多学科团队方法对胰腺局灶性病变管理的影响:单一三级中心经验。

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-25 DOI:10.20524/aog.2023.0827
Sophie Francisse, Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Michael Fernandez Y Viesca, Laura Mans, Anne Demols, Martina Pezzullo, Patricia Loi, Julie Navez, Jean Closset, Maria Antonietta Bali, Morgane Van Wettere, Nicki D'Haene, Pieter Demetter, Laurine Verset, Christelle Bouchart, Arnaud Lemmers, Jacques Deviere, Myriam Delhaye, Jean-Luc Van Laethem, Marianna Arvanitakis
{"title":"多学科团队方法对胰腺局灶性病变管理的影响:单一三级中心经验。","authors":"Sophie Francisse, Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Michael Fernandez Y Viesca, Laura Mans, Anne Demols, Martina Pezzullo, Patricia Loi, Julie Navez, Jean Closset, Maria Antonietta Bali, Morgane Van Wettere, Nicki D'Haene, Pieter Demetter, Laurine Verset, Christelle Bouchart, Arnaud Lemmers, Jacques Deviere, Myriam Delhaye, Jean-Luc Van Laethem, Marianna Arvanitakis","doi":"10.20524/aog.2023.0827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings aim to optimize patient management. We evaluated the impact of MDT discussions on the management and diagnosis of focal pancreatic lesions in a single tertiary center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients with an initial diagnosis of solid or cystic pancreatic lesion discussed in our institution's MDT meeting on pancreatic diseases between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were included. The impact of MDT discussion on patient management, defined as a modification of the initially proposed therapeutic plan after MDT discussion, as well as the criteria leading to this modification, were the primary outcomes. Impact on diagnosis was the secondary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 522 patients were included. Of these, 185 (35.4%) and 337 (64.6%) had an initial diagnosis of cystic or solid lesion, respectively. The most common referral query was regarding the management plan (349/522; 66.9%). Endoscopy was the procedure most often proposed before MDT discussion (109/522; 20.9%). Overall, the MDT discussion led to modification of the management plan in 377/522 patients (72.2%), with a statistically significant difference between cystic and solid lesions (63.2% vs. 77.2%; P<0.001). Management modifications were mainly driven by revision of cross-sectional radiological images. MDT discussion led to modification of the diagnosis in 92/522 patients (17.6%), with a significant difference regarding cystic lesions (35.7% vs. 7.7%; P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MDT discussion impacts the management of patients with cystic and solid pancreatic lesions, leading to a modification of the initially proposed management in two-thirds of them, mainly through revision of cross-sectional imaging.</p>","PeriodicalId":7978,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9f/71/AnnGastroenterol-36-580.PMC10433261.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of a multidisciplinary team approach on the management of focal pancreatic lesions: a single tertiary center experience.\",\"authors\":\"Sophie Francisse, Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Michael Fernandez Y Viesca, Laura Mans, Anne Demols, Martina Pezzullo, Patricia Loi, Julie Navez, Jean Closset, Maria Antonietta Bali, Morgane Van Wettere, Nicki D'Haene, Pieter Demetter, Laurine Verset, Christelle Bouchart, Arnaud Lemmers, Jacques Deviere, Myriam Delhaye, Jean-Luc Van Laethem, Marianna Arvanitakis\",\"doi\":\"10.20524/aog.2023.0827\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings aim to optimize patient management. We evaluated the impact of MDT discussions on the management and diagnosis of focal pancreatic lesions in a single tertiary center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients with an initial diagnosis of solid or cystic pancreatic lesion discussed in our institution's MDT meeting on pancreatic diseases between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were included. The impact of MDT discussion on patient management, defined as a modification of the initially proposed therapeutic plan after MDT discussion, as well as the criteria leading to this modification, were the primary outcomes. Impact on diagnosis was the secondary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 522 patients were included. Of these, 185 (35.4%) and 337 (64.6%) had an initial diagnosis of cystic or solid lesion, respectively. The most common referral query was regarding the management plan (349/522; 66.9%). Endoscopy was the procedure most often proposed before MDT discussion (109/522; 20.9%). Overall, the MDT discussion led to modification of the management plan in 377/522 patients (72.2%), with a statistically significant difference between cystic and solid lesions (63.2% vs. 77.2%; P<0.001). Management modifications were mainly driven by revision of cross-sectional radiological images. MDT discussion led to modification of the diagnosis in 92/522 patients (17.6%), with a significant difference regarding cystic lesions (35.7% vs. 7.7%; P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MDT discussion impacts the management of patients with cystic and solid pancreatic lesions, leading to a modification of the initially proposed management in two-thirds of them, mainly through revision of cross-sectional imaging.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9f/71/AnnGastroenterol-36-580.PMC10433261.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2023.0827\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2023.0827","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:多学科团队会议旨在优化患者管理。我们评估了MDT讨论对单个三级中心胰腺局灶性病变的管理和诊断的影响。方法:纳入2020年1月1日至2021年12月31日期间在我们机构的胰腺疾病MDT会议上讨论的所有最初诊断为胰腺实性或囊性病变的患者。MDT讨论对患者管理的影响,定义为MDT讨论后对最初提出的治疗计划的修改,以及导致该修改的标准,是主要结果。次要结果是对诊断的影响。结果:共纳入522例患者。其中,185例(35.4%)和337例(64.6%)的初步诊断分别为囊性或实体性病变。最常见的转诊询问是关于管理计划(349/522;66.9%)。内窥镜检查是在MDT讨论之前最常提出的程序(109/522;20.9%)。总体而言,MDT讨论导致377/522名患者(72.2%)修改了管理计划,囊性和实体性病变之间存在统计学上的显著差异(63.2%对77.2%;P结论:MDT的讨论影响了囊性和实质性胰腺病变患者的管理,导致三分之二的患者修改了最初提出的管理方法,主要是通过修改横截面成像。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The impact of a multidisciplinary team approach on the management of focal pancreatic lesions: a single tertiary center experience.

