Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital

Clinically decisive (dis)agreement in multidisciplinary team assessment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; a prospective, national, multicenter study

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Cardiotoxicity in metastatic melanoma patients treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in a real-world setting

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Genomic landscape of treatment refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Intratumoral expression of CD38 in patients with post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

  4. Management of late adverse effects after chemoradiation for anal cancer

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Quantitative fluorescence angiography detects dynamic changes in gastric perfusion

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Embolization of the thoracic duct in patients with iatrogenic chylothorax

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding tumor staging, operability, resectability, and treatment strategy in patients with esophageal cancer are made at multidisciplinary team (MDT) conferences. We aimed to assess interobserver agreement from four national MDT conferences and whether this would have a clinical impact.

METHODS: A total of 20 patients with esophageal cancer were included across all four upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer centers. Fully anonymized patient data were distributed among the MDT conferences which decided on TNM category, resectability, operability, curability, and treatment strategy blinded to each other's decisions. The interobserver agreement was expressed as both the raw observer agreement and with Krippendorff's α values. Finally, a case-by-case evaluation was performed to determine if disagreement would have had a clinical impact.

RESULTS: A total of 80 MDT evaluations were available for analysis. A moderate to near-perfect observer agreement of 79.2%, 55.8%, and 82.5% for TNM category was observed, respectively. Substantial agreement for resectability and moderate agreement for curability were found. However, an only fair agreement was observed for the operability category. The treatment strategies had a slight agreement which corresponded to disagreement having a clinical impact in 12 patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal cancer MDT conferences had an acceptable interobserver agreement on resectability and TM categories; however, the operability assessment had a high level of disagreement. Consequently, the agreement on treatment strategy was reduced with a potential clinical impact. In future MDT conferences, emphasis should be on prioritizing the relevant information being readily available (operability, T & M categories) to minimize the risk of disagreement in the assessments and treatment strategies, and thus, delayed or suboptimal treatment.

Original languageEnglish
JournalActa Oncologica
Issue number9
Pages (from-to)1091-1099
Number of pages9
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2021

    Research areas

  • Esophageal Neoplasms/therapy, Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Patient Care Team, Prospective Studies, multidisciplinary team (MDT), upper gastrointestinal cancer, Interobserver agreement, Esophageal cancer

ID: 68544018