From surgeon’s decision to multidisciplinary tumor board consensus: Evaluating treatment plan modifications.

Abstract

e13543 Background: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are essential for optimizing cancer care through collaborative decision-making. However, the concordance between initial surgeon recommendations and MTB outcomes, particularly in resource-limited settings, remains underexplored. This study evaluates the agreement between treatment plans proposed by surgeons and those finalized through MTB discussions, along with a focus on changes in treatment intent between curative and palliative care. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 216 cases discussed at bi-weekly MTB meetings between January 2021 and December 2023 at a tertiary care hospital was conducted. Statistical tests, including one-way analysis of variance and Chi-square, were applied to assess concordance between surgeon-recommended and MTB-finalized decisions and to evaluate changes in treatment intent. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Moderate concordance was observed between surgeon and MTB decisions (36.6%, n=79). MTB recommendations either added to or altered surgeon plans in 38.4% (n=83) of cases and replaced them entirely in 25.0% (n=54). Shifts in treatment intent from curative to palliative or vice versa were infrequent (2.31%, n=5), specifically occurring in esophageal and stomach cancers. MTB decisions achieved a 100% implementation rate, underscoring their influence on evidence-based care. Conclusions: This study highlights the crucial role of MTBs in refining treatment plans, including those initially suggested by surgeons, enhancing logical decision-making, and addressing the complexities of cancer care through a collaborative approach, underscoring their significance in clinical management.