Do multidisciplinary team meetings make a difference in the management of lung cancer?

2024 multidisciplinary consensus on image-guided lung tumor ablation from the Taiwan Academy of Tumor Ablation

In this article, the multidisciplinary team of the Taiwan Academy of Tumor Ablation, who have expertise in treating lung cancer, present their perspectives on percutaneous image-guided thermal ablation (IGTA) of lung tumors. The modified Delphi technique was applied to reach a consensus on clinical practice guidelines concerning ablation procedures, including a comprehensive literature review, selection of panelists, creation of a rating form and survey, and arrangement of an in-person meeting where panelists agreed or disagreed on various points. The conclusion was a final rating and written summary of the agreement. The multidisciplinary expert team agreed on 10 recommendations for the use of IGTA in the lungs. These recommendations include terms and definitions, line of treatment planning, modality, facility rooms, patient anesthesia settings, indications, margin determination, post-ablation image surveillance, qualified centers, and complication ranges. In summary, IGTA is a safe and feasible approach for treating primary and metastatic lung tumors, with a relatively low complication rate. However, decisions regarding the ablation technique should consider each patient's specific tumor characteristics.

Multidisciplinary meeting review in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer diagnosis, staging and treatment may be enhanced by multidisciplinary participation and presentation in multidisciplinary meetings (MDM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore literature evidence of clinical impacts of MDM exposure.

METHODS

A study protocol was registered (PROSPERO identifier CRD42021258069). Randomised controlled trials and observational cohort studies including adults with nonsmall cell lung cancer and who underwent MDM review, compared to no MDM, were included. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 31 May 2021. Studies were screened and extracted by two reviewers. Outcomes included time to diagnosis and treatment, histological confirmation, receipt of treatments, clinical trial participation, survival and quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool.

RESULTS

2947 citations were identified, and 20 studies were included. MDM presentation significantly increased histological confirmation of diagnosis (OR 3.01, 95% CI 2.30-3.95; p<0.00001) and availability of clinical staging (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.43-4.56; p=0.002). MDM presentation significantly increased likelihood of receipt of surgery (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.29-3.12; p=0.002) and reduced the likelihood of receiving no active treatment (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50; p=0.01). MDM presentation was protective of both 1-year survival (OR 3.23, 95% CI 2.85-3.68; p<0.00001) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.55-0.72; p<0.00001).

DISCUSSION

MDM presentation was associated with increased likelihood of histological confirmation of diagnosis, documentation of clinical staging and receipt of surgery. Overall and 1-year survival was better in those presented to an MDM, although there was some clinical heterogeneity in participants and interventions delivered. Further research is required to determine the optimal method of MDM presentation, and address barriers to presentation.

Utilisation of radiotherapy in lung cancer: A scoping narrative literature review with a focus on the introduction of evidence-based therapeutic approaches in Europe

Background and purpose

The aim of this study was to review the published studies on the utilisation of radiotherapy in lung cancer (both small and non-small cell lung cancer, SCLC and NSCLC) patients in European countries with a population-based perspective.

Material and methods

A literature search since January 2000 until December 2022 was carried out. Only English-published papers were included, and only European data was considered. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A scoping narrative review was undertaken due to the hetereogeneity of the published papers.

Results

38 papers were included in the analysis, with the majority from the Netherlands (52.6%) and the UK (18.4%). Large variability is observed in the reported radiotherapy utilisation, around 40% for NSCLC in general and between 26 and 42% in stage I NSCLC. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) shows a wide range of utilisation across countries and over time, from 8 to 63%. Similary, in stage III lung cancer, chemoradiotherapy (CRT) utilisation varied considerably (11-70%). Eleven studies compared radiotherapy utilisation between older and younger age-groups, showing that younger patients receive more CRT, while the opposite applies for SBRT. An widespreadlack of data on relevant covariates such as comorbidty and health-services related variables is observed.

Conclusion

The actual utilisation of radiotherapy for lung cancer reported in patterns-of-care studies (POCs) is notably lower than the evidence-based optimal utilisation. Important variability is observed by country, time period, stage at diagnosis and age. A wider use of POCs should be promoted to improve our knowledge on the actual application of evidence-based treatment recommendations.

Quality Measures for Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards and Their Role in Improving Cancer Care

While multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are widely used in managing patients with cancer, their impact on patient care and outcome is not routinely measured in different settings. The authors conducted a literature review in Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and Web of Science using the following keywords: cancer, multidisciplinary, tumor board, quality performance indicator, lung cancer, and lymphoma. Standards from various accreditation and professional organizations were reviewed to compile relevant standards for MTB. A list of quality performance indicators that can be used to improve MTBs' performance and impact was compiled. Specific examples for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer MTBs were presented. Guidance was provided to help MTB team members select implement the appropriate quality measures. The functions and impact of MTBs should be monitored and evaluated by a set of measures that help guide MTBs to improve their performance and provide better care to their patients.

The Best Supportive Care in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents most lung cancer cases, and approximately one-third of patients present with stage III disease at diagnosis. As multiple treatment plans can be adopted for these patients depending on tumor size and nodal staging, stage III NSCLC management is challenging. Over the past decades, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have been implemented in healthcare services to coordinate actions among the different health care professionals involved in cancer care. The aim of this review was to discuss real-world evidence of the impact of MDTs on stage III NSCLC management, survival, and quality of life. Here, we performed a literature review to investigate the role of nutrition and navigational nursing in NSCLC care and the influence of MDTs in the choice of treatment plans, including immunotherapy consolidation, and in the management of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-related adverse events. We also performed a mapping review to identify gaps in the implementation of cancer care MDTs in healthcare services around the world.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations for the Management of Operable Stage II/III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of a Modified Delphi Process

The treatment paradigm for patients with stage II/III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving. We performed a modified Delphi process culminating at the Early-stage Lung cancer International eXpert Retreat (ELIXR23) meeting held in Montreal, Canada, in June 2023. Participants included medical and radiation oncologists, thoracic surgeons and pathologists from across Quebec. Statements relating to diagnosis and treatment paradigms in the preoperative, operative and postoperative time periods were generated and modified until all held a high level of consensus. These statements are aimed to help guide clinicians involved in the treatment of patients with stage II/III NSCLC.

Does Multidisciplinary Team Management Improve Clinical Outcomes in NSCLC? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The implementation of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) has been found to be effective for improving outcomes in oncology. Nevertheless, there is still a dearth of robust literature on patients with NSCLC. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review regarding the impact of MDTs on patient with NSCLC outcomes.

Methods

Databases were systematically searched up to February 2023. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa and certainty of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Overall survival was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of survival, progression-free survival, time from diagnosis to treatment, complete staging, treatment received, and adherence to guidelines. A meta-analysis with a random-effect model was performed. Statistical analysis was performed with the R 3.6.2 package.

Results

A total of 22 studies were included in the systematic review. Ten outcomes were identified, favoring the MDT group over the non-MDT group. Pooled analysis revealed that patients managed by MDTs had better overall survival (three studies; 38,037 participants; hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.75, I2 = 78%), shorter treatment time compared with patients in the non-MDT group (six studies; 15,235 participants; mean difference = 12.20 d, 95% CI: 10.76-13.63, I2 = 63%), and higher proportion of complete staging (four studies; 14,925 participants; risk ratio = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.17-1.57, I2 = 89%).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis revealed that MDT-based patient care was associated with longer overall survival and better quality-of-care-related outcomes.

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Effect of digital-enabled multidisciplinary therapy conferences on efficiency and quality of the decision making in prostate cancer care

Objectives

To investigate the impact on efficiency and quality of preprostatectomy multidisciplinary therapy conferences (MDT) at Karolinska University Hospital related to the use of a digital solution compared with standard of care. Further, to explore whether gains in MDT efficiency and quality impact oncological or functional patient outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, observational study of preoperative prostate cancer MDT at Karolinska between February 2017 and March 2021, including 1329 patients. We compared efficiency and quality of the standard MDT and the MDT using the digital solution IntelliSpace Precision Medicine Multidisciplinary Team Orchestrator (ISPM) based on the previously used MDT-MODe approach. Clinical and patient-reported functional outcomes were derived from the medical records and the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register.

Results

While ISPM was used during the MDT meeting, the time spent per patient was reduced by 24% (p<0.001) and most of the MDT-MODe items were scored significantly higher. There was a reduction in pelvic lymph-node dissection procedures in the ISPM cohort (p=0.001) and an increased proportion of unilateral nerve-sparing procedures (p=0.005), while all other outcome-related measures were not significantly different between the two patient groups.

Discussion and conclusion

To increase the value of the MDT, all data relevant for treatment decision need to be purposefully presented and compiled, which also enables secondary use of the data.

The use of a digital solution during preoperative MDTs for prostate cancer decision making at Karolinska University Hospital improved the efficiency and quality of this multidisciplinary team meeting without impacting patient outcomes.

Patterns of curative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer in New South Wales, Australia

INTRODUCTION

There is a lack of large population-based studies examining patterns of curative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Australia. This study aimed to evaluate the utilization of curative treatment for NCSLC at a population level and identify factors associated with its use in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with localized or locoregional NSCLC between 2009 and 2014 were identified from the NSW Central Cancer Registry. Curative treatment was defined as surgery or radiotherapy with a 45 Gy minimum dose. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate factors associated with the receipt of curative treatment. A Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to analyze the factors associated with 2-year overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of the 5722 patients diagnosed with NSCLC in the study period, 3355 (59%) patients received curative treatment and 2367 (41%) patients did not receive curative treatment. The receipt of curative treatment was significantly associated with younger patients, female gender, localized disease, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) = 0. The use of curative treatment increased significantly over time from 2009 (55%) to 2014 (63%) and varied significantly from 24% to 70% between local health districts (LHDs) of residence. Younger age, female gender, localized disease, CCI = 0, and overseas country of birth were significantly associated with 2-year OS. The 2-year OS significantly improved from 70% in 2009 to 77% in 2014 for patients who received curative treatment.

CONCLUSION

The use of curative treatment for patients with potentially curable NSCLC was low at 59%. However, the use of curative treatment and survival have increased over time. Significant variation was noted in the use of curative treatment between LHDs.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of KINDLE-Vietnam Cohort

Objective

KINDLE-Vietnam was a part of a real-world KINDLE study with an aim to characterise treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Materials and Methods

Retrospective data from patients diagnosed with stage III NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer, 7^th edition) between January 2013 and December 2017 with at least 9 months of follow-up were collected from 2 centres in Vietnam. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise demographics, disease characteristics and treatment modalities. Kaplan-Meier methodology evaluated survival estimates; 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. Inferential statistics were used to correlate clinical and treatment variables with median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS).

Results

A total of 150 patients (median age: 60 years [range 26-82]) were enrolled; 75.3% were male, 62.0% had smoking history, 56.4% had stage IIIB disease and 62.5% had adenocarcinoma. The majority of the cases (97.3%) were not discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting. Overall, chemotherapy alone (43.3%), radiotherapy alone (17.0%), sequential chemoradiation (13.5%) and concurrent chemoradiation (12.8%) were preferred as initial therapy. Surgery-based treatment was administered in limited patients (stage IIIA, 10%; stage IIIB, 1.3%). Palliative therapy was the most commonly administered treatment upon relapse in the second-and third-line setting. The mPFS and mOS for the Vietnam cohort were 8.7 months (95% CI, 7.59-9.72) and 25.7 months (95% CI, 19.98-42.61), respectively. The mPFS and mOS for stage IIIA were 11.9 months (95% CI, 8.64-14.95) and 28.2 months (95% CI, 24.15-not-calculable) and for stage IIIB were 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.64-8.71) and 20.0 months (95% CI, 13.01-42.61).

Conclusions

KINDLE-Vietnam offers insights into the clinical findings of stage III NSCLC. There is a high unmet need for identifying patients in the early stages of NSCLC. Strategies for improving clinical outcomes in this patient population include physician education, multidisciplinary management and catering to increased access to novel agents like immunotherapy and targeted therapy.

Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Proposal and Final Therapeutic Choice in Early Breast Cancer: Is There an Agreement?

Background

A multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) approach in breast cancer (BC) management is a standard of care. One of the roles of MDMs is to identify the best diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for patients (pts) with new diagnosis of early BC. The purpose of this study was to define whether there was an agreement between the planned program (i.e., MDMs-based decision) and that actually applied. In addition, the study explored factors associated with discordance.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of a consecutive series of 291 patients with new diagnosis of early BC, discussed at MDMs at the University Hospital of Udine (Italy), from January 2017 to June 2018. The association between clinico-biological factors and discordance between what was decided during the MDMs and what was consequently applied by the oncologist was explored through uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results

The median age was 62 years (range 27–88 years). Among invasive early BC patients, the most frequent phenotype was luminal A (38%), followed by luminal B (33%), HER2-positive (12%), and triple-negative (5%). In situ carcinoma (DCIS) represented 12% of cases. The median time from MDM discussion to first oncologic examination was 2 weeks. The rate of discordance between MDM-based decision and final choice, during a face-to-face consultation with the oncologist, was 15.8% (46/291). The most frequent reason for changing the MDM-based program was clinical decision (87%). Follow-up was preferred to the chemotherapy (CT) proposed within the MDMs in 15% of cases, and to the endocrine therapy (ET) in 39% of cases (among these, 44.5% had a diagnosis of DCIS). Therapeutic change from sequential CT-ET to ET alone was chosen in 16/46 pts (35%): among these patients, seven had a luminal B disease and six had an HER2-positive disease. On univariate analysis, factors associated with discordance were values of Ki-67 14%–30% (OR 3.91; 95% CI 1.19–12.9), age >70 years (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.28–4.63), housewife/retired status (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.14–4.85), polypharmacy (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.02–3.72), postmenopausal status (OR 4.15; 95% CI 1.58–10.9), and high Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.09–1.57). The association with marital status, educational level, alcohol and smoke habits, presence of a caregiver, parity, grading, histotype and phenotype, and stage was not statistically significant. On multivariate analysis, only Ki-67 value maintained its statistical significance.

Conclusion

The results of our study could be useful for enhancing the role of MDMs in the clinical decision-making process in early BC.

Integrating supportive care into the multidisciplinary management of lung cancer: we can't wait any longer

INTRODUCTION

Due to important achievements in terms of diagnostic and therapeutic tools and the complexity of the disease itself, lung cancer management needs a multidisciplinary approach. To date, the classical multidisciplinary team involves different healthcare providers mainly dedicated to lung cancer diagnosis and treatments. Nevertheless, the underlying disease and related treatments significantly impact on patient function and psychological well-being. In this sense, supportive care may offer the best approach to relieve and manage patient symptoms and treatment-related adverse events.

