Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Involvement of radiologists in oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings : an international survey by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging
Authors: Neri, Emanuele
Gabelloni, Michela
Bäuerle, Tobias
Beets-Tan, Regina
Caruso, Damiano
D'Anastasi, Melvin
Dinkel, Julien
Fournier, Laure S.
Gourtsoyianni, Sofia
Hoffmann, Ralf-Thorsten
Mayerhöfer, Marius Erik
Regge, Daniele
Schlemmer, Heinz Peter
Laghi, Andrea
Keywords: Tumors -- Diagnosis
Cancer -- Imaging
Radiologists -- Attitudes -- Case studies
Cancer -- Patients -- Care
Issue Date: 2021
Publisher: Springer
Citation: Neri, E., Gabelloni, M., Bäuerle, T., Beets-Tan, R., Caruso, D., D’Anastasi, M.,...Laghi, A. (2021). Involvement of radiologists in oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings: an international survey by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging. European Radiology, 31(2), 983-991.
Abstract: Objectives: Multidisciplinary tumour boards (MTBs) play an increasingly important role in managing cancer patients from diagnosis to treatment. However, many problems arise around the organisation of MTBs, both in terms of organisation-administration and time management. In this context, the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) conducted a survey among its members, aimed at assessing the quality and amount of involvement of radiologists in MTBs, their role in it and related issues.
Methods: All members were invited to fill in a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions with both open and multiple-choice answers. Simple descriptive analyses and graphs were performed.
Results: A total of 292 ESOI members in full standing for the year 2018 joined the survey. Most respondents (89%) declared to attend MT-Bs, but only 114 respondents (43.9%) review over 70% of exams prior to MTB meetings, mainly due to lack of time due to a busy schedule for imaging and reporting (46.6%). Perceived benefits (i.e. surgical and histological feedback (86.9%), improved knowledge of cancer treatment (82.7%) and better interaction between radiologists and referring clinicians for discussing rare cases (56.9%)) and issues (i.e. attending MTB meetings during regular working hours (71.9%) and lack of accreditation with continuing medical education (CME) (85%)) are reported.
Conclusions: Despite the value and benefits of radiologists’ participation in MTBs, issues like improper preparation due to a busy schedule and no counterpart in CME accreditation require efforts to improve the role of radiologists for a better patient care.
Appears in Collections:Scholarly Works - FacM&SCRNM

Items in OAR@UM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.