Making cancer care accessible: The practicality and value of a virtual gastrointestinal tumor board (VTB).

Abstract

652 Background: Patients with cancer benefit from coordination with multiple subspecialties, often facilitated by discussion at a multidisciplinary tumor board. This enables collaboration on individualized patient plans and offers an opportunity for education. Regrettably, not all physicians have access to a multidisciplinary team, particularly those practicing outside of an academic setting or in underserved areas. Additionally, patients may want a second opinion but are limited by resources to travel to an academic center. A virtual tumor board could be a solution for these patients and physicians. Methods: Expert gastrointestinal (GI) oncology faculty in the US gathered via a virtual tumor board panel to discuss complex cases submitted by oncology providers and trainees. Panels consisted of a moderator and GI specialists from radiology, medical, surgical, and radiation oncology. The purposes of these panels were to test the feasibility of a virtual tumor board, provide expert opinions on complex cases, and create educational content. The panel’s recommendations were shared with the submitting providers within 48 hours and the recordings made available. Afterward, submitting physicians were surveyed to assess their satisfaction with the panel’s discussion and recommendations. Results: From March to June 2021, 4 GI virtual panels were conducted with 5 expert faculty discussing 44 patient scenarios from 14 providers; 12 providers (86%) submitted multiple cases. Surveys were sent to providers with a 50% response rate. Conclusions: Virtual tumor boards are feasible and lead to a high degree of satisfaction among the users. In this small cohort of responders, management of patients changed based on the panel’s recommendations, there was a perception that learning was improved, and the providers’ internal tumor boards’ recommendations were mostly included in the VTB discussion and expanded upon. Respondents felt that the service improved the care of patients and that they would submit future cases to this forum. Additional data from a larger cohort will be more helpful in understanding the impact of this endeavor.[Table: see text]