AREAS COVERED

Evidence report that exercise, nutrition, smoking cessation and psychological well-being bring many benefits in patients with lung cancer, from both a physical and socio-psychological points of view, and potentially improving their survival. Nevertheless, supportive care is rarely offered to patients, and even less frequently these needs are discussed within the multidisciplinary meeting.

EXPERT OPINION

Integrating supportive care as part of the standard multidisciplinary approach for lung cancer involves a series of challenges, the first one represented by the daily necessity of specialists, such as kinesiologists, dietitians, psycho-oncologists, able to deliver a personalized approach. In the era of precision medicine this is an essential step forward to guarantee comprehensive and patient-centered care for all patients with lung cancer.

Adrenal Surgery in the Era of Multidisciplinary Endocrine Tumor Boards

Work up of adrenal masses includes assessment of endocrine activity and malignancy risk. There is no indication for surgical removal of nonfunctional adrenal adenomas, according to the guidelines. In the present study, we aimed at evaluating the impact of a university endocrine tumor board on the quality of the indications for adrenal surgery at our institution. One hundred consecutive patients receiving primary adrenal surgery at the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany were included. Their demographics, clinic-pathologic characteristics, treatment and outcome were analyzed. In 55 (55%) cases, indication for surgery consisted in functional benign tumors, including Conn, Cushing adenomas and pheochromocytomas. Forty (40%) tumors were referred to surgery for malignancy suspicion and 5 (5%) myelolipomas were removed due to their size. Eighty-nine percent of surgeries were performed as minimally invasive procedures. Overall morbidity included two (2%) self-limiting pancreatic fistulas after left laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma. All functional tumors were confirmed benign by final histology. Only 33 (82.5%) of 40 suspicious cases turned out to be malignant. Consequently, nonfunctional benign adenomas were "unnecessarily" removed in only 7 (7%) patients, with 6 (85.7%) of them having a history of extra-adrenal cancer and all of them fulfilling criteria for surgery, according to the international guidelines. In conclusion, the endocrine tumor board provided an excellent adherence to the guidelines with most surgeries being performed either for functional or malignant tumors. In nonfunctional tumors with history of extra adrenal cancer, CT guided biopsy might be considered for obviating surgery.

Implementation rate and effects of multidisciplinary team meetings on decision making about radiotherapy: an observational study at a single Japanese institution

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have been widely used to determine the direction of treatment. However, no standard provisions exist for conducting MDTMs, and recommendations discussed in MDTMs are sometimes not implemented. ​This study analyzed the indications for radiotherapy discussed and recommended at MDTMs, identified the rate of radiotherapy recommendations for patients that were not implemented, and clarified the reasons at a single academic center in Japan.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that analyzed the minutes and electronic medical records of cases discussed at MDTMs held between April 2012-March 2017 at Yamagata University Hospital. We categorized how radiotherapy was initially presented at MDTMs, determined the rate of radiotherapy recommendations made through MDTMs, analyzed whether treatment recommendations were subsequently implemented, and examined the causes of non-implementation. We performed a statistical analysis to assess some clinical factors (sex, age, number of multidisciplinary team meetings, and classification of planned treatment) associated with the non-implementation of radiotherapy recommendations from MDTMs.

RESULTS

A total of 1813 cases were discussed at MDTMs, of which 71% (1293 cases) were presented with treatment plans, including radiotherapy. Further, 66% (1205 cases) were recommended for radiotherapy through the MDTMs. Recommendations from MDTMs were not implemented in 7% (142 cases). The most typical reason for non-implementation was the clinician's opinion (30%), followed by patient preferences (27%) and disease progression (20%). Change in cancer stage and improvement in symptoms were 12% and 4%, respectively. These ratios were similar each year. We could not find the factors associated with the non-implementation of radiotherapy recommendations from MDTMs.

CONCLUSIONS

MDTMs had a significant effect on the recommendation of radiotherapy for each patient with a tumor. The primary reason for the non-implementation of decisions made at MDTMs was the opinion of clinicians and the patient's preference. These results were similar to previous studies. We need to establish a monitoring system where patients themselves can decide the treatments based on their choices while using the recommendations from MDTMs.

Are older patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving optimal care? A population-based study

BACKGROUND

Results from studies addressing age-related patterns of cancer care have found evidence of unjustified differences in management between younger and older patients.

METHODS

We examined associations between age and clinical presentation, management and mortality in patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 2002 and 2016. Analyses were adjusted for comorbidity and other factors that may have affected management decisions and outcomes.

RESULTS

The study population encompassed 40,026 patients with NSCLC. Stage at diagnosis did not differ between age groups ≤ 84. The diagnostic intensity was similar in age groups <80 years. In patients with stage IA-IIB disease and PS 0-2, surgery was more common in the youngest age groups and decreased with increasing age, and was rarely performed in those ≥ 85 years. The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) increased with age (≤69 years 5.4%; ≥85 years 35.8%). In patients with stage IIIA disease and PS 0-2, concurrent chemoradiotherapy was more common in younger patients (≤69 years 55.3%; ≥85 years 2.2%). In stage IA-IIIA disease, no major differences in treatment-related mortality was observed. In stage IIIB-IV and PS 0-2, chemotherapy was more common in patients <80 years. However, 58.1% of patients 80-84 years and 30.3% ≥ 85 years received treatment. In stage IA-IIIA, overall and cause-specific survival decreased with increasing age. No age-differences in survival were observed in patients with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC.

CONCLUSION

Treatments were readily given to older patients with metastatic disease, but to a lesser degree to those with early stage disease. Significant differences in cause specific survival were observed in early, but not late stage disease. Our findings underscore the importance of individualized assessment of health status and life expectancy. Our results indicate that older patients with early stage lung cancer to a higher extent should be considered for curative treatment.

Optimal and actual rates of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) utilisation for primary lung cancer in Australia

•

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) plays a major role in the management of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

•

An evidence-based model is developed to estimate optimal rates of lung SABR utilisation within the Australian population.

•

Optimal utilisation rates are compared against actual utilisation rates to evaluate service provision.

Background and purpose

Radiotherapy utilisation rates considerably vary across different countries and service providers, highlighting the need to establish reliable benchmarks against which utilisation rates can be assessed. Here, optimal utilisation rates of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer are estimated and compared against actual utilisation rates to identify potential shortfalls in service provision.

Materials and Methods

An evidence-based optimal utilisation model was constructed after reviewing practice guidelines and identifying indications for lung SABR based on the best available evidence. The proportions of patients likely to develop each indication were obtained, whenever possible, from Australian population-based studies. Sensitivity analysis was performed to account for variations in epidemiological data. Practice pattern studies were reviewed to obtain actual utilisation rates.

Results

A total of 6% of all lung cancer patients were estimated to optimally require SABR at least once during the course of their illness (95% CI: 4–6%). Optimal utilisation rates were estimated to be 32% for stage I and 10% for stage II NSCLC. Actual utilisation rates for stage I NSCLC varied between 6 and 20%. For patients with inoperable stage I, 27–74% received SABR compared to the estimated optimal rate of 82%.

Conclusion

The estimated optimal SABR utilisation rates for lung cancer can serve as useful benchmarks to highlight gaps in service delivery and help plan for more adequate and efficient provision of care. The model can be easily modified to determine optimal utilisation rates in other populations or updated to reflect any changes in practice guidelines or epidemiological data.

