Multicenter study on multidisciplinary committees in advanced prostate cancer.

Autor: Belda-Ferre M; Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, Alicante, Spain. Electronic address: marina2_10@hotmail.com., Garcia-Segui A; Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, Alicante, Spain., Pacheco-Bru JJ; Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan d'Alacant, Alicante, Spain., Valencia-Guadalajara VJ; Servicio de Urología, Hospital Virgen de Los Lirios, Alicante, Spain., Verdú-Verdú LP; Servicio de Urología, Hospital Marina Baixa, Alicante, Spain., Sánchez-Cano E; Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario del Vinalopó, Alicante, Spain., Chillón-Sempere FS; Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain., Vázquez-Mazón F; Servicio de Oncología, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Alicante, Spain.
Jazyk: English; Spanish; Castilian
Zdroj: Actas urologicas espanolas [Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed)] 2022 Mar; Vol. 46 (2), pp. 106-113. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Feb 05.
DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2021.09.004
Abstrakt: Introduction and Objective: Although Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) are recommended in the management of Advanced Prostate Cancer (APC), their functioning in real practice has been poorly evaluated. We carried out a multicenter study with the objective of evaluating the functioning of uro-oncology MDTs in 6 hospitals.
Materials and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed. The level of Compliance with the Fundamental Quality Requirements (CFQR) of the MDTs was evaluated by means of a questionnaire filled out by the coordinators of the MDTs in each hospital. The information on the perspective of the members of the MDTs was evaluated through an anonymous survey.
Results: A high level of CFQR in MDTs was evidenced (75%), showing deficiencies in terms of protocol update, agendas, audits, and scientific production. The survey was answered by 62.32% of the 69 physicians surveyed (urologists, oncologists, radiation therapists, radiologists, and pathologists). The 88.4% consider the duration of the meetings appropriate. There are disparate opinions concerning the protection of the MDT meeting time as well as protocol update. Of the patients with APC presented at the MDTs meeting, 62,8% require intervention from two specialties. Only 50% of respondents believe that all CRPC cases are discussed and that there is a prior agenda. The decisions made by the MDTs are reflected in the clinical history in 65.1% and are binding only in 60.5% of the cases. Half of the respondents have not been trained in MDTs. Most participants (90.7%) agree on the fact that MDTs. convey benefits.
Conclusions: The evaluations of the MDTs identify rectifiable deficiencies by modifying hospital inertia and care planning.
(Copyright © 2021 AEU. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: