Quality indicators and excellence requirements for a multidisciplinary lung cancer tumor board by the Spanish Lung Cancer Group

Multidisciplinary approach for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): 2023 expert consensus of the Spanish Lung Cancer Group GECP

INTRODUCTION

Recent advances in the treatment of locally advanced NSCLC have led to changes in the standard of care for this disease. For the selection of the best approach strategy for each patient, it is necessary the homogenization of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, as well as the promotion of the evaluation of patients by a multidisciplinary oncology team.

OBJECTIVE

Development of an expert consensus document with suggestions for the approach and treatment of locally advanced NSCLC leaded by Spanish Lung Cancer Group GECP.

METHODS

Between March and July 2023, a panel of 28 experts was formed. Using a mixed technique (Delphi/nominal group) under the guidance of a coordinating group, consensus was reached in 4 phases: 1. Literature review and definition of discussion topics 2. First round of voting 3. Communicating the results and second round of voting 4. Definition of conclusions in nominal group meeting. Responses were consolidated using medians and interquartile ranges. The threshold for agreement was defined as 85% of the votes.

RESULTS

New and controversial situations regarding the diagnosis and management of locally advanced NSCLC were analyzed and reconciled based on evidence and clinical experience. Discussion issues included: molecular diagnosis and biomarkers, radiologic and surgical diagnosis, mediastinal staging, role of the multidisciplinary thoracic committee, neoadjuvant treatment indications, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment, postoperative evaluation, and follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus clinical suggestions were generated on the most relevant scenarios such as diagnosis, staging and treatment of locally advanced lung cancer, which will serve to support decision-making in daily practice.

[Current Situation and Future Direction of Multidisciplinary Diagnosis and Treatment of Lung Cancer]

Although multidisciplinary team (MDT) diagnosis and treatment model can improve the quality of life and survival prognosis of the patients, why does it not reach the expected goal of the MDT diagnosis and treatment model? The main reason is that the diagnosis and treatment mode of MDT in lung cancer lags behind the progress of various treatment methods. By analyzing the latest research results of MDT diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer at home and abroad, combined with the experience of MDT diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer in the Lung Cancer Center of West China Hospital of Sichuan University, this article will discuss and summarize the progress and future direction of MDT in lung cancer from the following aspects: (1) The connotation and extension of MDT diagnosis and treatment mode of lung cancer need to be changed and adapted to new methods of diagnosis and treatment; (2) The clinical decision making in the diagnosis and treatment of MDT in lung cancer should be transformed from "multidisciplinary consultation (MDC)" to "MDT"; (3) The diagnosis and treatment process of MDT in lung cancer should shift from "fire brigade mode" to "firewall mode", and finally implement "individualized whole-process management mode"; (4) The path of MDT diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer should be changed from "temporary convening mode" to "single disease center system mode of lung cancer".
.

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.

Implementation of streamlining measures in selecting and prioritising complex cases for the cancer multidisciplinary team meeting: a mini review of the recent developments

In January 2020, NHS England and NHS Improvement, in the United Kingdom, issued a permissive framework for streamlining cancer multidisciplinary (MDT) meetings. Streamlining is defined as a process whereby complex cases are prioritized for full discussion by an MDT in an MDT meeting (MDM), while the management of straightforward cases is expedited using Standards of Care (SoC). SoC are points in the pathway of patient management where there are recognized guidelines and clear clinical consensus on the options for management and should be regionally agreed and uniformly applied by regional Cancer Alliances. While this report marks the first major change in cancer MDT management since the Calman-Hine report in 1995, its implementation, nationally, has been slow with now nearly four years since its publication. It is argued however that streamlining is a necessary step in ensuring the viability of MDT processes, and therefore maintaining patient care in the current socioeconomic context of rising workload and cancer incidence, financial pressures, and workforce shortages. In this mini review, we offer a succinct summary of the recent developments around the implementation of the 2020 streamlining framework, including challenges and barriers to its implementation, and the potential future directions in this field, which we propose should increase utilisation of implementation science. We conclude that ensuring successful implementation of the framework and the SOC requires securing a buy-in from key stakeholders, including MDTs and hospital management teams, with clearly defined (a) management approaches that include triage (e.g. through a mini MDT meeting), (b) assessment of case complexity (something that directly feeds into the SOC), and (c) roles of the MDT lead and the members, while acknowledging that the SOC cannot be universally applied without the consideration of individual variations across teams and hospital Trusts.

