Search

Background: Decision-making in the management of patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma is complex and requires input from a number of different specialists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the levels of agreement in terms of resectability, treatment allocation, and organs proposed to be resected across different retroperitoneal sarcoma multidisciplinary team meetings. Methods: The CT scans and clinical information of 21 anonymized retroperitoneal sarcoma patients were sent to all of the retroperitoneal sarcoma multidisciplinary team meetings in Great Britain, which were asked to give an opinion about resectability, treatment allocation, and organs proposed to be resected. The main outcome was inter-centre reliability, which was quantified using overall agreement, as well as the chance-corrected Krippendorff's alpha statistic. Based on the latter, the level of agreement was classified as: 'slight' (0.00-0.20), 'fair' (0.21-0.40), 'moderate' (0.41-0.60), 'substantial' (0.61-0.80), or 'near-perfect' (>0.80). Results: Twenty-one patients were reviewed at 12 retroperitoneal sarcoma multidisciplinary team meetings, giving a total of 252 assessments for analysis. Consistency between centres was only 'slight' to 'fair', with rates of overall agreement and Krippendorff's alpha statistics of 85.4 per cent (211 of 247) and 0.37 (95 per cent c.i. 0.11 to 0.57) for resectability; 80.4 per cent (201 of 250) and 0.39 (95 per cent c.i. 0.33 to 0.45) for treatment allocation; and 53.0 per cent (131 of 247) and 0.20 (95 per cent c.i. 0.17 to 0.23) for the organs proposed to be resected. Depending on the centre that they had attended, 12 of 21 patients could either have been deemed resectable or unresectable, and 10 of 21 could have received either potentially curative or palliative treatment. Conclusions: Inter-centre agreement between retroperitoneal sarcoma multidisciplinary team meetings was low. Multidisciplinary team meetings may not provide the same standard of care for patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma across Great Britain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]