Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumour boards

  • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Genitourinary (GU) multidisciplinary tumour boards (GUMTBs) are key components of patient care, as they might lead to changes in treatment plan, improved survival, and increased adherence to guidelines. However, there are no guidelines on how GUMTBs should operate or how to assess their quality of performance.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify criteria and indicators to evaluate quality in GUMTBs. A scientific committee—comprising 12 GU cancer specialists from seven disciplines—proposed a list of criteria and developed indicators, evaluated in two rounds of Delphi method. Appropriateness and utility of indicators were scored using a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds of Delphi respondents selecting a score sub-category that encompassed the median score of the group.

Results

Forty-five criteria were selected to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs covering five dimensions: organisation, personnel, protocol and documentation, resources, and interaction with patients. Then, 33 indicators were developed and evaluated in the first round of Delphi, leading to a selection of 26 indicators in two dimensions: function, governance and resources, and GUMTB sessions. In the second round, consensus was reached on the appropriateness of all 26 indicators and on the utility of 24 of them. Index cards for criteria and indicators were developed to be used in clinical practice.

Conclusions

Criteria and indicators were developed to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs, aiming to serve as a guide to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with GU cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data related to this study are available in the article/Supplementary material.

References

  1. Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica. Las cifras del cáncer en España 2023. 2023.

  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:17–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cornejo KM, Rice-Stitt T, Wu CL. Updates in staging and reporting of genitourinary malignancies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020;144:305–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shore ND, Morgans AK, El-Haddad G, Srinivas S, Abramowitz M. Addressing challenges and controversies in the management of prostate cancer with multidisciplinary teams. Target Oncol. 2022;17:709–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Khatami F, Nikfar S, Gholami K, Navard FG, Hasanzad M, Tamehrizadeh SS, et al. The importance of personalized medicine in urological cancers. Koomesh. 2022;24:169–82.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chadha J, Chahoud J, Spiess PE. An update on treatment of penile cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2022;14:17588359221127254.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Saad F, Canil C, Finelli A, Hotte SJ, Malone S, Shayegan B, et al. Controversial issues in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: results from a Canadian consensus forum. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020;14:E137–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Horwich A, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, et al. EAU–ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer—an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1697–727.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arora A, Rodriguez A, Necchi A, Albersen M, Zhu Y, Spiess PE, et al. Global implications in caring for penile cancer: similarities and divergences. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2022;38: 151283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Porta C, Bamias A, Danesh FR, Dębska-Ślizień A, Gallieni M, Gertz MA, et al. KDIGO Controversies Conference on onco-nephrology: understanding kidney impairment and solid-organ malignancies, and managing kidney cancer. Kidney Int. 2020;98:1108–19.

  11. Mano MS, Çitaku FT, Barach P. Implementing multidisciplinary tumor boards in oncology: a narrative review. Future Oncol. 2022;18:375–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Specchia ML, Frisicale EM, Carini E, Di Pilla A, Cappa D, Barbara A, et al. The impact of tumor board on cancer care: evidence from an umbrella review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Mobley EM, Swami U, Mott S, Ounda A, Milhem M, Monga V. A retrospective analysis of clinical trial accrual of patients presented in a multidisciplinary tumor board at a tertiary health care center and associated barriers. Oncol Res Treat. 2020;43:196–202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dapper H, Dantes M, Herschbach P, Algül H, Heinemann V. Relevance of tumor boards for the inclusion of patients in oncological clinical trials. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149:7601–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Salazar-Mejía CE, Zayas-Villanueva O, Wimer-Castillo BO, Gallegos-Arguijo DA, Piñeiro-Retif R, Arrambide-Gutiérrez G, et al. Impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the treatment of genitourinary tumors: real-world data from a referral center in Mexico. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:e19248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Scarberry K, Ponsky L, Cherullo E, Larchian W, Bodner D, Cooney M, et al. Evaluating the impact of the genitourinary multidisciplinary tumour board: should every cancer patient be discussed as standard of care? Can Urol Assoc J. 2018;12:E403–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Rao K, Manya K, Azad A, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D, Davis ID, et al. Uro-oncology multidisciplinary meetings at an Australian tertiary referral centre—impact on clinical decision-making and implications for patient inclusion. BJU Int. 2014;114:50–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhu S, Chen J, Ni Y, Zhang H, Liu Z, Shen P, et al. Dynamic multidisciplinary team discussions can improve the prognosis of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Prostate. 2021;81:721–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Korman H, Lanni T, Shah C, Parslow J, Tull J, Ghilezan M, et al. Impact of a prostate multidisciplinary clinic program on patient treatment decisions and on adherence to NCCN guidelines: the William Beaumont Hospital experience. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36:121–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roberts DA, Stuver R, Schillevoort I, Zerillo JA. Quality assessment of tumor boards across an academic and community cancer network. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:122–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Braulke F, Kober K, Arndt A, Papendick M, Strauss A, Kramm CM, et al. Optimizing the structure of interdisciplinary tumor boards for effective cancer care. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1072652.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ebben KCWJ, Sieswerda MS, Luiten EJT, Heijns JB, van der Pol CC, Bessems M, et al. Impact on quality of documentation and workload of the introduction of a national information standard for tumor board reporting. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020;4:346–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sociedad Española de Calidad Asistencial. La calidad de la atención sanitaria. Indicadores de efectividad clínica [Internet]. 2013. https://semergen.es/resources/files/gruposTrabajo/calidadSeguridadPaciente/indicadores_efectividad_clinica2.pdf.

  24. Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Burnand B, Aguilar MD, LaCalle JR, Lázaro P, et al. RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. Rand Health [Internet]. 2001;3439–44. http://www.rand.org.

  25. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines. Prostate v4.2023. 2023.

