline-recommended treatment could not be assigned in 2% of patients due to missing data. 435 patients (54%) received guideline-recommended treatment, and 356 (44%) did not. The most common reasons for not receiving guideline-recommended treatment were a decline in ECOG performance status (24%), large tumor volume precluding radical radiotherapy (17%), comorbidities (15%) and patient preference (13%). Patients less than 70 years who received guideline-recommended treatment had improved survival compared with those who did not.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of lung cancer patients did not receive guideline-recommended treatment due to legitimate reasons. Alternative guidelines are needed for patients not suitable for current best practice. Treatment according to guidelines was a predictor for survival.

OBJECTIVE: The authors present the guidelines of the French Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery Society (SFORL) for patient pathway organization in head and neck cancer, and in particular for multidisciplinary team meetings. The present article concerns the therapeutic decision-making process.
METHODS: A multidisciplinary work group was entrusted with a review of the scientific literature on the above topic. Guidelines were drawn up, based on the articles retrieved and the group members\' individual experience. They were then read over by an editorial group independent of the work group. The final version was established in a coordination meeting. The guidelines were graded as A, B, C or expert opinion, by decreasing level of evidence.
RESULTS: It is recommended that: an organ specialist should contribute to all multidisciplinary meetings on head and neck cancer; all members of the multidisciplinary meeting should have specific knowledge in head and neck cancer; any referring physician who does not follow the multidisciplinary meeting\'s advice should justify that decision; there should be sufficient time to prepare, discuss and sum up the cases dealt with in the multidisciplinary team meeting.