Skip to main content
. 2021 Aug 18;13(16):4159. doi: 10.3390/cancers13164159

Table 1.

Study characteristics.

Author & Year Cancer Type Country Aim Hospital Type Study Design Inclusion Period Participants
Acher et al., 2005 [48] Urological cancers (prostate cancer) UK To examine the impact of MDTM on changes in management. William Harvey Hospital (General hospital) Prospective cohort study 6 months (date not specified) 124 discussions
Anania et al., 2019 [17] Colorectal cancer (rectal cancer) Italy To compare the multidisciplinary experience group with the previous approach before the advent of the multidisciplinary program. S. Anna Hospital (University hospital) Retrospective before–after study February 2007–April 2017
MDTM implementation in 2012
Non-MDTM: 45 patients
MDTM: 51 patients
Total: 96 patients
Boxer et al., 2011 [38] Lung cancer Australia To evaluate the impact of MDTMs by comparing patterns of care among patients who were presented at an MDTM with those who were not presented at a meeting during the same period. The Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer therapy centers (General hospital) Prospective case-control study 1 December 2005–31 December 2008 Non-MDTM: 484 patients
MDTM: 504 patients
Total: 988 patients
Brandão et al., 2020 [55] Breast cancer Mozambique To assess the impact of implementing an MDTM on the cost-effectiveness, care and survival. Maputo Central hospital (General Hospitals) Prospective before–after study January 2015 and August 2017
Follow-up until November 2019
MDTM implementation: March 2016
Non-MDTM: 98 patients
MDTM: 107 patients
Total: 205 patients
Bydder et al., 2009 [39] Non-small cell lung cancer Australia To examine the proportion of patients that is discussed by the MDTM and the impact on the treatment and survival. Sir Charles Gairdner
Hospital (Tertiary Hospitals)
Prospective case-control study 2006
Follow-up until 31 March 2008
Non-MDTM: 17 patients
MDTM: 81 patients
Total: 98 patients
Chen et al., 2018 [18] Colorectal cancer with lung or liver metastasis Taiwan To investigate whether MDTM intervention is associated with improved survival. Wan Fang Hospital (University hospital) Case-control study January 2007–December 2017
Mean follow-up: 84 months ± 35 months
Non-MDTM: 86 patients
MDTM: 75 patients
Total: 161 patients
Chinai et al., 2013 Colorectal cancer UK To evaluate the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of a MDTM. Derriford Hospital
Plymouth Hospitals (General hospitals)
Prospective cohort study 3 months (date not specified) 47 patients
De Luca et al., 2019 [49] Prostate cancer Italy To investigate the impact on clinical management of the uro-oncology MDTM. San Luigi Hospital (Tertiary hospital) Prospective cohort study Jan 2016–June 2017 201 patients/272 discussions
El Khoury et al., 2016 [50] Urological cancers (prostate cancer) Lebanon To examine the impact of MDTMs on the management decision for urological cancers. Notre-Dame de Secours University Medical Centre (University hospital) Prospective cohort study July 2012–July 2014. Prostate: 82 patients
Fernando et al., 2017 [20] Colorectal cancer New Zealand The primary objective to determine which patients benefit most from MDTMs, and secondarily to determine whether there was a group of patients which could be managed by protocol without discussion at the MDTM. Christchurch Hospital (Tertiary hospital) Prospective case-control study 1 September 2013–1 November 2014 Non-MDTM: 182 patients
MDTM: 459 patients
Total: 641 patients
Foucan et al., 2020 [37] Colorectal cancer (colon cancer) France To evaluate the factors associated with the non-presentation in MDTM, and to assess the association between non-MDTM and therapeutic care management. Multicenter Retrospective case-control study 2010 (date not specified) Non-MDTM: 142 patients
MDTM: 431 patients
Total: 573 patients
Freeman et al., 2015 [40] Non-small cell lung cancer US To compare quality and cost metrics for propensity-matched MDTM patients to patients without access to such care coordination across a geographically diverse system of hospitals. Multicenter Retrospective case-control study 2008–2012 (date not specified) Non-MDTM: 6627 patients
MDTM: 6627 patients
Total: 13,254 patients
Hung et al., 2020 [46] Non-small cell lung cancer Taiwan To prove MDTM discussion could prolong the average time of survival for patients with stage III NSCLC. Taipei Veterans General Hospital (General hospital) Retrospective before–after study January 2013–December 2018
MDTM implementation February 2016
Non-MDTM: 273 patients
MDTM: 242 patients
Total: 515 patients
Jung et al., 2018 [21] Colorectal cancer Korea To assess the impact of MDTM on clinical decision making. Asan Medical Center (Tertiary hospital) Prospective cohort study 1 January 2011–31 December 2014 1383 patients
Karagkounis et al., 2018 [22] Colorectal cancer (rectal cancer) US To determine the frequency and manner in which MDTM changed the management of patients. Cleveland clinic (University hospital) Prospective cohort study July 2015–June 2016 316 patients/414 discussions