Survival of clinical stage III NSCLC according to therapeutic strategy: Relevance of the tumor board decision in the era of immunotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Stage III NSCLC comprises a heterogeneous population. Different treatment strategies are available, including surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. The PACIFIC trial results represented a significant change and improvement in the therapeutic strategy for these patients. We aimed to compare the different treatment strategies employed in Stage III NSCLC patients within our institution.

METHODS

All Stage III NSCLC patients discussed during the weekly thoracic oncology multidisciplinary team meetings at the University hospital Grenoble Alpes (France) between January 2010 and January 2017 were included. Patients' overall survival (OS) according to treatment strategies along with their respective changes were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 476 patients were identified. Among patients initially scheduled to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (n = 60), only 37 (62%) actually underwent surgery. Median OS of the cohort was 21.3 months [IQR 25%-75%: 9.6-48.3]. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery displayed better survival than those treated by CT-RT: 53.2 months [IQR 25%-75%: 16.1-87.3] versus 23.9 [IQR 25%-75%, 13.3-48.1]. Survival was slightly superior for patients treated by upfront CT-RT than for those planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery who eventually converted to CT-RT (concurrent or sequential): 23.9 months [IQR 25%-75%: 13.3-48.1] versus 20.4 [IQR 25%-75%:10.8-36], respectively.

CONCLUSION

While patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery displayed a better survival than those treated using CT-RT, switch from surgery to CT-RT actually shortened survival. These results stress the relevance of the tumor board in deciding which is the best therapeutic strategy for Stage III disease patients.

Impacts of lung cancer multidisciplinary meeting presentation: Drivers and outcomes from a population registry retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary Meetings (MDM) are recommended in routine lung cancer care, however its broader impacts demand further evaluation. We assessed the drivers and impacts of MDM presentation in the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry (VLCR).

METHODS

We examined the effect of MDM presentation on receipt of treatment and survival in VLCR patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2020. We compared patient characteristics, drivers of MDM discussion and survival between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 9,628 patients, 5,900 (61.3%) were discussed at MDM, 3,728 (38.7%) were not. In the non-MDM group, a lower proportion received surgery (22.1% vs. 31.2%), radiotherapy (34.2% vs. 44.4%) and chemotherapy (44.7% vs. 49.0%). Patients were less likely to be discussed if ≥80 years (OR 0.73, p < 0.001), of ECOG performance status (PS) 4 (OR 0.23, p < 0.001), clinical stage IV (OR 0.34, p < 0.001) or referred from regional (OR 0.52, p < 0.001) or private hospital (OR 0.18, p < 0.001). MDM-presented patients had better median survival (1.70 vs 0.75 years, p < 0.001) and lower adjusted mortality risk (HR 0.75; 0.71-0.80, p < 0.001), a protective effect consistent across all hospital types. Undocumented PS, histopathology and clinical stage were associated with lower likelihood of MDM discussion and worse mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In the VLCR, being male, ≥80 years, of poorer PS, advanced clinical stage and poor clinical characterisation significantly disadvantaged patients in relation to MDM discussion. MDM-discussed patients were more likely to undergo treatment and had a 25% lower risk of mortality. This study supports the use of MDMs in lung cancer and identifies areas of inequity to be addressed.

Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: A Narrative Review Focused on Lung Cancer

To date, the virtual multidisciplinary tumor boards (vMTBs) are increasingly used to achieve high-quality treatment recommendations across health-care regions, which expands and develops the local MTB team to a regional or national expert network. This review describes the process of lung cancer-specific MTBs and the transition process from face-to-face tumor boards to virtual ones. The review also focuses on the project organization's description, advantages, and disadvantages. Semi-structured interviews identified five major themes for MTBs: current practice, attitudes, enablers, barriers, and benefits for the MTB. MTB teams exhibited positive responses to modeled data feedback. Virtualization reduces time spent for travel, allowing easier and timely patient discussions. This process requires a secure web platform to assure the respect of patients' privacy and presents the same unanswered problems. The implementation of vMTB also permits the implementation of networks especially in areas with geographical barriers facilitating interaction between large referral cancer centers and tertiary or community hospitals as well as easier access to clinical trial opportunities. Studies aimed to improve preparations, structure, and conduct of MTBs, research methods to monitor their performance, teamwork, and outcomes are also outlined in this article. Analysis of literature shows that MTB participants discuss 5-8 cases per meeting and that the use of a vMTB for lung cancer and in particular stage III NSCLC and complex stage IV cases is widely accepted by most health professionals. Despite still-existing gaps, overall vMTB represents a unique opportunity to optimize patient management in a patient-centered approach.

Multidisciplinary team meetings: are all patients presented and does it impact quality of care and survival - a registry-based study

Background

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are part of the standard cancer care process in many European countries. In France, they are a mandatory condition in the authorization system for cancer care administration, with the goal to ensure that all new patients diagnosed with cancer are presented in MDTMs.

Aim

Identify the factors associated with non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs, and study the impact of presentation in MDTMs on quality of care and survival in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

3999 CRC patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 in the area covered by the “Calvados Registry of Digestive Tumours” were included. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with presentation in MDTMs. Univariate analyses were performed to study the impact of MDTMs on quality of care. Multivariate Cox model and the Log-Rank test were used to assess the impact of MDTMs on survival.

Results

Non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs were associated with higher age at diagnosis, dying within 3 months after diagnosis, unknown metastatic status, non-metastatic cancer and colon cancer. Non-presentation was associated with a diagnosis after 2010. Unknown presentation was associated with a diagnosis before 2007 and a longer travel time to the reference care centres. Presentation in MDTMs was associated with more chemotherapy administration for patients with metastatic cancer and more adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. After excluding poor prognosis patients, lower survival was significantly associated with higher age at diagnosis, unknown metastatic status or metastatic cancer, presence of comorbidities, rectal cancer and non-presentation in MDTMs (HR = 1.5 [1.1–2.0], p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Elderly and poor prognosis patients were less presented in MDTMs. Geriatric assessments before presentation in MDTMs were shown to improve care plan establishment. The 100% objective is not coherent if MDTMs are only to discuss diagnosis and curative cares. They could also be a place to discuss therapeutic limitations. MDTMs were associated with better treatment and longer survival. We must ensure that there is no inequity in presentation in MDTMs that could lead to a loss of chance for patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07022-x.

The Effects of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Clinical Practice for Colorectal, Lung, Prostate and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

Multidisciplinary team meetings have increasingly been implemented in cancer care worldwide to ensure timely, accurate and evidence-based diagnosis, and treatment plans. Nowadays, multidisciplinary team meetings are generally considered indispensable. However, they are considered time-consuming and expensive, while the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings are not yet fully understood. The aim of this systematic review is to update and summarize the literature and create an overview of the existing knowledge. Cancer types such as colorectal, lung, prostate and breast cancer with rapidly increasing incidence rates will inevitably impact the workload of clinicians. Understanding the effects of the widely implemented multidisciplinary team meetings in oncology care is fundamental in order to optimize care pathways and allocate resources in the rapidly diversifying landscape of cancer therapies.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of our systematic review is to identify the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) for lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Methods: Our systematic review, performed following PRISMA guidelines, included studies examining the impact of MDTMs on treatment decisions, patient and process outcomes. Electronic databases PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for articles published between 2000 and 2020. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and GRADE scale. Results: 41 of 13,246 articles were selected, evaluating colorectal (21), lung (10), prostate (6) and breast (4) cancer. Results showed that management plans were changed in 1.6–58% of cases after MDTMs. Studies reported a significant impact of MDTMs on surgery type, and a reduction of overall performed surgery after MDTM. Results also suggest that CT and MRI imaging significantly increased after MDTM implementation. Survival rate increased significantly with MDTM discussions according to twelve studies, yet three studies did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Despite heterogeneous data, MDTMs showed a significant impact on management plans, process outcomes and patient outcomes. To further explore the impact of MDTMs on the quality of healthcare, high-quality research is needed.

