Skip to main content
. 2015 Apr 28;11(3):e267–e278. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2015.003673

Table 2.

Associations Between Tumor Board Features and Patient Outcomes, Care Processes, and Ratings of Care*

graphic file with name jop00315-3371-t2a.jpg

graphic file with name jop00315-3371-t2b.jpg

Feature All-Cause Mortality
Participated in Clinical Trial Within 15 Months of Diagnosis
Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage III Colon Cancer
Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Stage II to III Rectal Cancer
Surgery for Stage I to II NSCLC
Patient-Reported Excellent Quality of Care
Patient-Reported Top Rating of Provider Team Communication
No. of Patients No. of Physicians HR 95% CI P No. of Patients No. of Physicians OR 95% CI P No. of Patients No. of Physicians OR 95% CI P No. of Patients No. of Physicians OR 95% CI P No. of Patients No. of Physicians OR 95% CI P No. of Patients No. of Physicians OR 95% CI P No. of Patients No. of Physicians OR 95% CI P
Tumor board participation (weekly v < weekly or never) 4,555 1,181 1.0 0.9 to 1.0 .36 4,595 1,195 1.6 1.1 to 2.2 .007 586 382 1.1 0.6 to 1.9 .74 262 202 1.3 0.5 to 3.3 .60 528 246 2.9 1.3 to 6.8 .01 4,538 1,192 1.0 0.8 to 1.1 .69 3,903 1,127 0.9 0.8 to 1.0 .10

Among Tumor Board Participants, Tumor Board
Serves treatment planning function 4,202 1,076 0.9 0.9 to 1.0 .30 4,239 1,089 1.0 0.7 to 1.5 .94 545 352 1.0 0.5 to 2.1 .97 244 186 3.5 0.8 to 16.0 .10 456 219 2.2 0.99 to 4.8 .05 4,187 1,086 1.0 0.8 to 1.2 .90 3,604 1,030 1.0 0.8 to 1.2 .84
Includes evaluation of treatment decisions 4,156 1,077 1.1 0.9 to 1.3 .19 4,193 1,090 0.9 0.6 to 1.4 .63 541 350 1.0 0.3 to 3.0 .99 244 185 2.7 0.5 to 14.7 .25 445 217 3.6 1.0 to 12.5 .047 4,145 1,087 1.1 0.8 to 1.4 .48 3,570 1,032 1.0 0.7 to 1.4 .96
Reviews only challenging patient cases 4,191 1,072 0.9 0.8 to 1.0 .07 4,228 1,085 1.0 0.7 to 1.4 .94 545 351 1.8 1.0 to 3.2 .049 246 187 0.6 0.2 to 1.7 .29 455 218 0.6 0.3 to 1.3 .19 4,175 1,082 1.0 0.9 to 1.2 .97 3,592 1,027 0.9 0.8 to 1.1 .31
Reviews variety of cancer sites 4,160 1,074 1.2 1.1 to 1.4 .003 4,197 1,087 0.6 0.4 to 1.0 .05 544 351 0.9 0.3 to 2.6 .84 241 184 1.3 0.2 to 8.5 .78 444 217 0.1 0.03 to 0.4 .001 4,144 1,084 1.2 0.9 to 1.5 .24 3,571 1,028 1.3 1.0 to 1.7 .07
Serves as teaching session only 4,143 1,070 0.9 0.8 to 1.1 .45 4,180 1,083 0.8 0.5 to 1.2 .27 538 346 1.3 0.4 to 4.2 .64 245 186 2.7 0.4 to 19.6 .32 446 216 0.5 0.2 to 1.7 .29 4,133 1,081 1.0 0.8 to 1.2 .79 3,553 1,026 1.1 0.9 to 1.4 .49

NOTE. Bold font indicates statistical significance.

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio for mortality; NSCLC, non–small-cell lung cancer; OR, odds ratio; OS, overall survival; VA, Veterans Affairs.

*

Unit of analysis is patient-specified link to surgeon, medical oncologist, or radiation oncologist. Each row represents a model including one tumor board feature. Model for tumor board participation included all physicians; models for tumor board features included only physicians who reported ever participating in tumor boards. All models adjusted for physician age, sex, specialty, practice structure, teaching status, No. of patients seen per month with linked patient's cancer type, and National Cancer Institute cancer center affiliation. Also adjusted for patient age, sex, race, marital status, educational attainment, income, and No. of comorbid conditions. OS model was stratified by patient cancer type and stage. Other models adjusted for patient cancer type and stage (when more than one stage was assessed in model). Models in which outcome was clinical trial participation also adjusted for physician community clinical oncology program affiliation and baseline survey version. Models in which outcome was patient rating of care quality or provider team communication also adjusted for patient versus surrogate survey type and reported receipt of (or planned treatment with) surgery, receipt of chemotherapy, and receipt of radiation therapy. For ≤ 25 patients per model, multiple imputation was not performed for some items because of partially completed survey versions; these patients were excluded from multivariable analyses.

For analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer, radiation oncologists were excluded because of low sample size (n = 5).

For analysis of curative-intent surgery for patients with stage I to II NSCLC, model estimate for VA physician coefficient was unstable, so VA physicians and health maintenance organization physicians were grouped together for practice structure variable.