Multidisciplinary Clinics in Lung Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

Lung Cancer Patients' and Caregivers' Satisfaction With Multidisciplinary Versus Serial Care in a Community Healthcare Setting: A Prospective Comparative-Effectiveness Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary Care is recommended for complex oncologic conditions. We compared lung cancer patients' and caregivers' satisfaction with Multidisciplinary Care to routine, serial care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed validated surveys administered at baseline, 3 and 6 months to patients and their caregivers enrolled in a prospective cohort comparative-effectiveness study of Multidisciplinary versus Serial Care (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02123797). Multivariate mixed linear models examined the cross-group differences, time-related variances, and how interaction between groups and time-periods influenced satisfaction.

RESULTS

Compared to serial care (N = 297), the Multidisciplinary Care cohort (N = 159), was older (69 vs. 66 years), had earlier clinical stage (41% vs. 33% stage I/II), and less severe symptoms (45% vs. 35% asymptomatic). Demographic and social-economic characteristics of caregivers (N = 99 for Multidisciplinary and 123 for Serial Care, respectively) were similar. Multidisciplinary Care patients and caregivers were more likely to perceive their care to be better than that of other patients (p < .01). Although Serial Care patients and caregivers expressed greater satisfaction with their treatment plan (p < .01 patients, p = 0.04 caregivers), Multidisciplinary Care patients showed greater improvement at 6-months (p < .01). Multidisciplinary Care patients and caregivers reported better overall satisfaction with team members (p < .01) while Serial Care patients had greater improvement in their satisfaction with team members at 6-months (p = .04). Multidisciplinary Care patients perceived more financial burden at 6-months compared to Serial Care patients (p = .04).

CONCLUSION

Patient-caregiver dyads had mixed perceptions of their care experience. Recipients of Multidisciplinary Care perceived better experience with care and team members; Serial Care recipients expressed greater satisfaction with their treatment plan.

Vascular Anomalies Care in the United States: A Cross-Sectional National Survey

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the current distribution, composition, and practice patterns of multidisciplinary vascular anomalies (VAs) teams in the US.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional survey of children's hospitals in the US offering VAs care. We approached 142 children's hospitals that provided care for VAs via email. The survey evaluated VA clinic location, medical staffing, research participation, and treatments offered. The survey was administered between October 2021 and July 2022.

RESULTS

Participants from 95 eligible hospitals responded to the survey (response rate = 67%). Large areas of the Midwest and Northwest US had no available multidisciplinary VA teams or clinics. Most respondents worked at academic centers (89%), with 66% at a freestanding children's hospital, and 56% reported having a multidisciplinary clinic. Most common physician participants in clinic included hematology-oncology (91%), interventional radiology (87%), dermatology (85%), plastic surgery (81%), and otolaryngology (74%). Only 38% of programs included medical geneticists. Smaller hospitals had fewer medical and ancillary staff and offered fewer therapeutic options. Research was available at most larger institutions (69%) but less commonly at smaller hospitals (34%).

CONCLUSIONS

Major portions of the US lack multidisciplinary VA care. Furthermore, VA programs vary in composition and geneticists are absent from the majority of programs. These findings should inform efforts to address disparate access and develop standards of care for multidisciplinary VA care in the US.

Improving Access and Timeliness of Early Palliative Care Specialist Assessment for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer in a Rapid Assessment Clinic

Background: Integrating palliative care in the management of patients with lung cancer improves quality of life, patient satisfaction, and overall survival. However, few patients receive timely palliative care consultation. The Lung Diagnostic Assessment Program (LDAP) in Southeastern Ontario is a multidisciplinary rapid assessment clinic that expedites the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected lung cancer. Objectives: We sought to increase the percentage of LDAP patients with stage IV lung cancer receiving palliative care consultation within three months of diagnosis. Design: We integrated a palliative care specialist in LDAP to facilitate in-person, same-visit consultation for patients with a new lung cancer diagnosis. Setting/Subjects: Five hundred fifty patients in a Canadian academic center (154 initial baseline, 104 COVID baseline, 292 post-palliative care integration). Measurements: Baseline data were established using retrospective chart review (February-June 2020 and December 2020-March 2021 due to COVID-19 pandemic). Data were collected prospectively to assess improvement (March-August 2021). Statistical Process Control charts assessed for special cause variation; chi-square tests assessed for differences between groups. Results: The percentage of patients with stage IV lung cancer seen by palliative care within three months increased from 21.8% (12/55) during early-COVID baseline to 49.2% (32/65) after palliative care integration (p < 0.006). Palliative care integration in LDAP reduced mean time from referral to consultation from 24.8 to 12.3 days, including same-day consultation for 15/32 (46.8%) patients with stage IV disease. Conclusions: Integrating palliative care specialists into LDAP improved the timeliness of palliative care assessment for patients with stage IV lung cancer.