Effect of multidisciplinary team care on survival of oesophageal cancer patients: a retrospective nationwide cohort study

Oesophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. This nationwide study analyses the survival results of oesophageal cancer under multidisciplinary team (MDT) care. We enrolled oesophageal cancer patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 with follow-up for at least 1 year. This study performed propensity score matching with a ratio of 1:1 between MDT participants and non-MDT participants. We performed conditional Cox proportional hazards model to research relative risk of survival and associated factors of survival. The adjusted survival curves were plotted. 8184 newly diagnosed oesophageal cancer patients were included. The favourable survival factors include participant status of MDT, gender, monthly salary, urbanization level, other catastrophic illness, stage of cancer, treatment methods, and service volume of physicians (P < 0.05). MDT participants showed lower risk of death (HR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.67–0.79). Further stratification analysis revealed that the incorporation of an MDT reduced the death risk of patients with stages 2, 3, and 4 cancer, with the greatest reduction observed in patients with stage 3 cancer (HR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.67–0.79). The risk of death was lower for oesophageal cancer patients who enrolled in MDT care.

Multi-disciplinary approach for the management of non-metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the Middle East and Africa: Expert panel recommendations

The Middle East and Africa (MEA) region, a large geographical area, lies at the confluence of Asian, Caucasian and African races and comprises of a population with several distinct ethnicities. The course of management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) differs as per patients' performance status as well as stage of disease, requiring personalized therapy decisions. Although management of NSCLC has received a significant impetus in the form of molecularly targeted therapies and immune therapies in last few years, surgery remains gold standard for patients with early-stage disease. In case of unresectable disease, radiotherapy and chemotherapy are the primary management modalities. With newer therapies being approved for treatment of early stage disease, use of multi-disciplinary team (MDT) for comprehensive management of NSCLC is of prime importance. A group of experts with interest in thoracic oncology, deliberated and arrived at a consensus statement for the community oncologists treating patients with NSCLC in the MEA region. The deliberation was based on the review of the published evidence including literature and global and local guidelines, subject expertise of the participating panellists and experience in real-life management of patients with NSCLC. We present the proposed regional adaptations of international guidelines and recommends the MDT approach for management of NSCLC in MEA.

Translation of oncology multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) recommendations into clinical practice

Background

Multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) processes differ according to clinical setting and tumour site. This can impact on decision making. This study aimed to evaluate the translation of MDM recommendations into clinical practice across solid tumour MDMs at an academic centre.

Methods

A retrospective audit of oncology records was performed for nine oncology MDMs held at Liverpool Hospital, NSW, Australia from 1/2/17–31/7/17. Information was collected on patient factors (age, gender, country of birth, language, postcode, performance status, comorbidities), tumour factors (diagnosis, stage) and MDM factors (number of MDMs, MDM recommendation). Management was audited up to a year post MDM to record management and identify reasons if discordant with MDM recommendations. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess for factors associated with concordant management.

Results

Eight hundred thirty-five patients were discussed, median age was 65 years and 51.4% were males. 70.8% of patients were presented at first diagnosis, 77% discussed once and treatment recommended in 73.2%. Of 771 patients assessable for concordance, management was fully concordant in 79.4%, partially concordant in 12.8% and discordant in 7.8%. Concordance varied from 84.5% for lung MDM to 97.6% for breast MDMs. On multivariable analysis, breast and upper GI MDMs and discussion at multiple MDMs were significantly associated with concordant management. The most common reason for discordant management was patient/guardian decision (28.3%).

Conclusion

There was variability in translation of MDM recommendations into clinical practice by tumour site. Routine measurement of implementation of MDM recommendations should be considered as a quality indicator of MDM practice.

Effects of therapy modifications during the last decade on the outcome of patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, numerous therapeutic regimes were assessed to improve the outcome of patients with esophageal carcinoma. We analyzed the impact of therapy alterations, including the establishment of a standardized clinical pathway and the introduction of an interdisciplinary tumor conference on the outcome of patients undergoing esophagectomy because of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Three hundred one patients were included (204 adenocarcinoma and 97 squamous cell carcinoma) who underwent an esophagectomy between 2006 and 2015. Patients were divided into 3 groups: interval A (2006-2008), interval B (2009-2011) and interval C (2012-2015) and evaluated separately focusing on therapy management and patients' outcome.

RESULTS

Over the time periods, the incidence of tumor entity of adenocarcinoma increased from 61% to 76.2% (P=0.059). Patients with an initial tumor stage uT1 increased significantly from 4% to 15.9% over the intervals (P=0.002), while positive nodal involvement remained comparable (P=0.237). Patients in the later interval suffered from greater physical impairments preoperatively, represented by a significantly increased American Society Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P=0.023) and a reduced Karnofsky Index (P<0.001). The tumor conference was accompanied by an increasing implementation of neoadjuvant therapy (27.1% vs. 42.2%, P=0.097). After establishing the clinical pathway 30-day mortality decreased (P=0.67). Grad III anastomotic leakage decreased significantly from 6.5% to 2% (P=0.01). However, gastrointestinal (P=0.007), pulmonary complications (P<0.001) including pneumonia (P<0.001) increased. Over the past ten years both overall survival and relapse-free survival prolonged (P=0.056 and P=0.063, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' collective suffering from esophageal cancer has changed over the last decade. Continuous further developments of the therapy regimes are needed to meet the requirements of reducing perioperative mortality and extending survival time.

Impact of multidisciplinary approach and radiologic review on surgical outcome and overall survival of patients with pancreatic cancer: a retrospective cohort study

AIM

To evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary team case discussion including computed tomography (CT) radiologic review on surgical outcome and overall survival (OS) of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Patients with PDAC evaluated in 2008-2011 and 2013-2016 (before and after multidisciplinary team introduction), aged <85 years and staged I-III, were included. Surgical failures and 2-year OS were compared in these periods. Available CT scans of preintervention period (2008-2011) cases were reviewed by two radiologists in consensus, assigning a resectability judgment to evaluate in how many cases a different recommendation would be achieved.

RESULTS

A total of 316 patients (49.3% female, age 71±10 years) were included: 132 in 2008-2011 and 184 in 2013-2016. The proportion of patients who underwent upfront surgery was similar in the two periods (51% vs 47% in 2008-2011 vs 2013-2016). Neoadjuvant referral increased from 7% to 21% and surgical resection was excluded for 42% patients in 2008-2011 vs 33% in 2013-2016 (p = 0.002). Adjusting by age, sex, and stage, surgical failures slightly decreased in 2013-2016 (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.53-1.51); the decrease was stronger when therapeutic choice complied with CT indications (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.36-1.63); in both cases, the decrease could be due to chance. After correction for age, sex, and stage, the hazard ratio of 2013-2016 for OS was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.64-1.09). In 33/114 (29%) patients, CT retrospective review produced a change in resectability judgment.

