Evaluating Treatment Plan Modifications from Surgeons' Initial Recommendations to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Consensus for Cancer Care in a Resource-Limited Setting.

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are essential for optimizing cancer care through collaborative decision-making. However, the concordance between initial surgeons' recommendations and MTB outcomes, particularly in resource-limited settings, remains underexplored. This study evaluates the agreement between treatment plans proposed initially by surgeons and those finalized through MTB discussions conducted at the same stage of patient evaluation, with a focus on changes in treatment intent between curative and palliative care. A retrospective analysis of 216 patients discussed at bi-weekly MTB meetings between January 2021 and December 2023 at a tertiary care hospital was conducted. Statistical tests, including kappa statistics and concordance analysis were applied to assess the interrater agreement between surgeon-recommended and MTB-finalized decisions and to evaluate changes in treatment intent. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Strong concordance and significant perfect agreement were observed between curative versus palliative decisions of surgeons and MTBs, (Cohen's kappa = 0.89, p < 0.001). MTB recommendations were added to the surgeons' suggested plans in 38.4% (n = 83) of cases and replaced them entirely in 25.0% (n = 54) of cases. Shifts in treatment intent from curative to palliative or vice versa were infrequent (2.31%, n = 5), specifically in esophageal and stomach cancers. MTB decisions achieved a 100% implementation rate. This study underscores the critical role of MTBs in collaborative decision-making and their value as an essential tool for consistent, individualized, and evidence-based cancer care.