View clinical trials related to Multidisciplinary Communication.
Filter by:Multidisciplinary clinics affect the quality of management of cancer patients. This Questionnaire is for research purposes aiming at exploring the application and implementation of multidisciplinary clinics in managing cancer patients in the Arab countries. The results of this survey will shed the light on the situation; the investigators aim at exploring the status of their implementation and who participates in them, in addition to exploring the challenges that face MDT clinics in Arab world.
This study is aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes, efficiency and feasibility of the real-time heart team approach and the conventional heart team approach.
The treatment of locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancers is highly individualized to each patient and their pattern of disease, and this decision is often made at the Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meeting . The PelvEx collaborative was designed with the intent to provide greater international consensus on appropriate treatment decisions for this cohort. However, we propose that international variation exists in how certain patients will be evaluated, assessed and ultimately treated despite having the same disease. We plan to measure this variation in order to provide a greater understanding of the differences that exist.
This is a randomised, multicentre observational study in patients suffering from RAS mutant mCRC with primarily unresectable metastases, who are planned to be treated with FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab or who have already received ≤ four cycles FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab as first-line treatment of metastatic disease. The patients are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to compare the rate of patients in whom secondary interventions (e.g. resection, ablation) are performed in curative intent when secondary intervention options are assessed by a multidisciplinary centralized tumour board (Arm A) versus when secondary intervention options are not assessed by a multidisciplinary centralized tumour board (Arm B). All patients evaluated in the study will receive chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab. After this induction/conversion therapy, imaging (CT or MRI) will be performed to evaluate resectability. In Arm A, a multidisciplinary, centralized tumour board will assess options of secondary intervention to be performed in the context of a generally curative treatment approach. If there are secondary intervention options according to the judgement of the centralized tumour board, they will be listed in their respective sequence and the assessment will be communicated to the participating physician or his/her deputy at the study center. The decision, whether or not any secondary intervention is performed as recommended by the centralized tumour board as well as the kind of interventional procedures is up to the discretion of the treating physicians and surgeons of each patient. Any secondary intervention is recorded. Evaluating the primary endpoint, the first interventions performed in one organ (e.g. liver) are rated when performed in a generally curative context (e.g. even in the presence of lung metastases that need to be approached in a further intervention). In Arm B, no centralized tumour board will be integrated in to clinical decision making and patients will be treated according to institutional guidelines. The number of treatment cycles with FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab will be according to local clinical routine and medical guidelines, recommended are 8 to 12 cycles FOLFOXIRI in combination with bevacizumab, followed by a maintenance therapy with fluoropyrimidine (FP) plus bevacizumab until progression.