Impact of multidisciplinary team discrepancies on comparative lung cancer outcome analyses and treatment equality.

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the consistency of lung cancer case assessments across multidisciplinary team (MDT) sites in Denmark. The goal was to appraise the comparability of outcomes between hospitals in a real-world context.

Methods: We prepared sixty comprehensive, fictitious lung cancer case stories, complete with images, and distributed them to the four primary lung cancer MDT conferences in Denmark. These cases were subsequently evaluated as had they been ordinary patients during regular MDT meetings. We compared the conclusions on assigned TNM stage and proposed treatment intent using Kappa statistics.

Results: The consensus on assigned stage (Stages IA-B, IIA-B, IIIA-B, IV, and undetermined) corresponded to a Fleiss' Kappa-value of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52-0.71). The overall assessment of curability, categorized as Curable, Incurable, and Undetermined, corresponded to a Kappa-value of 0.72 (CI: 0.61-0.84). However, for cases unanimously judged by all MDT sites to be Stage III, the concordance on treatment intent was poor, with an agreement coefficient of only 0.32 (95% CI: -0.27-0.97).

Conclusion: In detail, the level of agreement on assigned stages was less than desired. In consequence, comparative analyses of treatment results from different hospitals or centres may be prone to bias caused by systematic differences in stage assessment or intent of treatment. The least consensus was observed for cases in Stage III, indicating a need for quality improvement efforts to ensure a higher degree of consistency in MDT decisions.