Table 4.
Missing data during MDT meetings per CDT
| Cancer type | CDT | Missing data-item (patient/disease characteristic) | Number of cases per CDT in study | CDT complexity scoref | Data-item missing frequency | Percentage of missing data-items per CDT under study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breast cancer | ||||||
| Primary treatment breast cancer | 67 | 26 | ||||
| cN0 risk statusa | 8 | 11.9 | ||||
| Risk on invasion (DCIS)b | 6 | 9.0 | ||||
| Post-operative adjuvant treatment breast cancer g , h | 50 | 13 | ||||
| Locoregional treatment after breast conserving therapyg | 33 | 22 | ||||
| ER-status | 1 | 3.0 | ||||
| HER2-status | 1 | 3.0 | ||||
| Local treatment after mastectomyg,h | 17 | 51 | ||||
| Regional treatment after mastectomyg,h | 17 | 25 | ||||
| Adjuvant systemic therapyg | 50 | 92 | ||||
| Menopausal statusc | 5 | 10.0 | ||||
| Metastatic diseaseh | 1 | 15 | ||||
| Colorectal cancer | ||||||
| Primary treatment colon cancer | 20 | 20 | ||||
| cT-stage | 1 | 5.0 | ||||
| Adjuvant treatment colon cancer | 15 | 25 | ||||
| Contra-indication for oxaliplatin | 3 | 20.0 | ||||
| Microsatellite status | 3 | 20.0 | ||||
| Primary treatment rectal cancer | 22 | 50 | ||||
| cT-stage | 3 | 13.6 | ||||
| Extramesorectal pathological lymph nodes | 2 | 9.1 | ||||
| Extramural invasion | 2 | 9.1 | ||||
| Tumor diameter | 1 | 4.5 | ||||
| Vascular invasion polypectomy | 1 | 4.5 | ||||
| Polypectomy performed | 1 | 4.5 | ||||
| Differentiation grade | 1 | 4.5 | ||||
| (lymph)angio-invasion | 1 | 4.5 | ||||
| Adjuvant treatment rectal cancer | 5 | 19 | ||||
| Mesorectal fascia distance | 5 | 100.0 | ||||
| Cutting edge | 1 | 20.0 | ||||
| Metastatic disease | 49 | 38 | ||||
| Number of resectable liver metastases | 6 | 12.2 | ||||
| Local treatability liver metastases | 4 | 8.2 | ||||
| Resectability of extrahepatic metastases | 2 | 4.1 | ||||
| Prostate cancer | ||||||
| Primary local treatment | 69 | 25 | ||||
| Chance of lymph node involvementd | 8 | 11.6 | ||||
| Life expectancy | 3 | 4.3 | ||||
| Number of positive biopsies | 3 | 4.3 | ||||
| EAU/ESTRO risk groupe | 1 | 1.4 | ||||
| PSA | 1 | 1.4 | ||||
| Extensiveness disease | 1 | 1.4 | ||||
| Adjuvant treatment | 2 | 12 | ||||
| Cutting edge | 1 | 50.0 | ||||
| Metastatic disease | 55 | 9 | ||||
| Localization of metastases | 4 | 7.3 | ||||
| mCRPC pre-chemotherapy h | 13 | 9 | ||||
| mCRPC post-chemotherapyh | 10 | 9 | ||||
CDT: clinical decision tree; MDT: multidisciplinary team; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ; ER-status: estrogen receptor status; HER2-status: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 Status; EAU: European Association of Urology; ESTRO: European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology; PSA: prostate-specific antigen.
N.B. In single cases, >1 data-item can be missing.
NA: not applicable.
Aggregated score contains age, HER2 status, ER-status, grade, tumor diameter.
Aggregated score contains age, palpability, MRI coloring, grade, tumor diameter.
The patients’ age in all five cases was ≥60 years and was therefore in our analyses considered as post-menopausal.
Aggregated score (prediction model) contains PSA, cT, Gleason variant 1, Gleason variant 2, Positives cores.
Aggregated score contains cN, cT, Gleason, iPSA.
CDT complexity scores method are displayed in Figure 3.
Multiple CDTs are applicable to each unique case.
These CDTs were filled in completely in all applicable cases and therefore had no missing data-items.