Kurpad et al., 2011 [51] Genitourinary cancers (prostate cancer) US To study the effect of MDTMs on the diagnosis and treatment decisions of new patients. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center (University hospital) Prospective cohort study June 2007–June 2008 Prostate: 92 patients
Lan et al., 2016 [23] Colorectal cancer Taiwan Analyzing and comparing the outcomes of colorectal cancer patients with metastatic disease before and after the era of MDTM. Taipei Veterans General Hospital (Tertiary hospital) Before–after study January 2001–December 2010
MDTM implementation: October 2007
Non-MDTM: 636 patients
MDTM: 439 patients
Total: 1075 patients
MacDermid et al., 2009 [24] Colorectal cancer UK To assess the effect of this on patient’s survival, and trends in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Royal Alexandra Hospital (General hospital) Before–after study January 1997–December 2005
MDTM implementation: June 2002
Non-MDTM: 176 patients
MDTM: 134 patients
Total: 310 patients
Maurizi et al., 2017 [36] Colorectal cancer (rectal cancer) Italy To evaluate the improvements on rectal cancer treatment outcomes after the introduction of the MDTMs. Carlo Urbani hospital (General hospital) Before–after study January 2014–December 2015
MDTM implementation: January 2015
Non-MDTM: 30 patients
MDTM: 35 patients
Total: 65 patients
Munro et al., 2015 [25] Colorectal cancer UK To review the effect of MDTM, and implementation of recommendations, on survival. Hospitals in Tayside region in Eastern Scotland (General hospitals) Case-control study 1 January 2006–31 December 2007
Mean follow-up: 73.3 months
Non-MDTM: 175 patients
MDTM: 411 patients
Total: 586 patients
Murthy et al., 2014 [54] Breast US To investigate the role of MDTM on patient management and how this led to treatment modifications. Saint Barnabas Medical Center (General hospital) Prospective cohort study June 2010–June 2011 242 patients
Muthukrishnan et al., 2020 [47] Lung cancer US To investigate whether
early MDTM discussions affected the time required to complete a lung cancer evaluation.
Metrohealth Medical Center (University hospital) Retrospective case-control study December 2015–January 2017 Non-MDTM: 106 patients
MDTM: 55 patients
Total: 161 patients
Nikolovski et al., 2017 [26] Colorectal cancer Australia To determine whether the introduction of MDTM altered the length of time to treatment. Geelong Hospital (University hospital) Before–after study 1 January 2006–3 February 2011 Non-MDTM
Historical control: 56 patients
Non-MDTM: 259 patients
MDTM: 82 patients
Total: 397 patients
Palmer et al., 2011 [27] Colorectal cancer (rectal cancer) Sweden To assess outcome in relation to preoperative local and distant staging, with or without MDTM. Hospitals in Stockholm-Gotland region (University hospitals) Prospective case-control study 1995–2004
Follow-up: March 2008
Non MDTM: 99 patients
MDTM: 65 patients
Total: 303 patients
Pan et al., 2015 [41] Non-small cell lung cancer Taiwan To analyze the factors affecting survival, at each stage of NSCLC. Multicenter Retrospective cohort study 2005–2011 Non-MDTM: 27,937 patients
MDTM: 4632 patients
Total: 32,569 patients
Rao et al., 2014 [52] Urological cancers (prostate cancer) Australia To analyze the impact of the uro-oncology MDTMs on patient management decisions, and to develop criteria for patient inclusion in MDTMs. Austin Hospital (Tertiary hospital) Prospective cohort study 3 month period in 2012 (date not specified) Prostate: 47 discussions
Richardson et al., 2016 [28] Colorectal cancer (rectal cancer) US To assess whether MDTM participation improves process evaluation, outcomes and technical aspects of surgery. Baylor University Medical Center (University hospital) Retrospective before–after study 2011–2014
MDTM implementation: January 2013
Non-MDTM: 42 patients
MDTM (2013): 41 patients
MDTM (2014): 47 patients
Total: 130 patients
Ryan et al., 2014 [29] Colorectal cancer Australia To evaluate prospectively the colorectal MDTM to determine the utility of the meeting. Western Health Melbourne (General hospital) Prospective cohort study 6 months (date not specified) 197 patients/261 discussions
Scarberry et al., 2018 [53] Genitourinary cancers (prostate cancer) US To prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of MDTM on altering treatment plans. University hospital Cleveland Medical Center (University hospital) Prospective cohort study September 2011–April 2013 Prostate cancer: 125 patients
Schmidt et al., 2015 [42] Thoracic cancer (lung cancer) US To analyze the actual impact of MDTM presentation on decision making in thoracic cancer cases. Virginia Mason Medical Center (General hospital) Prospective cohort study 1 June 2010–31 December 2012 Lung cancer: 294 patients (451 discussions)
Snelgrove et al., 2015 [30] Colorectal cancer (rectal cancer) Canada To assess:
(1) the quality of MDTM,
(2) the effect of MDTM on the initial treatment plan, (3) compliance with the MDTM treatment recommendation and
(4) clinical outcomes.