CONCLUSION

Although differences could be due to chance or generic improvement, the consistency between process and outcome indicators suggests that multidisciplinary team approach with radiologic review may improve outcomes.

Improving Care for Patients With Stage III or IV NSCLC: Learnings for Multidisciplinary Teams From the ACCC National Quality Survey

PURPOSE

Insufficient characterization of the optimal multidisciplinary team and lack of understanding of barriers to quality care are unmet needs in the management of stage III or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A national survey was conducted to inform the design and execution of process improvement plans and address identified barriers.

METHODS

A steering committee of multidisciplinary specialists and representation from patient advocacy collaborated for a comprehensive, double-blind, web-based survey (January-April 2019) to obtain insights on care delivery for patients with advanced NSCLC in a diverse set of US community cancer programs.

RESULTS

Overall, 639 responses (160 unique cancer programs across 44 US states) were included; 41% (n = 261) of respondents indicated an absence of a thoracic multidisciplinary clinic in their cancer program. Engagement in shared decision making was significantly associated with the presence of navigation and radiation oncology disciplines (P ≤ .04); 19.2% and 33.3% of respondents belonged to cancer programs with no lung cancer screening and no protocol for biomarker testing, respectively. The frequency of tumor board meetings negatively correlated with time to complete disease staging (P = .03); the average time to first therapeutic intervention in newly diagnosed patients was 4 weeks. The most challenging barriers to quality care included insufficient quantity of biopsy material for biomarker testing, lack of primary care provider referrals, and diagnostic costs.

CONCLUSION

Improving the quality of advanced NSCLC care, including optimization of a multidisciplinary team framework, may surmount barriers to care coordination, diagnosis and staging, and treatment planning, consequently improving adherence to evolving standards of care.

Do Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Discussions Correlate With Increase in 5-Year Survival? A Meta-Analysis Study

Introduction

Due to the complex nature of cancer cases, it is imperative that the involved healthcare providers coordinate the patients care plan in union to reach the best possible outcome in the smoothest and fastest manner. This is what multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) meetings strive to achieve. Conducting regular MTB meetings requires significant investment of time and finances. It is thus vital to assess the empirical benefits of such practice.

Methods

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of MTB meetings on patient 5-year survival. Relevant studies were identified by searching Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases from January 1995 to July 2019. Studies were included if they assessed 5-year survival in cases discussed in MTB meetings and used a comparison group and/or a pretest and posttest design.

Results

Five articles met the study's inclusion criteria. Quality of studies was affected by selection bias and the use of historic cohorts. The results showed significantly improved 5-year survival in the MTB group compared with the non-MTB groups (odds ratio for 5-year death rate of 0.59, CI 0.45-0.78, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis showed that cancer MTB meetings have a significant impact on patients' 5-year survival. This could be because of several reasons, such as less time to treatment initiation, better adherence to guidelines, higher numbers of investigational imaging, lesser surgical complications, and recurrence rates. Future prospective studies are needed to further delineate reasons for improvement of outcome to enhance the benefits of this approach.

Impact of Treatment Coordination on Overall Survival in Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer treatment is often multimodal, comprising of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. However, the impact of coordination between these modalities is currently unknown. We aimed to assess whether delivery of nonsurgical therapy within same facility as surgery impacts survival in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

A patient cohort with rectal cancer stages II to IV who received multimodal treatment between 2004 and 2016 from National Cancer Database was retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into three groups: (A) surgery + chemotherapy + radiotherapy at same facility (surgery + 2); (B) surgery + chemotherapy or radiotherapy at same facility (surgery + 1); or (C) only surgery at reporting facility (chemotherapy + radiotherapy elsewhere; surgery + 0). The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional-hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 44,716 patients (16,985 [37.98%] surgery + 2, 12,317 [27.54%] surgery + 1, and 15,414 [34.47%] surgery + 0) were included. In univariate analysis, we observed that surgery+2 patients had significantly greater 5-year OS compared to surgery + 1 or surgery + 0 patients (5-year OS: 63.46% vs 62.50% vs 61.41%, respectively; P= .002). We observed similar results in multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analysis, with surgery + 0 group demonstrating increased hazard of mortality when compared to surgery + 2 group (HR: 1.09; P< .001). These results held true after stratification by stage for stage II (HR 1.10; P= .022) and stage III (HR 1.12; P< .001) but not for stage IV (P= .474).

CONCLUSION

Greater degree of care coordination within the same facility is associated with greater OS in patients with stage II to III rectal cancer. This finding illustrates the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in multimodal rectal cancer therapy.

Impacts of multidisciplinary meeting case discussion on palliative care referral and end-of-life care in lung cancer: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) discussion and early palliative care are recommended in lung cancer management. The literature is unclear whether MDM discussion leads to early palliative care and improved end-of-life care.

AIMS

To evaluate impacts of discussion at an Australian lung MDM on palliative care referral, and MDM and early palliative care on aggressive end-of-life care.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted of 352 patients diagnosed with primary lung cancer from 2017 to 2019 at the Alfred Hospital, Melbourne. The primary question was whether MDM discussion influenced palliative care referrals. Secondary questions were whether MDM discussion and early palliative care reduced aggressive treatment (chemotherapy, hospitalisation, emergency department visits, intensive care admission and in-hospital death) during the last 30 days of life. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent association between MDM discussion and palliative care referral.

RESULTS

MDM discussion did not independently impact palliative care referral. There was reduced likelihood of MDM presentation in patients with metastatic disease (P < 0.0001) and poorer performance status (P = 0.025), and higher likelihood of palliative care referral in these patients (both P < 0.001). MDM discussion reduced end-of-life intensive care unit (ICU) admission in patients with metastatic disease (P = 0.04). A palliative care referral-to-death interval of ≥30 days was associated with reduced hospitalisation at the end of life (P < 0.0001) and hospital deaths (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Discussion at lung MDM did not increase palliative care referral, but did reduce ICU admission among metastatic patients at the end of life. Longer palliative care referral-to-death interval was associated with reduced aggressive end-of-life care. Further research is needed in these areas.

The Impact of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Patient Management in Oncologic Thoracic Surgery: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

the aim of this paper is to quantify multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) impact on the decisional clinical pathway of thoracic cancer patients, assessing the modification rate of the initial out-patient evaluation.

METHODS

the impact of MDT was classified as follows: confirmation: same conclusions as out-patient hypothesis; modification: change of out-patient hypothesis; implementation: definition of a clear clinical track/conclusion for patients that did not receive any clinical hypothesis; further exams required: the findings that emerged in the MDT meeting require further exams.

RESULTS

one thousand consecutive patients evaluated at MDT meetings were enrolled. Clinical settings of patients were: early stage lung cancer (17.4%); locally advanced lung cancer (27.4%); stage IV lung cancer (9.8%); mesothelioma (1%); metastases to the lung from other primary tumors (4%); histologically proven or suspected recurrence from previous lung cancer (15%); solitary pulmonary nodule (19.2%); mediastinal tumors (3.4%); other settings (2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

MDT meetings impact patient management in oncologic thoracic surgery by modifying the out-patient clinical hypothesis in 10.6% of cases; the clinical settings with the highest decisional modification rates are "solitary pulmonary nodule" and "proven or suspected recurrence" with modification rates of 14.6% and 13.3%, respectively.