Single Setting Robotic Lung Nodule Diagnosis and Resection

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Early tissue diagnosis followed by timely therapeutic procedures can have a significant impact on overall survival. While robotic-assisted lung resection is an established therapeutic procedure, robotic-assisted bronchoscopy is a more recent diagnostic procedure that improves reach, stability, and precision in the field of bronchoscopic lung nodule biopsy. The ability to combine lung cancer diagnostics with therapeutic surgical resection into a single-setting anesthesia procedure has the potential to decrease costs, improve patient experiences, and most importantly, reduce delays in cancer care.

Characterizing Variability in Lung Cancer Outcomes and Influence of a Lung Diagnostic Assessment Program in Southeastern Ontario, Canada

INTRODUCTION

Regional variability in lung cancer (LC) outcomes exists across Canada, including in the province of Ontario. The Lung Diagnostic Assessment Program (LDAP) in southeastern (SE) Ontario is a rapid-assessment clinic that expedites the management of patients with suspected LC. We evaluated the association of LDAP management with LC outcomes, including survival, and characterized the variability in LC outcomes across SE Ontario.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study by identifying patients with newly diagnosed LC through the Ontario Cancer Registry (January 2017-December 2019) and linked to the LDAP database to identify LDAP-managed patients. Descriptive data were collected. Using a Cox model approach, we compared 2-year survival for patients managed through LDAP vs. non-LDAP.

RESULTS

We identified 1832 patients, 1742 of whom met the inclusion criteria (47% LDAP-managed and 53% non-LDAP). LDAP management was associated with a lower probability of dying at 2 years (HR 0.76 vs. non-LDAP, p < 0.0001). Increasing distance from the LDAP was associated with a lower likelihood of LDAP management (OR 0.78 for every 20 km increase, p < 0.0001). LDAP-managed patients were more likely to receive specialist assessment and undergo treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In SE Ontario, initial diagnostic care provided via LDAP was independently associated with improved survival in patients with LC.

Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Care Within a Community-Based Health Care System

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary lung cancer care is assumed to improve care delivery by increasing transparency, objectivity, and shared decision making; however, there is a lack of high-level evidence demonstrating its benefits, especially in community-based health care systems. We used implementation and team science principles to establish a colocated multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic in a large community-based health care system and evaluated patient experience and outcomes within and outside this clinic.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective frequency-matched comparative effectiveness study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02123797) evaluating the thoroughness of lung cancer staging, receipt of stage-appropriate treatment, and survival between patients receiving care in the multidisciplinary clinic and those receiving usual serial care. Target enrollment was 150 patients on the multidisciplinary arm and 300 on the serial care arm. We frequency-matched patients by clinical stage, performance status, insurance type, race, and age.

RESULTS

A total of 526 patients were enrolled: 178 on the multidisciplinary arm and 348 on the serial care arm. After adjusting for other factors, multidisciplinary patients had significantly higher odds (odds ratio [OR]: 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5 to 3.4]) of trimodality staging compared with serial care. Patients on the multidisciplinary arm also had higher odds of receiving invasive stage confirmation (OR: 2.0 [95% CI, 1.4 to 3.1]) and mediastinal stage confirmation (OR: 1.9 [95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8]). Additionally, patients receiving multidisciplinary care were significantly more likely to receive stage-appropriate treatment (OR: 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1 to 3.0]). We found no significant difference in overall or progression-free survival between study arms.

CONCLUSION

The multidisciplinary clinic delivered significant improvements in evidence-based quality care on multiple levels. Even in the absence of a demonstrable survival benefit, these findings provide a strong rationale for recommending this model of care.

A descriptive investigation of clinical practice models used by cardiovascular genetic counselors in North America

Cardiovascular genetic counseling has expanded as an established genetic counseling specialty over the last 20 years. Despite guidelines recommending genetic counseling for heritable cardiac diseases, there have been limited descriptions of the practice model types used for different clinical indications seen in this genetic counseling subspecialty. We aimed to describe current clinical practice models used by cardiovascular genetic counselors and to document practice model strengths, challenges, and areas for improvement. Genetic counselor respondents (n = 63) who self-reported seeing cardiovascular indications were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors and Twitter. They completed a survey describing the types of healthcare professionals with whom they collaborate to see common cardiovascular indications, the nature of their collaboration, and their qualitative experiences with their practice models. Clinical indications addressed in this survey were hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy, all other cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, aortopathies, dyslipidemias, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and congenital heart defects. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. We found that the composition of multidisciplinary provider practice models varies by indication, though general cardiologists were the most common collaborative provider reported. Practice models including geneticists were most common for aortopathy indications. Overall, the majority of respondents were satisfied with the practice models they reported. While a wide variety of successes, challenges, and areas for improvement of practice models were reported, collaboration, communication, and access to appropriate providers for patient care were consistent themes across these three questions. To our knowledge, this is the first description of practice models used by cardiovascular genetic counselors. The results of this study add to the knowledge of this specialty of genetic counseling and assist in understanding the needs and challenges for developing cardiovascular genetics programs and clinics.