Mount Sinai Hospital (University hospital) Prospective cohort study 1 September 2012–30 June 2013 42 patients
Stone et al., 2018 [43] Lung cancer Australia To evaluate outcomes including survival, according to MDTM presentation and to explore the utility of data obtained from local clinical sources. St Vincent’s Hospital (University hospital) Prospective case-control study 1 January 2006–31 December 2012
Follow-up: 23 May 2014.
Non-MDTM: 295 patients
MDTM: 902 patients
Total: 1197 patients
Swellengrebel et al., 2011 [31] Colorectal cancer (rectal cancer) The Netherlands To evaluate the additional value of MDTM discussion, with the occurrence of a positive CRM as an endpoint. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Netherlands cancer Institute (Tertiary hospital) Case-control study January 2006–January 2008 Non- MDTM: 94 patients
MDTM: 116 patients
Total: 210 patients
Tamburini et al., 2018 [44] Non-small cell lung cancer Italy To evaluate the impact of MDTM on survival of patients undergoing surgery for NSCLC. Ferrara University Hospital (University hospital) Before–after study January 2008–December 2015
MDTM implementation: 2012
Non-MDTM: 246 patients
MDTM: 186 patients
Total: 432 patients
Tsai et al., 2020 [56] Breast cancer Taiwan To investigate the influence of MDTM on the risk of recurrence and death. Multicenter Retrospective case-control study 2004–2010 Non-MDTM: 9266 patients
MDTM: 9266 patients
Total: 18,532 patients
Ung et al., 2016 [45] Lung cancer Australia To measure the impact of MDTM on clinicians’ management plans, and the implementation rate of the meeting recommendations. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (Tertiary referral center) Prospective cohort study March–May 2011 68 patients
Vaughan-Shaw et al., 2015 [32] Colorectal cancer (rectal cancer) UK To assess the impact of the introduction of a specialist early rectal cancer MDTM on the investigation and management of rectal cancer. Cheltenham General Hospital (General hospital) Before–after study 24 months (2006 and 2011)
MDTM implementation: 2011
Non-MDTM: 19 patients
MDTM: 24 patients
Total: 43 patients
Wanis et al., 2017 [33] Colorectal cancer with liver metastasis Canada To determine the access to and association between MDTM review and management amongst patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases. London Health Sciences Centre (University Hospital) Retrospective case-control study January 2008–June 2015 Non-MDTM: 37 patients
MDTM: 29 patients
Total: 66 patients
Wille-Jørgensen et al., 2013 [34] Colorectal cancer (rectal cancer) Denmark To compare the outcomes of patients before and after the establishment of MDTMs in the two surgical departments in Copenhagen. Bispebjerg and Hvidovre Hospitals (University hospitals) Before–after study 1 May 2001–31 August 2006
MDTM implementation: September 2004
Non-MDTM: 467 patients
MDTM: 344 patients
Total: 811 patients
Yang et al., 2020 [57] Breast cancer China To identify which clinicopathological
characteristics may influence compliance with MDTM recommendations, and to evaluate whether MDTM compliance affects
the prognosis of early breast cancer.
Shanghai Ruijin Hospital (General hospital) Retrospective cohort study April 2013–August 2018
Mean follow-up: 32.75 months
4501 patients
Ye et al., 2012 [35] Colorectal cancer China To assess the effect on management of colorectal cancer after the inception of an MDTM. Peking University People’s Hospital (University hospital) Before–after study January 1999–September 2006
MDTM implementation:
December 2002
Non-MDTM: 297 patients
MDTM: 298 patients
Total: 595 patients

MDTM = multidisciplinary team meeting, NSCLC = non-small cell lung cancer, UK = United Kingdom, US = United States. Study design definitions: Cohort study = comparisons in outcomes made within one cohort; Before–after study = comparison of control group (no-MDTM) and MDTM group before and after implementation of MDTMs; Case-control study = comparison of control group (no-MDTM) with MDTM group, within the same time period.