Factors influencing multi-disciplinary tumor board recommendations in stage III non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Treatment patterns in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) vary considerably between countries, for reasons that are not well understood. We studied factors influencing treatment decision-making at thoracic multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT's) and outcome for patients treated between 2015-2017, at a regional network comprising 5 hospitals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Details of all patients, including comorbidities, with stage III NSCLC were collected in an ethics-approved database. Weekly MDT's were conducted. The preferred radical intent treatments (RIT) for suitable patients were assumed to be concurrent chemoradiotherapy and/or surgery and other therapies were non-radical intent treatments (n-RIT).

RESULTS

Of 197 patients identified, 95 % were discussed at an MDT. RIT were recommended in 61 % of patients, but only 48 % finally received RIT. The estimated median OS was significantly better for patients undergoing RIT (28.3 months, CI-95 % 17.3-39.3), versus those who did not (11.2 months, CI-95 % 8.0-14.3). Patient age ≥70 years and a WHO-PS ≥2 were the most important predictors of not recommending RIT. Deaths due to progressive lung cancer within 2 years were observed in 36, 26 and 29 % of patients who received RIT, sequential chemoradiotherapy or radical radiotherapy. Corresponding comorbidity related deaths within 2 years were 3, 12 and 38 %.

CONCLUSION

A large number of patients who underwent MDT review were considered too old or not fit for RIT. More effective and better tolerated systemic treatments are required for patients presenting with stage III NSCLC.

Patterns of Multidisciplinary Care of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Medicare Patients

Importance

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) yields proven benefits for patients with cancer, although it may be underused in the complex management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

Objective

To characterize the patterns of MDC in the treatment of HNSCC among elderly patients in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 2011, to identify patients 66 years or older diagnosed with head and neck cancer and determine the dates of diagnosis, oncology consultations, treatment initiation, and speech therapy evaluation in addition to MDC completion. Multidisciplinary care was defined in a stage-dependent manner: localized disease necessitated consultations with radiation and surgical oncologists, and advanced-stage disease also included a medical oncology consultation, all before definitive treatment. Data were analyzed between December 2016 and September 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates of MDC across all subsites of head and neck cancer as measured by the presence of an evaluation for each oncologist on the MDC team and its effect on treatment initiation.

Results

This cohort study assessed 28 293 patients with HNSCC (mean [SD] age, 75.1 [6.6] years; 67% male; 87% White) from the SEER-Medicare linked database. The HNSCC subsites included larynx (40%), oral cavity (30%), oropharynx (21%), hypopharynx (7%), and nasopharynx (2%). Overall, the practice of MDC significantly increased over time, from 24% in 1991 to 52% in 2011 (P < .001). For patients with localized (stage 0-II) tumors, 60% received care in the multidisciplinary setting, whereas 28% of those with advanced-stage disease did. A total of 18 181 patients (64%) were treated with initial definitive nonsurgical therapy across all stages. Regardless of stage and subsite, few patients (2%) underwent evaluation by a speech-language pathologist before definitive therapy. Multidisciplinary care prolonged the time to initiation of definitive treatment by 11 days for localized disease and 10 days for advanced disease.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that most elderly patients with localized HNSCC received MDC, whereas few patients with advanced-stage disease received such care, although a significant proportion received adjuvant therapy. Multidisciplinary care may prolong time to initiation of definitive treatment with an uncertain impact. Consultation with a speech-language pathologist before definitive therapy was rare.

Multidisciplinary care models for patients with lung cancer

Multidisciplinary care is the cornerstone of lung cancer treatment in the developed world, even though there is a relative lack of consistent evidence that this care model improves outcomes. In this review, we present the available literature regarding how to set up and run an efficient multidisciplinary care model for lung cancer patients with emphasis on team members' roles and responsibilities. Moreover, we present some limited evidence about multidisciplinary care and its impact on lung cancer outcomes and survival. This review provides simple guidance on setting up and running a multidisciplinary service for lung cancer patients. It highlights the importance of defined roles and responsibilities for team members. It also presents concise information based on the literature regarding the impact of multidisciplinary care in lung cancer outcomes (e.g. survival of patients undergoing lung cancer surgery).

Multidisciplinary team approach in breast cancer care: Benefits and challenges

The multidisciplinary team approach has been employed internationally for decades, as an attempt to bring collaborative decision-making and concentrate clinical experience from multiple specialties on single patient cases in a systematic fashion. Adoption is not yet worldwide, but is increasing. The role of the histopathologist is central, providing vital information and context to clinical diagnosis and management. Our review summarizes some of the most relevant research on the topic of MDT usage and efficacy in relation to breast cancer, attempting to draw together its advantages and challenges. It is hoped that this review will make a contribution to the current international literature regarding multidisciplinary approaches in breast cancer care.

Multidisciplinary team discussion results in survival benefit for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer

Background

The treatment for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often involves multi-modality treatment. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate whether multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion results in better patient survival.

Materials and methods

MDT discussion was optional before February 2016 and was actively encouraged by the MDT committee beginning February 2016. We reviewed the medical charts and computer records of patients with stage III NSCLC between January 2013 and December 2018.

Results

A total of 515 patients were included. The median survival of all the patients was 33.9 months (M). The median survival of patients who were treated after MDT discussion was 41.2 M and that of patients treated without MDT discussion was 25.7 M (p = 0.018). The median survival of patients treated before February 2016 was 25.7 M and that of patients treated after February 2016 was 33.9 M (p = 0.003). The median survival of patients with stage IIIA tumors and those with stage IIIB tumors was 39.4 M and 25.7 M, respectively (p = 0.141). Multivariate analysis showed that MDT or not (p<0.001), T staging (p = 0.009), performance status (p<0.001), and surgery (p = 0.016) to be significant prognostic factors.

Conclusion

The results of the study show that MDT discussion results in survival benefit in patients with stage III NSCLC. The MDT discussion, performance status, and if surgery was performed were independent prognostic factors for patients with stage III NSCLC.

Locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: the place of specialist thoracic surgery in the multidisciplinary team

One reason that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide, is that surgical intervention is highly dependent on earlier tumor stage and good patient condition. As large proportion of cases are already metastatic at presentation and many are locally advanced, curative surgery is only possible in a minority of fit patients. Increasing the number of patients achieving complete resection is one of the avenues to increase overall survival using our existing technology. In the past, complex cases may have been sporadically discussed between various specialists in order to achieve better outcomes. More recently, the idea of discussing those cases on a routine basis, rather than an accident of geography or referral pattern, gave rise to the multidisciplinary team. Lung cancer management is now increasingly complex, especially with novel modalities such as targeted therapies, immune checkpoint inhibitors and stereotactic body radiotherapy delivery. Likewise, in thoracic surgery, minimally invasive techniques, early recovery after surgery protocols and complex techniques for resecting locally advanced tumours or preserving lung parenchyma must all be deployed appropriately to continue our incremental gains in survival and quality of life. To highlight the role of specialist thoracic surgeon in the multidisciplinary care of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, we conducted a search of English language publications for its multidisciplinary-based surgical management. We limited our search to the last decade, then hand-searched relevant references. In addition, we used our large prospective database as a team-oriented specialized thoracic surgical service to benchmark and demonstrate the benefits of specialist surgeons in the modern multidisciplinary team. In conclusion, patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer should have any surgical option withheld without a specialist thoracic surgical opinion as part of the multidisciplinary team discussion.