Optimizing tissue stewardship in non-small cell lung cancer to support molecular characterization and treatment selection: statement from a working group of thoracic pathologists

Many patients with non-small cell lung cancer do not receive guideline-recommended, biomarker-directed therapy, despite the potential for improved clinical outcomes. Access to timely, accurate, and comprehensive molecular profiling, including targetable protein overexpression, is essential to allow fully informed treatment decisions to be taken. In turn, this requires optimal tissue management to protect and maximize the use of this precious finite resource. Here, a group of leading thoracic pathologists recommend factors to consider for optimal tissue management. Starting from when lung cancer is first suspected, keeping predictive biomarker testing in the front of the mind should drive the development of practices and procedures that conserve tissue appropriately to support molecular characterization and treatment selection.

T4 Lung Carcinoma with Infiltration of the Thoracic Aorta: Indication and Surgical Procedure

Lung carcinomas infiltrate the aorta mostly on the left side and are altogether rare. As an initial step, complete staging is performed and the results are evaluated in an interdisciplinary tumor board. If the patient's general condition including cardiopulmonary reserves is sufficient, and if there is neither distant metastasis nor an N2 situation, surgical resection may be indicated. The option for neoadjuvant chemotherapy should always be taken into consideration. Depending on the anatomic tumor location, partial lung resection and resection of the affected aortic wall are performed employing a cardiopulmonary bypass. The resected aortic wall is replaced by a vascular prosthesis. In recent years, this proven procedure has partly been replaced by an alternative one, avoiding extracorporeal circulation. An endoaortic stent is implanted in the affected area followed by partial lung resection and resection of the diseased aortic wall. This new procedure has significantly reduced perioperative mortality and morbidity. With proper patient selection, long-term survival can be improved even in this complex malignoma.

Clinical analysis of decision implementation by a multidisciplinary team in cervical cancer cases in Ganzhou, China

Objective

In this study, we evaluated the role of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) in clinical practice for cervical cancer by analyzing the development of a single-case multidisciplinary consultation for cervical cancer.

Methods

Patients in MDT consultations for cervical cancer were retrospectively analyzed for clinical information, decision content of MDT discussion, implementation, and follow-up results.

Results

Of the 392 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 359 had a first episode, of which 284 were stage IA-IIA2 (79.11%) and 75 were stage IIB-IVB (20.89%). Of these 392, 33 had a recurrence (8.42%). A total of 416 cases were analyzed, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery was recommended in 43 cases, of which 40 cases were implemented, and 36 of the 40 achieved the expected outcome. Surgical treatment was recommended in 241 cases, of which 226 underwent surgery, and 215 of them achieved the expected outcome. Radiotherapy was recommended in 31 cases, of which 26 cases underwent it, and 22 of them achieved the expected efficacy. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy was recommended in 57 cases, of which 49 underwent it, and 39 of them achieved the expected efficacy. Other treatments were recommended in 44 cases, of which 23 cases were implemented, and 10 of them achieved the expected efficacy, with statistically significant differences compared with cases without implementation (P <0.05). MDT decisions were correlated with age; the younger the patients, the higher the implementation efficiency (P <0.05). The difference between MDT expectation in all implementation and partial implementation and age was statistically significant (P <0.05). No significant difference was found between age and MDT expectation in all not fully implemented decisions (P >0.05). Some decisions were not fully implemented due to economic status and fear of certain treatments of the patient.

Conclusion

The MDT plays an important role in clinical practice such as clinical staging, treatment plan, and the complete treatment management of patients with cervical cancer, which can significantly improve the near-term treatment effect, whereas its effect on a long-term prognosis needs further clinical observation and active exploration.