Background: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings aim to optimize patient management. We evaluated the impact of MDT discussions on the management and diagnosis of focal pancreatic lesions in a single tertiary center.

Methods: All patients with an initial diagnosis of solid or cystic pancreatic lesion discussed in our institution's MDT meeting on pancreatic diseases between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were included. The impact of MDT discussion on patient management, defined as a modification of the initially proposed therapeutic plan after MDT discussion, as well as the criteria leading to this modification, were the primary outcomes. Impact on diagnosis was the secondary outcome.

Results: A total of 522 patients were included. Of these, 185 (35.4%) and 337 (64.6%) had an initial diagnosis of cystic or solid lesion, respectively. The most common referral query was regarding the management plan (349/522; 66.9%). Endoscopy was the procedure most often proposed before MDT discussion (109/522; 20.9%). Overall, the MDT discussion led to modification of the management plan in 377/522 patients (72.2%), with a statistically significant difference between cystic and solid lesions (63.2% vs. 77.2%; P<0.001). Management modifications were mainly driven by revision of cross-sectional radiological images. MDT discussion led to modification of the diagnosis in 92/522 patients (17.6%), with a significant difference regarding cystic lesions (35.7% vs. 7.7%; P<0.001).

Conclusion: MDT discussion impacts the management of patients with cystic and solid pancreatic lesions, leading to a modification of the initially proposed management in two-thirds of them, mainly through revision of cross-sectional imaging.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Gastroenterology
Annals of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Inflammatory bowel disease burden in the Middle East and North Africa Region: a comprehensive analysis of incidence, prevalence, and mortality from 1990-2019. Meandering main pancreatic duct syndrome: a single-center cohort study and aggregated review. Micronutrient deficiencies in older patients with inflammatory bowel disease are not associated with worse adverse clinical outcome rates. Safe outpatient discharge after gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation and analgesia: a systematic literature review. The effect of shortening vasoactive drug durations alongside endoscopic therapy in esophageal variceal bleeding: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1