Start by asking what the review is meant to decide
An MDT, or multidisciplinary team discussion, is a meeting where clinicians from more than one specialty review the same case together. For pancreatic cancer this matters because the pancreas sits close to the bile duct, duodenum and major blood vessels, and because treatment decisions often involve more than one discipline. A surgeon, a medical oncologist, a radiation oncologist, a radiologist and a pathologist may each see a different part of the same picture.
The first question is not "do you have an MDT?" but "what decision should this discussion produce for my case?" A useful answer names the specific decision: whether surgery is technically possible, whether treatment should come before or after an operation, whether the disease is being treated with curative or palliative intent, or whether a clinical trial should be considered. If the reply is only that a team will "review the case," ask what output you will receive and who will explain it to you.
This is also where you should separate two things that are often confused. A records-based review can give an opinion on the material you send. It does not by itself establish that a hospital will accept you, that a particular procedure will be offered, or that any treatment is available to you. Those are separate decisions made by the treating hospital.
Confirm whether the diagnosis and stage are actually settled
Cancer stage describes the extent of disease. Staging approaches differ between cancer types, and staging helps inform treatment discussions. That means the first substantive question for any MDT is whether the stage is confirmed or still uncertain, and on what evidence. Ask which imaging was used, when it was done, and whether the pathology has been reviewed locally or only reported from your home hospital.
For pancreatic cancer specifically, the practical questions are whether the primary tumour and any spread have been characterised well enough to support a treatment plan, and whether the pathology report is complete enough for the team to rely on. If a report is missing a key element, the honest answer is that the case is not yet ready for a final recommendation. That is useful information, not a rejection.
Do not assume that a stage assigned elsewhere will simply be carried over, and do not assume it will be reassigned. Ask directly: does the team accept the existing stage, does it want the imaging or pathology reviewed again, and what would change if the stage were different? A review that cannot answer this is unlikely to give you a plan you can act on.
Ask what treatment options exist and in what order
The core of an MDT output for pancreatic cancer is a sequenced plan, not a list. Ask the team to state the options it considers realistic, the recommended order, and the reason for that order. If surgery is discussed, ask whether it is being proposed now, after other treatment, or not at all, and what would have to change for that answer to change.
Ask what the goal of each option is. Curative intent, disease control, symptom relief and participation in research are different goals, and they lead to different conversations about risk and benefit. A plan that does not name the goal is hard to consent to and hard to compare with advice you already have.
Ask what alternatives were considered and why they were set aside. This is not a challenge to the team; it is how you understand whether your case was genuinely discussed or matched to a default pathway. If you have already received treatment elsewhere, say so clearly and ask how previous oncology care affects what is being proposed now.
Establish who is responsible and how decisions will be communicated
A discussion that produces a plan but no named responsible clinician leaves you without a route for follow-up questions. Ask who will lead your care, who will explain the plan to you, and through whom future changes will be communicated. If interpretation is needed, ask how the clinical discussion will be interpreted and whether the written plan will be provided in a language you can read.
Ask what the team needs from you before it can finalise anything: imaging in a usable format, pathology slides or blocks, operative notes, treatment records, current medication lists. Ask how those items should be sent and whether anything must be translated or re-reported. Do not send passport numbers, card details or a complete archive at first contact; a short summary is enough to begin.
Ask what the team cannot decide from records alone. Some questions require an in-person examination or a test that has not yet been done. A good review states its own limits, and that statement is more useful to you than an overconfident answer.
Do not assume the hospital provides this format
No hospital is obliged to convene a multidisciplinary discussion for your case, and the fact that a department advertises complex cancer care does not prove that a formal MDT will be held. Availability, composition and scheduling are hospital-specific. Treat this as a question to confirm in writing, not as a standard feature you can rely on.
Ask plainly: will my case be discussed by more than one specialty, which specialties will take part, will the discussion happen before I travel or only after I arrive, and will I receive a written summary? If the answer is that a single specialist will review the records, that may still be useful, but it is a different product and you should know which one you are getting.
Where a review involving two or three relevant specialties can be arranged for a complex or cross-specialty case, the scope and fee are agreed first. That is a coordination arrangement, not a guarantee that the hospital will hold a formal MDT or accept you for treatment. Hospital medical fees and coordination fees are separate, and the treating hospital decides suitability.
Turn the answers into a written plan you can act on
Before you commit to travel, ask for the plan in writing. It should state the confirmed diagnosis and stage as the team understands them, the recommended option and its goal, the alternatives considered, the responsible clinician, and the next concrete step. If any of those are missing, ask which one is still open and what would close it.
Compare that document with the advice you already have. Where the two differ, ask what evidence drives the difference rather than which is "better." Differences often come from staging uncertainty, pathology interpretation or the availability of a particular treatment, and naming the reason is more useful than choosing a side.
Keep your own local care in place while you enquire. Pancreatic cancer can change quickly, and worsening symptoms need local assessment rather than a wait for an overseas reply. An initial enquiry with ChinaSpecialistCare is free: send a brief summary of the diagnosis, the main question you want answered, and the records you already have, and the team will identify what is missing and suggest the relevant next step.
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.