Actas urologicas espanolas · 2026
The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on the management of metastatic prostate cancer in a reference center.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pereira do Nascimento L A, Mariano da Costa Junior R M, Ramos Machado V, Saab Filho J J, Bueno Bavaresco M H, Panhoca R, Aparecido França W, Seabra Rios L A, Pinheiro Soares G
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The management of metastatic prostate cancer (MPC) is complex and requires timely, coordinated decision-making across multiple specialties. Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) have been increasingly adopted to optimize treatment planning, yet evidence regarding their impact on objective clinical outcomes in genitourinary cancers remains limited.
METHODS: This retrospective, single-center cohort study compared two periods of MPC care: before MDM implementation (2018-2019) and after implementation (2021-2022). Patients were identified through institutional records. Demographic data, treatment timelines, therapeutic choices, and follow-up patterns were collected. Primary outcomes included time to clinical oncology consultation, time to treatment initiation, systemic therapy use, and follow-up adherence.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients were included, 72 in the 2018-2019 period and 67 in the 2021-2022 period. There was a significant reduction in the time taken to consult clinical oncology (P < .05) and to start treatment (P < .05). Systemic therapy started predominantly in the castration-sensitive setting (70.2% vs 14.3%; P < .001). The MDM promoted a higher quality of treatment, with a greater prescription of docetaxel and novel antiandrogens (95.7% vs 64.3%; P = .001) and zoledronic acid in the castration-resistant phase (92.5% vs 79.2%; P = .047). The MDM discussion optimized follow-up, with loss to follow-up observed in only 7.5% of cases (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: The implementation of multidisciplinary team meetings significantly improved the timeliness, quality, and adherence to oncological care for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. MDMs should be incorporated as a standard component of care in institutions managing this population.
METHODS: This retrospective, single-center cohort study compared two periods of MPC care: before MDM implementation (2018-2019) and after implementation (2021-2022). Patients were identified through institutional records. Demographic data, treatment timelines, therapeutic choices, and follow-up patterns were collected. Primary outcomes included time to clinical oncology consultation, time to treatment initiation, systemic therapy use, and follow-up adherence.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients were included, 72 in the 2018-2019 period and 67 in the 2021-2022 period. There was a significant reduction in the time taken to consult clinical oncology (P < .05) and to start treatment (P < .05). Systemic therapy started predominantly in the castration-sensitive setting (70.2% vs 14.3%; P < .001). The MDM promoted a higher quality of treatment, with a greater prescription of docetaxel and novel antiandrogens (95.7% vs 64.3%; P = .001) and zoledronic acid in the castration-resistant phase (92.5% vs 79.2%; P = .047). The MDM discussion optimized follow-up, with loss to follow-up observed in only 7.5% of cases (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: The implementation of multidisciplinary team meetings significantly improved the timeliness, quality, and adherence to oncological care for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. MDMs should be incorporated as a standard component of care in institutions managing this population.