ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend preoperative multidisciplinary team (MDT) assessment for high-risk surgical patients. Preoperative MDT meetings can help to improve surgical care, but there is little evidence on whether they improve patient outcomes. METHODS: This paper aims to share our experience of MDT meetings for high-risk surgical patients to underline their added value to the current standard of care. An observational study of a retrospective cohort of preoperative high-risk MDT meetings of a tertiary referral hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. For 249 patients the outcomes preoperative data, MDT decisions, and patient outcomes were collected from electronic health records. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were discussed at high-risk MDT meetings. Most of the patients (97%) were assessed as having an American Society of Anesthesiology score ≥ 3, and 219 (88%) had a European Society of Cardiology and European Society of Anaesthesiology risk score of intermediate or high. After MDT assessment, 154 (62%) were directly approved for surgery, and 39 (16%) were considered ineligible for surgery. The remaining 56 (23%) patients underwent additional assessments before reconsideration at a high-risk MDT meeting. The main reason for patients being discussed at the high-risk MDT meeting was to assess the risk-benefit ratio of surgery. Ultimately, 184 (74%) patients underwent surgery. Of the operated patients, 122 (66%) did not have a major complication in the postoperative period, and 149 patients (81%) were alive after one year. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort study shows the vulnerability and complexity of high-risk patients but also shows that the use of an MDT assessment contributes too improved peri- and postoperative treatment strategies in high-risk patients. Most patients underwent surgery after careful risk assessment and, if deemed necessary, preoperative and perioperative treatment optimization to reduce their risk.
Subject(s)
Anesthesiology , Patient Care Team , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Cohort StudiesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The number of older patients with cancer is increasing. Standard clinical evaluation of these patients may not be sufficient to determine individual treatment strategies and therefore Geriatric Assessment (GA) may be of clinical value. In this review, we summarize current literature that is available on GA in elderly patients with solid malignancies who receive chemotherapy. We focus on prediction of treatment toxicity, mortality and the role of GA in the decision-making process. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed. Studied populations needed to fulfill the following criteria: 65 years or older, diagnosis of solid malignancy, treatment with chemotherapy, submission to GA, either designed to study prediction of treatment toxicity or mortality or to evaluate the role of GA in the decision-making process. RESULTS: Our search provided 411 publications. Thirteen met the predefined criteria. These studies revealed: (i) up to 64% of elderly patients suffer from severe toxicity caused by polychemotherapy, (ii) Nutritional status, functionality and comorbidity are often associated with worse outcome, (iii) GA reveals (unknown) geriatric problems in more than 50% of elderly patients with cancer and (iv) 21%-53% of chemotherapy regimens are being modified based on GA. CONCLUSIONS: In geriatric oncology, an accurate predictive test to guide anticancer treatment in order to prevent serious toxicity is needed. The value of GA in predicting toxicity and mortality in older patients with cancer undergoing treatment with chemotherapy has not been proven. It may be valuable in revealing geriatric problems but current evidence for its usefulness to guide treatment decisions in this setting is limited. However, we are convinced that GAs should be carried out to optimize treatment strategies in elderly patients with cancer to improve treatment efficacy and minimize toxicity.
