In recent years, a new term often appears in some large tertiary hospitals and media: multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment (MDT) of tumor. As far as I remember, this term was first introduced to China by a specialist from Zhongshan Hospital in Shanghai, and the concept of MDT alone is not something new. In layman’s terms, it means to bring together specialists from various departments related to the treatment of a certain disease, so as to give the patient an optimal treatment plan. MD Anderson in the United States has accumulated a wealth of experience in MDT. According to historical data, MDT at MD Anderson has been carried out to some extent since the establishment of the hospital in 1941, mainly in the form of Tumor Board Conference, but the real meaning of comprehensive and systematic MDT began in 1997. At that time, MD Anderson was the first in the United States to implement a comprehensive clinical pathway for oncology subspecialization, with more emphasis on collaboration among various subspecialties centered on organ systems. At the beginning of this century, MD Anderson also pioneered the application of electronic medical records and information-based medicine to push MDT into a brand new era. Using the public platform of information-based medicine, doctors in each subspecialty can access all medical information of patients (such as medical records, medications, laboratory results, pathology reports, images, surgical procedures, endoscopic images, genetic counseling reports, etc.) anytime and anywhere. Since the introduction of this model to China, it has immediately gained the admiration of peers, mainly experts from major hospitals, and many multidisciplinary cancer diagnosis and treatment collaborative groups have sprung up all over the country. It should be said that the starting point of this treatment model is good, and its purpose is to allow patients to receive the most appropriate treatment and to reduce the pain of traveling between doctors of different specialties. However, there is a phenomenon in China, that is, in learning from the advanced experience of the West is often not to learn the essence of others, but only to take its own useful points. For example, our oil prices, the ZF said our oil prices should be in line with international standards, international crude oil prices rose our refined oil prices immediately followed the rise, but when the international crude oil prices fell after our refined oil prices often to slow down a beat or even two beats. For example, the profession of doctors is a lifelong learning profession, in foreign countries doctors and nurses have a set of continuing education related regulations and assessment. Our health management department then quickly introduced this set of regulations into the country, requiring each doctor and nurse to complete a certain amount of continuing education tasks each year. But how are they assessed? The answer was to pay credits. Where do the credits come from? The answer is to attend various study classes. These classes are generally organized by major hospitals, but the credit certificates issued by the classes must be stamped by the medical association, and a fee is charged for each stamp. If you do not participate in the class can not? The answer is that the medical administration only looks at whether you have credits, as to whether you have attended the study class, whether you have listened carefully to all the classes do not care. In other words, you can buy credits to complete the annual task of continuing education. In this way, the medical management department both “with the international community” to do a lot of management, and incidentally also increased a revenue project. This is a good thing, why not? Likewise, there are deep reasons why the MDT concept was introduced to China and has been sought after by major hospitals. For doctors who are majoring in business, becoming famous and becoming a family is their goal (especially the leading directors of major tertiary hospitals). There are various ways to become famous and become a family. The most effective way is to study the business, but the results are slow. The scientific research is a shortcut, so there are so many academic papers falsification events. (I have reported some of the unit’s section leaders and ordinary colleagues academic fraud for two years. (I have been reporting academic fraud for two years.) You can not see the number of SCI articles of Chinese doctors nowadays is rising at what rate every year! MDT is much simpler than engaging in scientific research, pulling a few peers from various disciplines with similar temperaments, sitting together, each speaking a few words like “I think we should do what we do”. To be frank, MDT is a stage, set up this stage can have the opportunity to perform. Who will perform? That depends on your voice in the hospital and the department. Personally, I think MDT is a good thing, but the members of the MDT should be real experts in each specialty, not just someone who is on the right track with me and I will bring him in. If this becomes a clique, this is what Xi is most opposed to today. In addition, MDT should not be used as a pretext to generate income. Usually an oncology patient does not need to participate in MDT as long as he sees the right clinic. The key is that our doctors should have a conscience, and if they find that a patient who comes to them is not suitable for treatment in our department, they should direct him to an appropriate department. This requires each of our doctors to be proficient in the most up-to-date treatment guidelines for the diseases they treat. Of course, if you are not sure about the patient’s imaging, this is when you need to involve the imaging physician. At this point, your communication with the imaging physician is actually a joint multidisciplinary consultation. Therefore, I think the key point is: integrated multidisciplinary consultation is a concept, not just a form! It’s not that MDT has to be so many people sitting around discussing it. It depends on the condition of each patient! I have participated in MDT in my unit once or twice, and I found that the chief of surgery asked: Can this patient have a gastric tumor? The oncologist replied: No. Which doctor has the most right to say whether gastric tumor can be opened or not? To put it in another way, if the CT image of a patient with gastric cancer is considered unopenable by the oncologist, is it necessary for the surgeon to discuss it in the MDT group? Therefore, I believe that the key to the treatment of a disease is to look at the following points: First, the specialist must master sufficient professional knowledge, must keep abreast of the frontiers of the discipline and understand the latest treatment progress. Second, there must be a rigorous, scientific attitude. Do not take the treatment of patients as a means to make a profit for yourself. Patients who are suitable for treatment in their own specialty will stay for serious treatment, and those who are not suitable for treatment in their own department will be recommended to a specialty suitable for them. Those who have doubts about the diagnosis will seek advice from specialists in related departments (such as imaging and pathology). In this way, the purpose of MDT can be achieved. On the contrary, if the MDT is based on self-interest, for the sake of its own fame, and the members of the experts are mixed, it will be a name grabber. Such MDTs are not good for patients.