Start with the diagnosis, not the treatment
The first question an MDT discussion should answer is whether the working diagnosis is secure. For non-small cell lung cancer, that means confirming the histological type and whether the pathology report is complete enough for treatment planning. A report that only says 'lung cancer' may leave the team unable to distinguish between subtypes that behave differently and respond to different treatments.
The second question is staging. Before any local or systemic option is discussed, the team needs to know whether staging investigations are complete and internally consistent. If imaging suggests one stage but a biopsy or other test suggests another, the discussion should identify the discrepancy rather than proceed on assumption.
A practical way to frame this for the hospital is to ask: 'Based on the records we have sent, is the diagnosis and stage confirmed, or does something need to be repeated or clarified?' That question invites a specific answer instead of a general opinion.
This matters because an MDT discussion is only as good as the information in front of it. If the diagnosis or stage is uncertain, the discussion may correctly conclude that more information is needed before a plan can be recommended.
What the pathology and biomarker reports must show
Pathology and biomarker reports are central to non-small cell lung cancer planning. The discussion should confirm which tests have been done, which results are available, and whether the reports are in a form the treating team can interpret. This is not about ordering tests for the reader; it is about knowing what the existing file does and does not contain.
For pathology, the key questions are whether the report identifies the subtype, whether it comments on the adequacy of the sample, and whether any additional staining or molecular testing was requested or is still pending. If a report is a preliminary or partial version, the discussion should say so.
For biomarkers, the discussion should establish which markers were tested, what the results were, and whether the testing platform or report format is acceptable to the treating team. Different hospitals may have different requirements for how results are documented, so this is a question to confirm with the specific hospital rather than assume.
If a biomarker result is missing or unclear, the MDT discussion should answer whether it is needed before a treatment recommendation can be made, or whether a plan can proceed while further testing is arranged. That distinction changes what the patient needs to do next.
A useful question to send with the records is: 'Which pathology and biomarker results are already sufficient for your review, and which would you need to see before giving a treatment opinion?' This keeps the request specific and avoids sending an incomplete file without knowing it.
Local and systemic options: what the discussion should compare
Once the diagnosis, stage and biomarker information are clear, the MDT discussion should address which local and systemic options are realistic. Local options may include surgery or radiotherapy; systemic options may include chemotherapy, targeted therapy or immunotherapy. The discussion should explain why a particular option is being considered or set aside, not just list possibilities.
For surgery, the discussion should answer whether the disease appears resectable, what type of operation is being considered, and what the patient's general condition means for that choice. A lung lobectomy removes a lung lobe and is different from removal of an entire lung. The discussion should be explicit about which operation is proposed and why.
For systemic therapy, the discussion should connect the recommendation to the biomarker results and to any previous cancer treatment. If the patient has already received treatment elsewhere, the discussion should account for what was given, how the disease responded, and what toxicity occurred. Previous therapy is not background detail; it directly affects what can be offered next.
The discussion should also answer what is not recommended and why. A clear statement that a particular option is unsuitable, or that the evidence is uncertain, is more useful than a vague list of possibilities.
If the patient has a preference, such as wanting to avoid a particular type of treatment or prioritising a specific goal, that preference should be part of the question sent to the hospital. The MDT can then address whether the preference is compatible with the clinical picture.
What an MDT discussion cannot guarantee
An MDT discussion cannot guarantee that a hospital in China offers this format, nor can it guarantee a particular outcome. The format, the specialties involved and the way the discussion is documented vary between hospitals. The patient or coordinator should ask the hospital directly whether a multidisciplinary review is available for this case and what it includes.
It also cannot guarantee hospital acceptance. A records-based review may produce an opinion, but acceptance for treatment is a separate decision made by the treating hospital after it has assessed the patient and the records. An initial enquiry does not establish eligibility, and a review does not establish that a particular treatment is available.
The discussion also cannot replace direct clinical assessment. Some questions, such as fitness for a specific operation or tolerance of a particular therapy, may require an in-person evaluation. The MDT can identify what needs to be confirmed, but it should not be presented as a final clearance.
Finally, an MDT discussion cannot answer questions about visa, travel or scheduling rules. Those belong to the relevant authorities and providers. The clinical discussion should stay focused on the diagnosis, the options and the information still needed.
How to prepare records for a useful review
A useful MDT discussion depends on records that are complete enough to answer the clinical questions. The aim is not to send everything, but to send the documents that let the team confirm the diagnosis, stage and prior treatment.
The core items are the pathology report, biomarker or molecular testing reports, staging imaging reports, and a summary of previous cancer therapy including dates, agents and response. If a report is pending or was done at another institution, note that clearly so the team knows what is missing.
A short cover note helps. It should state the main question, such as whether surgery is an option, whether a systemic therapy is suitable, or what the next step should be. It should also list the records enclosed and flag any that are incomplete or not yet translated.
Translation is a practical point to confirm with the hospital. Ask whether reports need to be in a particular language or format, and whether the hospital can work with the versions available. This is a hospital-specific requirement, not a universal rule.
For patients considering care in China, the relevant procedure reference is lung lobectomy, which explains what that operation involves. It is a starting point for understanding one local option, not a substitute for the MDT discussion itself.
Questions to send before the discussion
The most useful preparation is a short list of questions that the hospital can answer directly. These should be specific to the case and should not assume that a particular service or format is available.
Ask whether the hospital offers a multidisciplinary review for non-small cell lung cancer, and if so, which specialties take part. Ask what records are needed before that review can take place. Ask whether the review produces a written opinion and what it covers.
Ask whether the diagnosis and stage are considered confirmed on the current records, or whether something needs to be repeated. Ask which pathology and biomarker results are sufficient and which are missing. Ask whether previous cancer therapy has been taken into account.
Ask what local and systemic options the team would consider, and what information is still needed before a recommendation can be made. Ask what cannot be answered without an in-person assessment.
Finally, ask what the next practical step is. For an overseas patient, that may be sending additional records, arranging a specialist appointment, or confirming whether a review is available at all. An initial enquiry is free and can start with a brief summary rather than a complete medical archive. The hospital decides suitability, and no outcome is guaranteed.
Sources & scope of this guide
References and official service information relevant to this guide.
This is general planning information and has not been individually reviewed by a doctor. Medical decisions and personal treatment advice come from your treating clinicians.