Lower MeDiC score is associated with non-referral to multidisciplinary team meeting discussion in bladder cancer patients: a nationwide and population-based studyShow others and affiliations
2025 (English)In: Acta Oncologica, ISSN 0284-186X, E-ISSN 1651-226X, Vol. 64, p. 616-622Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Measure of Case-Discussion Complexity (MeDiC) tool was created to gauge case complexity at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) for case selection and prioritization. We aimed to assess applicability and association with MeDiC score and non-compliance with national guideline-recommendations for MDTM referral in a bladder cancer setting.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A modified MeDiC scoring system was applied in 8955 subjects with localized (T1-T4N0M0) or metastasized disease as per the Bladder Cancer Data Base Sweden (BladderBaSe) 2.0. Association between MeDiC score and not being discussed at MDTM was investigated by multivariable logistic regression, and further explored in relation to calendar time period, healthcare region, age at diagnosis and hospital volume.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: Median total MeDiC score was lower in individuals not being discussed at an MDTM (7.0 Inter Quartile Range [IQR] 6.0-9.0) compared to those who were (8.0 IQR 6.0-10.0). Adjusted odds ratio for not being discussed at an MDTM was 2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-2.4) for a MeDiC score in the lower quartile, as compared to the highest quartile, with higher estimates when performing stratified analyses in later calendar years and in specific healthcare regions. Our data indicate that the MeDiC score is applicable in bladder cancer patients, and we identified an association between lower MeDiC score and not being discussed at an MDTM.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2025. Vol. 64, p. 616-622
Keywords [en]
Bladder cancer, multidisciplinary team meeting, treatment recommendation, guidelines, scoring system, complexity factors
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-120935DOI: 10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42756ISI: 001525636100001PubMedID: 40325792OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-120935DiVA, id: diva2:1956493
Funder
Swedish Cancer Society, CAN 22 2021Swedish Cancer Society, CAN 2023/2807Swedish Research Council, 2021-00859Region SkåneFamiljen Hjelms stiftelse för medicinsk forskningStiftelsen Gösta Jönssons forskningsfondStiftelsen Hillevi Fries forskningsfond
Note
Funding Agencies:
This work was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society (grant numbers CAN 22 2021 and CAN 2023/2807), Swedish Research Council (2021-00859), Lund Medical Faculty (ALF), the Regional Cancer Centre South, Region Skåne, Skåne University Hospital Research Funds, The Cancer Research Fund at Malmö General Hospital, Maud and Birger Gustavsson Research Foundation, The Hjelm Family Foundation for Medical research, Gösta Jönsson Research Foundation, the Foundation of Urological Research (Ove and Carin Carlsson bladder cancer donation), and Hillevi Fries Research Foundation.
2025-05-062025-05-062025-08-01Bibliographically approved