Assessment of inter-centre agreement across multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma.

BACKGROUND Decision-making in the management of patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma is complex and requires input from a number of different specialists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the levels of agreement in terms of resectability, treatment allocation, and organs proposed to be resected across different retroperitoneal sarcoma multidisciplinary team meetings. METHODS The CT scans and clinical information of 21 anonymized retroperitoneal sarcoma patients were sent to all of the retroperitoneal sarcoma multidisciplinary team meetings in Great Britain, which were asked to give an opinion about resectability, treatment allocation, and organs proposed to be resected. The main outcome was inter-centre reliability, which was quantified using overall agreement, as well as the chance-corrected Krippendorff's alpha statistic. Based on the latter, the level of agreement was classified as: 'slight' (0.00-0.20), 'fair' (0.21-0.40), 'moderate' (0.41-0.60), 'substantial' (0.61-0.80), or 'near-perfect' (>0.80). RESULTS Twenty-one patients were reviewed at 12 retroperitoneal sarcoma multidisciplinary team meetings, giving a total of 252 assessments for analysis. Consistency between centres was only 'slight' to 'fair', with rates of overall agreement and Krippendorff's alpha statistics of 85.4 per cent (211 of 247) and 0.37 (95 per cent c.i. 0.11 to 0.57) for resectability; 80.4 per cent (201 of 250) and 0.39 (95 per cent c.i. 0.33 to 0.45) for treatment allocation; and 53.0 per cent (131 of 247) and 0.20 (95 per cent c.i. 0.17 to 0.23) for the organs proposed to be resected. Depending on the centre that they had attended, 12 of 21 patients could either have been deemed resectable or unresectable, and 10 of 21 could have received either potentially curative or palliative treatment. CONCLUSIONS Inter-centre agreement between retroperitoneal sarcoma multidisciplinary team meetings was low. Multidisciplinary team meetings may not provide the same standard of care for patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma across Great Britain.

[1]  S. Strauss,et al.  Primary retroperitoneal sarcoma: A comparison of survival outcomes in specialist and non-specialist sarcoma centres. , 2023, European journal of cancer.

[2]  S. Litière,et al.  Preoperative Radiotherapy in Patients With Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma , 2022, Annals of surgery.

[3]  S. Bonvalot,et al.  Histology-tailored multidisciplinary management of primary retroperitoneal sarcomas. , 2022, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[4]  G. Spolverato,et al.  Oncological outcomes after major vascular resections for primary retroperitoneal liposarcoma. , 2021, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[5]  John E. Mullinax,et al.  Management of Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma (RPS) in the Adult: An Updated Consensus Approach from the Transatlantic Australasian RPS Working Group , 2021, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[6]  J. Blay,et al.  Preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (EORTC-62092: STRASS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. , 2020, The Lancet. Oncology.

[7]  A. Gronchi,et al.  Inoperable Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcomas: Clinical Characteristics and Reasons Against Resection at a Single Referral Institution , 2020, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[8]  M. L. Specchia,et al.  The impact of tumor board on cancer care: evidence from an umbrella review , 2020, BMC Health Services Research.

[9]  R. J. Haas,et al.  Multicentre study of multidisciplinary team assessment of pancreatic cancer resectability and treatment allocation , 2019, The British journal of surgery.

[10]  J. Blay,et al.  Surgery in reference centers improves survival of sarcoma patients: a nationwide study , 2019, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[11]  John E. Mullinax,et al.  Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the surgical management of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma. , 2018, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[12]  S. Bonvalot,et al.  Variability in Patterns of Recurrence After Resection of Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma (RPS): A Report on 1007 Patients From the Multi-institutional Collaborative RPS Working Group , 2016, Annals of surgery.

[13]  F. Davidoff,et al.  SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process , 2015, BMJ Quality & Safety.

[14]  L. Mariani,et al.  Personalizing the Approach to Retroperitoneal Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Histology-specific Patterns of Failure and Postrelapse Outcome after Primary Extended Resection , 2015, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[15]  L. Mariani,et al.  Frontline extended surgery is associated with improved survival in retroperitoneal low- to intermediate-grade soft tissue sarcomas. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[16]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[17]  J. Blay,et al.  Primary retroperitoneal sarcomas: a multivariate analysis of surgical factors associated with local control. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  C. Mussi,et al.  Aggressive surgical policies in a retrospectively reviewed single-institution case series of retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma patients. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  J. Petty,et al.  Beyond doughnuts: tumor board recommendations influence patient care. , 2002, Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education.