Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32738254›Full record

ArticleChest2020

Variation Between Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards in Clinical Staging and Treatment Recommendations for Patients With Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

Fieke Hoeijmakers, David J Heineman, Johannes M Daniels, Naomi Beck, Rob A E M Tollenaar, Michel W J M Wouters, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, Wilhelmina H Schreurs, MDT Study Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chest, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Multidisciplinary meeting review in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Fieke HoeijmakersDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands. Electronic address: f.hoeijmakers@lumc.nl.
David J HeinemanDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes M DanielsDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Naomi BeckDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Rob A E M TollenaarDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Michel W J M WoutersScientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Perla J Marang-van de MheenDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute / Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wilhelmina H SchreursDepartment of Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
MDT Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate diagnosis and staging are crucial to ensure uniform allocation to the optimal treatment methods for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but may differ among multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs). Discordance between clinical and pathologic TNM stage is particularly important for patients with locally advanced NSCLC (stage IIIA) because it may influence their chance of allocation to curative-intent treatment. We therefore aimed to study agreement on staging and treatment to gain insight into MDT decision-making. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the level of agreement on clinical staging and treatment recommendations among MDTs in stage IIIA NSCLC patients? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsEleven MDTs each evaluated the same 10 pathologic stage IIIA NSCLC patients in their weekly meeting (n = 110). Patients were selected purposively for their challenging nature. All MDTs received exactly the same clinical information and images per patient. We tested agreement in cT stage, cN stage, cM stage (TNM 8th edition), and treatment proposal among MDTs using Randolph's free-marginal multirater kappa.

resultsConsiderable variation among the MDTs was seen in T staging (κ, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.75]), N staging (κ, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-0.83]), overall TNM staging (κ, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]), and treatment recommendations (κ, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56]). Most variation in T stage was seen in patients with suspicion of invasion of surrounding structures, which influenced such treatment recommendations as induction therapy and type. For N stage, distinction between N1 and N2 disease was an important source of discordance among MDTs. Variation occurred between 2 patients even regarding M stage. A wide range of additional diagnostics was proposed by the MDTs.

interpretationThis study demonstrated high variation in staging and treatment of patients with stage IIIA NSCLC among MDTs in different hospitals. Although some variation may be unavoidable in these challenging patients, we should strive for more uniformity.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsAgedAnalysis of VarianceClinical ProtocolsCritical PathwaysFemaleHumansLungMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNetherlandsPatient Care ManagementPatient Care TeamSymptom Assessmentmultidisciplinary teammultidisciplinary tumor boardnon-small cell lung cancerstagingtreatment

Identifiers

PMID32738254
PMCPMC7768935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.