The Impact of the Pathologist in Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences on Patient Care

OBJECTIVES

Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) are important tools in the treatment of patients with complex health issues, helping clinicians achieve optimal outcomes in oncological practice. To explore the role of pathologists at MCCs, we conducted a review of prior research on this topic.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for English-language qualitative, quantitative, or multiple/mixed methods studies on the role and impact of pathologists on MCCs. We used Microsoft Excel to extract data.

RESULTS

Of 76 research results, we included only 3 studies that involved review of cancer cases by pathologists for MCCs. All 3 studies showed that expert pathology review improved the accuracy of diagnosis and refined disease staging, leading to changes in the management of melanoma, breast cancer, and gynecologic cancer. No studies explored the barriers to pathologists participating in MCCs or the strategies or interventions employed to promote or support pathologist involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a paucity of studies on the role of pathologists in MCCs. Given the positive impact of MCCs involving pathologists on the accuracy of diagnosis and optimization of treatment, future research is warranted to further establish the role and impact of pathologists in MCCs and how to promote or support pathologists' involvement.

Analysis of communication styles underpinning clinical decision-making in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings

Introduction

In cancer care, multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the gold standard. While they are trying to maximize productivity on the back of the steadily increasing workload, growing cancer incidence, financial constraints, and staff shortages, concerns have been raised with regards to the quality of team output, as reported by Cancer Research UK in 2017: "Sometimes we discuss up to 70 patients. This is after a whole day of clinics, and we do not finish until after 19.00. Would you want to be number 70?". This study aimed to explore systematically some of the dynamics of group interaction and teamwork in MDT meetings.

Materials and methods

This was a prospective observational study conducted across three MDTs/university hospitals in the United Kingdom. We video-recorded 30 weekly meetings where 822 patient cases were reviewed. A cross-section of the recordings was transcribed using the Jefferson notation system and analyzed using frequency counts (quantitative) and some principles of conversation analysis (qualitative).

Results

We found that, across teams, surgeons were the most frequent initiators and responders of interactional sequences, speaking on average 47% of the time during case discussions. Cancer nurse specialists and coordinators were the least frequent initiators, with the former speaking 4% of the time and the latter speaking 1% of the time. We also found that the meetings had high levels of interactivity, with an initiator-responder ratio of 1:1.63, meaning that for every sequence of interactions initiated, the initiator received more than a single response. Lastly, we found that verbal dysfluencies (laughter, interruptions, and incomplete sentences) were more common in the second half of meetings, where a 45% increase in their frequency was observed.

Discussion

Our findings highlight the importance of teamwork in planning MDT meetings, particularly with regard to Cancer Research UK in 2017 cognitive load/fatigue and decision-making, the hierarchy of clinical expertise, and the increased integration of patients' psychosocial information into MDT discussion and their perspectives. Utilizing a micro-level methodology, we highlight identifiable patterns of interaction among participants in MDT meetings and how these can be used to inform the optimization of teamwork.

Hospital-based multidisciplinary lung cancer care in Australia: a survey of the landscape in 2021

Introduction

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Australia and has the highest cancer burden. Numerous reports describe variations in lung cancer care and outcomes across Australia. There are no data assessing compliance with treatment guidelines and little is known about lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) infrastructure around Australia.

Methods

Clinicians from institutions treating lung cancer were invited to complete an online survey regarding the local infrastructure for lung cancer care and contemporary issues affecting lung cancer.

Results

Responses from 79 separate institutions were obtained representing 72% of all known institutions treating lung cancer in Australia. Most (93.6%) held a regular MDT meeting although recommended core membership was only achieved for 42/73 (57.5%) sites. There was no thoracic surgery representation in 17/73 (23.3%) of MDTs and surgery was less represented in regional and low case volume centres. Specialist nurses were present in just 37/79 (46.8%) of all sites. Access to diagnostic and treatment facilities was limited for some institutions. IT infrastructure was variable and most sites (69%) do not perform regular audits against guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven most sites to incorporate virtual MDT meetings, with variable impact around the country. Clinician support for a national data-driven approach to improving lung cancer care was unanimous.

Discussion

This survey demonstrates variations in infrastructure support, provision and membership of lung cancer MDTs, in particular thoracic surgery and specialist lung cancer nurses. This heterogeneity may contribute to some of the well-documented variations in lung cancer outcomes in Australia.