  26. Honecker F, Aparicio J, Berney D, Beyer J, Bokemeyer C, Cathomas R, et al. ESMO consensus conference on testicular germ cell cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1658–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Escudier B, Porta C, Schmidinger M, Rioux-Leclercq N, Bex A, Khoo V, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:706–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Horwich A, Hugosson J, de Reijke T, Wiegel T, Fizazi K, Kataja V, et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO consensus conference guidelines 2012. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1141–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Powles T, Bellmunt J, Comperat E, De Santis M, Huddart R, Loriot Y, et al. Bladder cancer: ESMO clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:244–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rolfo C, Manca P, Salgado R, Van Dam P, Dendooven A, MacHado Coelho A, et al. Multidisciplinary molecular tumour board: a tool to improve clinical practice and selection accrual for clinical trials in patients with cancer. ESMO Open. 2018;3:e000398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Behel V, Noronha V, Choughule A, Shetty O, Chandrani P, Kapoor A, et al. Impact of molecular tumor board on the clinical management of patients with cancer. JCO Glob Oncol. 2022;8:e2200030.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. El Helali A, Lam TC, Ko EYL, Shih DJH, Chan CK, Wong CHL, et al. The impact of the multi-disciplinary molecular tumour board and integrative next generation sequencing on clinical outcomes in advanced solid tumours. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2023;36:100775.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the experts who participated in the Delphi method. The authors also thank Angela Rynne Vidal, PhD, for providing medical writing services, funded by Fundación ECO.

Funding

This study was funded by Janssen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Puente

  2. Fundación ECO (Excelencia y Calidad de La Oncología), Madrid, Spain

    Javier Puente, Daniel Castellano Gauna, Ignacio Durán, Paula Gratal, María Teresa Pardo & Vicente Guillem Porta

  3. Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain

    Ferrán Algaba Arrea

  4. Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain

    Óscar Buisán Rueda

  5. Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario, 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

    Daniel Castellano Gauna

  6. Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, Santander, Spain

    Ignacio Durán

  7. Servicio de Farmacia Hospitalaria, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de La Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain

    Juan José Fernández Ávila

  8. Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital Universitario de Cruces, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Biobizkaia, Vizcaya, Spain

    Alfonso Gómez-Iturriaga

  9. Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain

    Mariano José Parada Blázquez

  10. Servicio de Urología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Daniel Pérez Fentes

  11. Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital de La Santa Creu I Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain

    Gemma Sancho Pardo

  12. Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, IMIBIC, Córdoba, Spain

    Juan Antonio Vallejo Casas

  13. Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Vithas 9 de Octubre, Valencia, Spain

    Vicente Guillem Porta

Authors
  1. Javier Puente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ferrán Algaba Arrea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Óscar Buisán Rueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Castellano Gauna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ignacio Durán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Juan José Fernández Ávila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alfonso Gómez-Iturriaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mariano José Parada Blázquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Daniel Pérez Fentes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Gemma Sancho Pardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Juan Antonio Vallejo Casas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Paula Gratal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. María Teresa Pardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Vicente Guillem Porta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javier Puente.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Javier Puente has received study funding from Roche and Pfizer; consulting fees from Pfizer, Roche, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Gilead; honoraria for lectures from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Pfizer; support for travel from Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer; and has participated on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Pfizer. Oscar Buisán Rueda has received honoraria for lectures from Astellas, Janssen, and Bayer; and support for travel from Casen Recordati, Bayer, and Astellas. Ignacio Durán has received research grants from Roche and AstraZeneca; honoraria for lectures from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Ipsen, Roche-Genentech, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, EUSA Pharma, Bayer, Novartis, Gilead, and Bayer; support for travel from MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Janssen, Bayer, and AstraZeneca; materials from Janssen; medical writing support from Roche-Genentech; and has participated on an advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Ipsen, Roche-Genentech, Astellas Pharma, EUSA Pharma, Bayer, Novartis, Eisai, Debiopharm, Pharmacyclics, and Gilead. He has a leadership or fiduciary role in GO NORTE, Germ Cell Spanish Group, and GUARD consortium. Juan José Fernández Ávila has received honoraria for lectures from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, GSK, Janssen, and Bayer; and support for attending meetings and congresses from Janssen, Astellas, and Bayer. Alfonso Gómez-Iturriaga has received honoraria for lectures from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, Novartis, and Casen Recordati; support for travel from Ipsen and Casen Recordati; and has participated on an advisory board for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, and Elekta. Gemma Sancho Pardo has received honoraria for lectures from Astellas, Janssen, and Bayer; support for attending meetings and congresses from Janssen, Astellas, Ipsen, and Casen Recordati; and has participated on an advisory board for Janssen. Daniel Pérez Fentes has received honoraria for lectures from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, and Bayer; support for attending meetings and congresses from Astellas, Janssen, Bayer, Ipsen, and Casen Recordati; and has participated on advisory boards for Janssen, Astellas Pharma, and Bayer. Juan Antonio Vallejo Casas reports receiving research funding from Sanofi, EISAI, GE, and Curium; speaker´s bureau from Sanofi, Novartis, Bayer, Eisai, and Pfizer; and consulting fees from Sanofi, Bayer, Novartis, Janssen, and Fundación BBVA. Ferrán Algaba Arrea, Daniel Castellano Gauna, Mariano José Parada Blázquez, Paula Gratal, María Teresa Pardo, and Vicente Guillem Porta report no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study did not involve humans and did not require approval by an Ethical Committee.

Informed consent

This study did not involve humans and informed consent was not necessary.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 Index cards for the 45 criteria and 26 indicators (DOCX 476 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Puente, J., Algaba Arrea, F., Buisán Rueda, Ó. et al. Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumour boards. Clin Transl Oncol 26, 1639–1646 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-024-03381-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-024-03381-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation