The Role of Cancer Boards in the Treatment Decisions Regarding Chemotherapy.

Objective The influence of cancer boards with respect to the treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy remains to be elucidated. In the present study, we investigated the cases that presented at our institutional cancer boards, to assess the effect of cancer boards on the treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy. Methods Data from the cancer boards at Yamagata University Hospital, Yamagata, Japan, were collected. Along with data from the clinical records, the details of the discussions and the chosen plan of treatment of the cancer boards were analyzed. Results From February 2010 to February 2014, 1,541 cases were discussed at our cancer boards. Of these, 811 cases (52.6%) involved discussions about chemotherapy. Of those 811 cases, recommendations were made to alter the treatment plans for 189 cases (23.3%). The reasons for discouraging chemotherapy varied; however, 29/45 (64.4%) cases involved discouragement for the following reasons: old age, a comorbid condition, the physical (performance) status, or insufficient evidence to administer chemotherapy. Eighty-six patients were referred to the medical oncology department through the cancer boards. Conclusion Our results showed that cancer boards have a great influence on the treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy and the prompt referral of cases to medical oncologists as necessary. In terms of future research, we will evaluate the effect of cancer boards on the prognosis and outcomes of cases using the institutional cancer registry.

Status of radiotherapy in a multidisciplinary cancer board.

Multidisciplinary cancer boards (CBs) for making cancer treatment decisions have become popular in many countries; however, the status of radiotherapy in CBs and the influence of CBs on radiotherapy decisions have not been studied. To clarify these issues, we reviewed the minutes of our CBs from February 2010 to March 2012, and we classified planned treatments discussed at the CBs into five categories and analyzed decisions concerning radiotherapy in each category. The fraction of cases for which radiotherapy was recommended was 536/757 (71%). These cases included 478 cases (63%) for which radiation therapy was planned and four cases (0.5%) for which radiation therapy was unexpectedly recommended. On the other hand, radiation therapy was canceled in 21 cases (4%) for which radiation therapy had been planned. This study showed that radiotherapy was discussed in many cases at CBs and that CBs have a great influence on decisions concerning radiotherapy.

Influence of a multidisciplinary cancer board on treatment decisions.

BACKGROUND: To clarify how a multidisciplinary cancer board (CB) influences treatment decisions. METHODS: From March 2010 to June 2011, a total of 475 cases were discussed at our CB and the minutes of the board were reviewed for this study. RESULTS: Of the 475 patients, minor changes in treatment methods were made in 42 patients (9 %) and major changes were made in 28 patients (6 %). Further diagnostic procedures, further publication surveys and reconfirmation of patient's wishes were recommended in 80 patients (17 %). In the 392 patients for whom treatment was recommended, the CB's recommendation was realized in 349 patients (89 %) and was not realized in 20 (5 %) patients. CONCLUSIONS: It is obvious that a CB has a great influence on cancer treatment decisions, but the effectiveness of the CB in our hospital should be verified in the future by analyzing treatment outcomes.

[Effect of extended paraaortic lymph node dissection on postoperative pancreatic function in gynecologic procedures].

BACKGROUND: We tested a hypothesis that extended gynecological paraaortic lymph node dissection seriously impairs postoperative pancreatic function. METHODS: We studied 82 patients who underwent gynecologic surgery for malignancy from January, 2002 to October, 2003. After scheduled operation, we assigned them to one of two groups; patients who underwent extended gynecological paraaortic lymph node dissection (n=34) or those who did not (n=48). We measured plasma amylase levels in all patients before operation and 1, 3, 7 days after operation. RESULTS: Preoperative amylase levels were the same in the two groups. Time-dependent increases in plasma amylase level were noted in both groups. From 1 to 3 days after operation, however, plasma amylase levels were significantly higher in patients who had undergone paraaortic lymph node dissection than in those who had not. Furthermore, lethal postoperative pancreatitis developed in one patient who showed marked high levels in plasma amylase level after paraaortic lymph node dissection. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that paraaortic lymph node dissection in gynecologic operations seriously impairs pancreatic function and that one should maintain a high suspicion of postoperative pancreatitis.