Regionalization of Head and Neck Oncology Tumor Boards: Perspectives of Collaborating Physicians

• Published in: OTO open : the official open access journal of the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery Foundation Vol. 7; no. 1; pp. e18 - n/a
• Main Authors: Amin, Neha B., Bridgham, Kelly M., Brown, Jessica P., Moyer, Kelly F., Taylor, Rodney J., Wolf, Jeffrey S., Witek, Matthew E., Molitoris, Jason K., Mehra, Ranee, Cullen, Kevin J., Papadimitriou, John C., Raghavan, Prashant, Hatten, Kyle M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.01.2023; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Adjuvants; Cancer therapies; Clinical medicine; Clinical practice guidelines; Clinical trials; Collaboration; Communication; Community centers; COVID-19; Disease transmission; Head & neck cancer; head and neck cancer; Lung cancer; Lymphoma; medical oncology; Meetings; Multidisciplinary teams; multidisciplinary tumor board; Oncology; Original Research; Pandemics; Patients; Physicians; Radiation; radiation oncology; Surgeons; medical oncology; radiation oncology; multidisciplinary tumor board; head and neck cancer
• ISSN: 2473-974X; 2473-974X
• DOI: 10.1002/oto2.18

Objectives To survey academic and community physician preferences regarding the virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) for further improvement and expansion. Study Design This anonymous 14‐question survey was sent to individuals that participated in the head and neck virtual MTBs. The survey was sent via email beginning August 3, 2021, through October 5, 2021. Setting The University of Maryland Medical Center and regional practices in the state of Maryland. Methods Survey responses were recorded and presented as percentages. Subset analysis was performed to obtain frequency distributions by facility and provider type. Results There were 50 survey responses obtained with a response rate of 56%. Survey participants included 11 surgeons (22%), 19 radiation oncologists (38%), and 8 medical oncologists (16%), amongst others. More than 96% of participants found the virtual MTB to be useful when discussing complex cases and impactful to future patient care. A majority of respondents perceived a reduction in time to adjuvant care (64%). Community and academic physician responses strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improved communication (82% vs 73%), provided patient‐specific information for cancer care (82% vs 73%), and improved access to other specialties (66% vs 64%). Academic physicians, more so than community physicians, strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improves access to clinical trial enrollment (64% vs 29%) and can be useful in obtaining CME (64% vs 55%). Conclusion Academic and community physicians view the virtual MTB favorably. This platform can be adapted regionally and further expanded to improve communication between physicians and improve multidisciplinary care for patients.