Evaluating the impact of the genitourinary multidisciplinary tumour board: Should every cancer patient be discussed as standard of care?

Kyle Scarberry, Lee Ponsky, Edward Cherullo, William Larchian, Donald Bodner, Matthew Cooney, Rodney Ellis, Gregory MacLennan, Ben Johnson, William Tabayoyong, Robert Abouassaly

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Scopus citations


Introduction: We sought to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) on altering treatment plans for genitourinary (GU) cancer patients. Methods: All GU cancer patients seen at our tertiary care hospital are discussed at MTB. We prospectively collected data on adult patients discussed over a continuous, 20-month period. Physicians completed a survey prior to MTB to document their opinion on the likelihood of change in their patient’s treatment plan. Logistic regression was used to asses for factors associated with a change by the MTB, including patient age or sex, malignancy type, the predicted treatment plan, and the provider’s years of experience or fellowship training. Results: A total of 321 cancer patients were included. Patients were primarily male (84.4%) with a median age of 67 years old (range 20–92). Prostate (38.9%), bladder (31.8%), and kidney cancer (19.6%) were the most common malignancies discussed. A change in management plan following MTB was observed in 57 (17.8%) patients. The physician predicted a likely change in six (10.5%) of these patients. Multivariate logistic regression did not determine physician prediction to be associated with treatment plan change, and the only significant variable identified was a plan to discuss multiple treatment options with a patient (odds ratio 2.46; 95% confidence interval 1.09–9.54). Conclusions: Routine discussion of all urologic oncology cases at MTB led to a change in treatment plan in 17.8% of patients. Physicians cannot reliably predict which patients have their treatment plan altered. Selectively choosing patients to be presented likely undervalues the impact of a multidisciplinary approach to care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)E403-E408
JournalJournal of the Canadian Urological Association
Issue number9
StatePublished - Sep 2018

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology
  • Oncology


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluating the impact of the genitourinary multidisciplinary tumour board: Should every cancer patient be discussed as standard of care?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this