Validation of the Measure of Case‐Discussion Complexity and the Metric for the Observation of Decision‐Making for Streamlining Workflow and Evaluating Decision‐Making in US Tumor Boards

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for cancer care recognize multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) as a gold standard for providing quality of care for cancer patients. However, the requirements and workflow for MTBs varies across countries, influencing their roles in decision making, care efficiency, and medical education. This study compares validity and performance of MDT evaluation tools, Measure of case-Discussion Complexity (MeDiC) and Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MODe) in the UK versus US. METHODS: MeDiC, developed to assess case complexity, and MODe, designed to evaluate decision-making quality, were applied to 555 cases and 104 MTB meetings from urological and gynecological tumor boards at an academic cancer center between December 2021 and June 2024. MeDiC was used to assess clinical complexity through pathology, patient, and treatment factors, while MODe evaluated decision-making quality based on patient information and team contributions. All assessors underwent formal training. Data analysis included reliability testing using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Kappa, Cronbach's alpha, and bootstrapping was used to estimate confidence intervals for correlation estimates. RESULTS: MeDiC demonstrated good reliability (ICC = 0.849) in the US MDT and identified key factors contributing to complexity, such as malignancy and significant comorbidities. The tool also revealed that case discussion duration was not significantly associated with complexity levels. MODe similarly showed moderate reliability (ICC = 0.628), with high correlations between decision-making quality and contributions from core specialties such as medical oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of MeDiC and MODe in the US was similar to the tools' performance in the UK settings. However, case complexity metrics demonstrated significant selection of more complex cases for US MDT presentation compared to UK MDTs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancer Medicine
Published
2026-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.71970
Primary Topic
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Validation of the Measure of Case‐Discussion Complexity and the Metric for the Observation of Decision‐Making for Streamlining Workflow and Evaluating Decision‐Making in US Tumor Boards

R. D. Hammer, B.W. Lamb, K. Noyes, Wen Zhang et al.
Cancer Medicine
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
article

Validation of the Measure of Case‐Discussion Complexity and the Metric for the Observation of Decision‐Making for Streamlining Workflow and Evaluating Decision‐Making in US Tumor Boards

R. D. Hammer, B.W. Lamb, K. Noyes, Wen Zhang, M. Wallace, T. Soukup, G. Markollari, M. S. Prime, S. Perrigo, R. Ortiz, N. Lajmi, K. Stuart
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for cancer care recognize multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) as a gold standard for providing quality of care for cancer patients. However, the requirements and workflow for MTBs varies across countries, influencing their roles in decision making, care efficiency, and medical education. This study compares validity and performance of MDT evaluation tools, Measure of case-Discussion Complexity (MeDiC) and Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MODe) in the UK versus US. METHODS: MeDiC, developed to assess case complexity, and MODe, designed to evaluate decision-making quality, were applied to 555 cases and 104 MTB meetings from urological and gynecological tumor boards at an academic cancer center between December 2021 and June 2024. MeDiC was used to assess clinical complexity through pathology, patient, and treatment factors, while MODe evaluated decision-making quality based on patient information and team contributions. All assessors underwent formal training. Data analysis included reliability testing using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Kappa, Cronbach's alpha, and bootstrapping was used to estimate confidence intervals for correlation estimates. RESULTS: MeDiC demonstrated good reliability (ICC = 0.849) in the US MDT and identified key factors contributing to complexity, such as malignancy and significant comorbidities. The tool also revealed that case discussion duration was not significantly associated with complexity levels. MODe similarly showed moderate reliability (ICC = 0.628), with high correlations between decision-making quality and contributions from core specialties such as medical oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of MeDiC and MODe in the US was similar to the tools' performance in the UK settings. However, case complexity metrics demonstrated significant selection of more complex cases for US MDT presentation compared to UK MDTs.

Cancer MedicineVol. 15(6)
Roche (Switzerland) (CH), Valve (United States) (US), University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Queen Mary University of London (GB), Barts Health NHS Trust (GB), Jacobs Institute (US), University College London (GB), Imperial College London (GB), University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US), University of Missouri (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.