The Significance of a “MGUS” Tumor Board

Abstract

Our large academic medical center consists of both a main campus and several regional sites that all offer hematology/oncology services where monoclonal gammopathy cases are referred for consultation. We receive well over 100 requests annually to see cases with abnormal monoclonal proteins. The challenge was how to triage these requests, with the goal of improving patient access to main campus myeloma experts while improving patient care and timely management. We decided to schedule cases initially referred for monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) with our advanced practice providers (APPs) both in the region and at main campus. Due to the concern for varying experience managing MGUS, differences in diagnostic practice and limited guidance we developed a novel concept to have a tumor board to review MGUS cases that were initially seen by our APPs. The “MGUS” tumor board is ran by three of our main campus myeloma focused hematologists and our myeloma dedicated APRN-PhD. We meet twice a month to review cases. Over the past 2 years we reviewed 147 cases providing recommendations for further work up. Of these, 41 cases (28%) were found to have a clinically significant monoclonal protein necessitating referral to a physician at main campus. The breakdown of these cases are detailed below in T able 1. Sixteen patients (11%) were started on treatment, the other 25 (17%) remained on observation. Another aspect of the tumor board is to provide education regarding clinically significant scenarios that involve monoclonal proteins. This tumor board offers CME credit for both APPs and physicians. By developing a team of knowledgeable APPs we have shifted 72% of monoclonal gammopathy referrals to remain under the care of APPs which improved access to main campus myeloma physician experts. This allowed the myeloma team at main campus to see more second opinions, open more clinical trials and expand our cell-therapy options for patients. Our referral base has grown and we have hired more APPs in the region and two additional myeloma physicians at main campus since starting the “MGUS” tumor board. Overall, we were successful in transitioning “MGUS” referrals to our APPs, but there were higher than expected percent of patients with clinically significant monoclonal proteins. Our data shows that it is essential for there to be some standardization for reviewing and working up “MGUS” referrals. This is especially important at large centers with multiple regional locations. We recommend a tumor board style review as it allows for discussion and education of “MGUS” referrals which prove to be far more complex in many cases.