Victorian Lung Cancer Service Redesign Project: impacts of a quality improvement collaborative on timeliness and management in lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer management is characterised by a high disease burden, poor survival and substantial variation in management and outcomes. Service redesign provides opportunities for quality improvement (QI) and this improvement may be leveraged across multiple sites using QI collaboration.

AIM

This initiative targeted Quality Improvement (QI) in lung cancer management, engaging a QI collaborative using service redesign methodologies in five Victorian hospitals. QI targets included timeliness from referral and diagnosis to treatment, multi-disciplinary meeting (MDM) presentation and supportive care screening. Redesign strategies targeted process sustainability through enhanced team capability.

METHODS

This study engaged a prospective quality improvement cohort design targeting newly diagnosed tissue confirmed lung cancer with 6-month pre-intervention period and 6-month redesign implementation period, between September 2016 and August 2017, evaluated using Interrupted Time Series Analysis. Hospital sites included three regional and two metropolitan hospitals in Victoria. QI redesign targeted time intervals from referral to first specialist appointment (FSA), referral to diagnosis, diagnosis to first treatment (any intent), MDM documented in medical records and Supportive Care Screening Tool documented in medical records.

RESULTS

There was a marked reduction in referral to FSA interval across all sites, with median (interquartile range) falling from 6 (0-15) to 4 (1-10) days, and proportion seen by a specialist within 14 days increased from 74.3% to 84.2%. The interval between diagnosis and treatment was not substantively changed in the 6-month implementation period. The proportion of subjects with documented presentation to the MDM increased from 61% to 67%. The proportion for which Supportive Care Screening documentation remained low at 26.3% post-intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Data-driven redesign initiatives enable identification and analysis of clinical practice variation and may be utilised to enhance timeliness of cancer care and improve local data service capabilities.

Lung cancer recurrence and mortality outcomes over a 10-year period using a multidisciplinary team approach

BACKGROUND

Longitudinal data are limited regarding the impact of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach on patient outcomes among those diagnosed with lung cancer. The purpose of this study is to 1) compare 1- and 3-year recurrence and mortality rates among patients receiving a MDT vs. standard model of care; and 2) assess trends in these proportions over a 10-year period.

METHODS

This investigation included 2044 lung cancer cases reported to the Stony Brook Cancer Registry between 2006 and 2015. Patients were stratified into 2 groups, those participating in Stony Brook's Lung Cancer Evaluation Center's (LCEC) MDT Program (n = 1179) and those receiving a standard model of care (n = 865). 1- and 3-year stage-stratified recurrence and mortality rates are reported. Logistic regression analyses are performed and linear by linear associations are used to assess trends over time.

RESULTS

A higher proportion of patients in the MDT program (LCEC) remained disease-free at 1-year compared those receiving standard care (80.0 % vs 62.3 %, p < 0.01). There were no significant changes in mortality over the 10-year observation period in either group, however the rates were significantly lower among LCEC vs non-LCEC cases after adjusting for possible confounders (OR = 0.68 (0.51,0.90) at 1-year; OR = 0.50 (0.36, 0.70) at 3-years). Recurrence was also lower at 3-years in the MDT group (OR = 0.51 (0.32, 0.79)).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that a comprehensive MDT program for lung cancer yields improved patient outcomes compared to the standard model of care and this approach may help to decrease rates of disease recurrence and mortality.

A review on the impact of lung cancer multidisciplinary care on patient outcomes

International guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary approach to the management of lung cancer due to the complexity of both patients and their disease and the multiple treatment options available. This care can be provided through patient discussion at multidisciplinary meetings where relevant medical and allied health staff formulate a consensus management plan taking all factors into consideration. This model can be extended further to include multidisciplinary clinics where the patient is present for assessment and discussion. However, conducting regular multidisciplinary meetings or clinics has significant time, resource and financial costs and therefore, it is important to assess the impact of multidisciplinary care. We aimed to review published evidence, from 2000 to 2019, to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary care on lung cancer outcomes. There were 29 studies found, 11 evaluating multidisciplinary clinics, 14 studying multidisciplinary meetings and four where the model of care was not defined. There was only one randomised trial and three prospective studies, the remainder being retrospective studies. Despite limitations in trial design and confounding factors, overall, multidisciplinary care in lung cancer was associated with improvements in patient outcomes, in particular improved survival for all stages of lung cancer. Lung cancer patients managed in a multidisciplinary setting were more likely to receive active treatment and had improved utilisation of all treatment modalities: surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. In addition, the treatment recommendations were more likely to be consistent with lung cancer management guidelines. These improved outcomes support the recommendations for a multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer care.

Implementation of lung cancer multidisciplinary teams: a review of evidence-practice gaps

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) is considered best practice in lung cancer care. Health care services have made significant investments in MDC through the establishment of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. This investment is likely to be sustained in future. It is imperative that MDT meetings are efficient, effective, and sufficiently nimble to introduce new innovations to enable best practice. In this article, we consider the ‘evidence-practice gaps’ in the implementation of lung cancer MDC. These gaps were derived from the recurrent limitations outlined in existing studies and reviews. We address the contributions that implementation science and quality improvement can make to bridge these gaps by increasing translation and improving the uptake of innovations by teams.

Optimizing lung cancer MDT data for maximum clinical impact-a scoping literature review

Multidisciplinary care in is widely recommended as best practice for lung cancer in many countries and jurisdictions. A number of studies suggest multidisciplinary care benefits patient outcomes, with analyses based on a range of data sources including national, state and local registries as well as multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT)-based data collections, often focused on different questions depending on data sources. MDT data collection and linkage are not standardized and not routine although data collection and feedback are specifically recommended by at least one statutory body. We performed a scoping review of current evidence for lung cancer MDT data collection and analysis, to identify discrete strategies through illustrative examples and to make recommendations for future approaches. Thirteen studies were identified that presented lung cancer MDT-related clinical outcomes, three included MDTs from multiple tumour streams while 10 studies focussed on lung cancer MDT meetings. Eleven studies measured the effect of MDT discussion on clinical outcomes of which eight were positive. Data sources included MDT records (3 studies), medical or hospital records (3 studies), institutional registries (5 studies) and state or national administrative datasets (6 studies), with some overlap. Examples of studies based on different data sources (local MDT, institutional registry, national registry) exemplified the different types of clinical research questions appropriate for each data source. While MDT data collection is not well-defined, the importance of clinical audit and data feedback and the potential for real-time analysis to improve outcomes deserve further investigation. Optimized datasets and linkage strategies are likely to maximize benefits for patients.

Multidisciplinary team care in advanced lung cancer

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer mortality globally. A vast majority of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at advanced stages. Management of advanced lung cancer requires several diagnostic and therapeutic procedures provided by various specialists. To optimise the entire diagnostic and therapeutic process, a concept of care provided simultaneously by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) has been developed and implemented in specialised centres worldwide. Observational studies suggest that integrated and coordinated care increases adherence to clinical guidelines, significantly shortens the interval from diagnosis to treatment, and may increase survival and quality of life (QoL). Prospective studies are warranted to assess the real impact of MDT on treatment outcomes and to further refine this approach.