RE: The impact of multidisciplinary cancer conferences on overall survival: a meta-analysis

Our team read the article by Huang et al. (1) with great interest because it aligns with our commitment to establishment of site-specific multidisciplinary tumor boards across our country (2). We agree with the inferences made regarding the positive impact that multidisciplinary cancer conferences have on patient survival, as discussed in cited literature. The inclusion of various cancer types and subgroup analyses offers a clear understanding of the potential benefits of multidisciplinary cancer conferences. Processes, such as evaluation of patient outcomes, encompassing diverse perspectives, coordinated care, and personalized treatment approaches may enhance the effectiveness of multidisciplinary cancer conferences.

Given our team’s keen interest in this topic, we request that the authors elaborate on the reason for exclusion of the majority of screened studies. With 2949 studies (95%) excluded out of 3089 initially screened, it would be helpful to understand the impact of these excluded studies on the overall survival stated because we believe that the quality and feasibility of conducting multidisciplinary cancer conferences can have a major impact on patient population enrollment as well as their discussion of management plans. Furthermore, the variation in the timing and frequency of multidisciplinary cancer conferences raises concerns about how these different scheduling approaches may affect patient outcomes and care (3). Studies have demonstrated that multidisciplinary cancer conferences should convene at least every 2 weeks to ensure timely patient case review (4). Also, considering the retrospective nature of the included studies, thorough analysis of factors such as demographics, clinicopathological factors, treatment, and comorbidities that could affect overall survival is also essential (5).

The article by Huang et al. (1) clearly defines the authenticity of findings through various tools and statistical tests in ensuring the consistency of the observed effect across different cancer types. The application of correction methods to address bias enhances the credibility of the findings. It is still important to interpret these findings in the context of potential limitations, such as the possibility of unmeasured confounders, referral pattern to multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and variation in patient population, because there is a significant difference in median overall survival between patients treated with multidisciplinary cancer conference intervention and individuals in the control group.

The article (1) provided compelling evidence supporting the positive effect of multidisciplinary cancer conferences on overall survival in patients with cancer, as documented in literature thus far (6). It highlights the significance of a multidisciplinary, collaborative approach on delivering holistic, coordinated care to patients with cancer. It also reinforces the importance of ongoing research and implementation of multidisciplinary cancer conferences in improving patient outcomes and quality of care.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable.

Author contributions

Bareera Shamsi, MBBS (Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing); Mariam Hina, MBBS (Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing); Sarah Akhtar, MBBS (Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing); Fabiha Shakeel, MBBS (Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing); Bilal Ahmed, MBBS (Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing); Sehrish Abrar, MBBS, FCPS II (Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing); Asim Hafiz, MBBS, FCPS II (Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing); Bilal Mazhar Qureshi, MBBS, FCPS II (Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing); Nasir Ali, MBBS, FCPS II (Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing); Ahmed Nadeem Abbasi, MBBS, FFR, RCSI, CCST (Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing).

Funding

No funding was received.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.