The Impact of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Patient Assessment, Management and Outcomes in Oncology Settings: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Abstract
Background Conducting regular multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings requires significant investment of time and finances. It is thus important to assess the empirical benefits of such practice. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of MDT meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings. Methods Relevant studies were identified by searching OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases from 1995 to April 2015, using the keywords: multidisciplinary team meeting* OR multidisciplinary discussion* OR multidisciplinary conference* OR case review meeting* OR multidisciplinary care forum* OR multidisciplinary tumour board* OR case conference* OR case discussion* AND oncology OR cancer. Studies were included if they assessed measurable outcomes, and used a comparison group and/or a pre- and post-test design. Results Twenty-seven articles met inclusion criteria. There was limited evidence for improved survival outcomes of patients discussed at MDT meetings. Between 4% and 45% of patients discussed at MDT meetings experienced changes in diagnostic reports following the meeting. Patients discussed at MDT meetings were more likely to receive more accurate and complete pre-operative staging, and neo-adjuvant/adjuvant treatment. Quality of studies was affected by selection bias and the use of historical cohorts impacted study quality. Conclusions MDT meetings impact upon patient assessment and management practices. Howe…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs) represent the gold standard for complex oncologic decision-making.
“Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs) represent the gold standard for complex oncologic decision-making, integrating expertise across multiple disciplines to formulate individualized treatment strategies [7,8].”
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Implementing multidisciplinary tumor boards in oncology: a narrative review
Mano, M. S., çitaku, F. T., & Barach, P. (2022) · Future Oncology · doi:10.2217/fon-2021-0471 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
How Effective Is the Multidisciplinary Team Approach in Bariatric Surgery?
Bullen, N. L., Parmar, J., Gilbert, J., Clarke, M., Cota, A., & Finlay, I. G. (2019) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11695-019-03975-5 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Asoglu, H., Kose, S., Kayim, O., Abaci, A., Khatib, G., Vardar, M. A., Kilic Bagir, E., Gumurdulu, D., Kidi, M. M., Bayram, E., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15124451 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pillay, B., Wootten, A. C., Crowe, H., Corcoran, N., Tran, B., Bowden, P., Crowe, J., & Costello, A. J.
- Affiliations
- Epworth Hospital (AU)
- The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Pillay, Brindha
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cancer Treatment Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 42
- Pages
- 56-72
- ISSN
- 0305-7372 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2193039967
- Cited by
- 704
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 75 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 10
- FWCI
- 4.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cancer Treatment Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
- Keywords
- multidisciplinary team meetings, multidisciplinary tumor board, cancer care, patient outcomes, survival, diagnostic reports, patient assessment, quality of life, patient satisfaction, cross-referral
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Medical Audit, Medicine, Neoplasm Staging, Neoplasms, Patient Care Planning, Patient Care Team, Preoperative Care, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Survival Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant, Radiotherapy, Adjuvant, Disease Management, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Interdisciplinary Communication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review