Survival Impact of an Enhanced Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference in a Regional Community Health Care System

INTRODUCTION

We compared NSCLC treatment and survival within and outside a multidisciplinary model of care from a large community health care system.

METHODS

We implemented a rigorously benchmarked "enhanced" Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference (eMTOC) and used Tumor Registry data (2011-2017) to evaluate guideline-concordant care. Because eMTOC was located in metropolitan Memphis, we separated non-MTOC patient by metropolitan and regional location. We categorized National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment as "preferred," or "appropriate" (allowable under certain circumstances). We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across cohorts using chi-square tests and survival using Cox regression, adjusted for multiple testing. We also performed propensity-matched and adjusted survival analyses.

RESULTS

Of 6259 patients, 14% were in eMTOC, 55% metropolitan non-MTOC, and 31% regional non-MTOC cohorts. eMTOC had the highest rates of African Americans (34% versus 28% versus 22%), stages I to IIIB (63 versus 40 versus 50), urban residents (81 versus 78 versus 20), stage-preferred treatment (66 versus 57 versus 48), guideline-concordant treatment (78 versus 70 versus 63), and lowest percentage of nontreatment (6 versus 21 versus 28); all p values were less than 0.001. Compared with eMTOC, hazard for death was higher in metropolitan (1.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-1.7) and regional (1.7, 1.5-1.9) non-MTOC; hazards were higher in regional non-MTOC versus metropolitan (1.1, 1.0-1.2); all p values were less than 0.05 after adjustment. Results were generally similar after propensity analysis with and without adjusting for guideline-concordant treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary NSCLC care planning was associated with significantly higher rates of guideline-concordant care and survival, providing evidence for rigorous implementation of this model of care.

Health Resource and Cost Savings Achieved in a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Clinic

Background: Lung cancer (LC) care is resource and cost intensive. We launched a Multidisciplinary LC Clinic (MDC), where patients with a new LC diagnosis received concurrent oncology consultation, resulting in improved time to LC assessment and treatment. Here, we evaluate the impact of MDC on health resource utilization, patient and caregiver costs, and secondary patient benefits. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients in a rapid assessment clinic with a new LC diagnosis pre-MDC (September 2016-February 2017) and post-MDC implementation (February 2017-December 2018). Data are reported as means; unpaired t-tests and ANOVA were used to assess for significance. We also conducted a cost analysis. Resource utilization, out-of-pocket costs, procedure-related costs, and indirect costs were evaluated from the societal perspective and presented in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD); multi-way worst/best case and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: We reviewed 428 patients (78 traditional model, 350 MDC). Patients in the MDC model required significantly fewer oncology visits from LC diagnosis to first LC treatment (1.62 vs. 2.68, p < 0.001), which was significant for patients with stage 1, 3, and 4 disease. Compared with the traditional model, there was no change in mean biopsies/patient (1.32 traditional vs. 1.17 MDC, p = 0.18) or staging investigations/patient (2.24 traditional vs. 2.02 MDC, p = 0.20). Post-MDC, there was an increase in invasive mediastinal staging for patients with stage 2/3 LC (15.0% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001). Over 22 months, MDC resulted in savings of CAD 48,389 including CAD 24,167 CAD in direct patient out-of-pocket expenses. For the threshold analyses, MDC was estimated to cost CAD 25,708 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), considered to be below current willingness to pay thresholds (at CAD 80,000 per QALY). MDC also facilitated oncology assessment for 29 non-LC patients. Conclusions: An MDC led to a reduction in patient visits and direct patient and caregiver costs.

Collaborative, interprofessional nutritional care within head and neck cancer teams: an international multi-site qualitative study

Evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) recommend that nutritional care is delivered by an interprofessional team inclusive of dietitians, doctors, nurses, and speech pathologists. Barriers to collaboration exist within interprofessional teams. However, research on this is currently lacking in the HNC setting, particularly with regard to the provision of nutritional care. This study aimed to explore what facilitates collaborative nutritional care for patients with HNC from the perspectives of different healthcare professionals. This qualitative study used a grounded theory approach. Healthcare professionals from two radiotherapy departments in the United States and two in Australia were interviewed. Forty-six interviews were completed with 17 radiation-oncologists, 12 nurses, eleven dietitians, and 6 speech-pathologists. Collaborative nutritional care for patients with HNC was underpinned by three categories and six sub-categories: access to dietitians (facilitated by funding for dietitians and the strength of evidence), communication (facilitated by team meetings, communication systems, and multidisciplinary clinics), and role-clarity (facilitated by non-clinical activities and respect). This study highlights opportunities for enhancing collaborative nutritional care within HNC teams. Further studies on the impact of the dietitian, interprofessional education, team meetings, and multidisciplinary clinics are required to promote collaborative nutritional care for HNC patients.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Lung cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality and has a wide variation in treatment and outcomes in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must only be carried out in lung cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

The best person (or machine) for the job: Rethinking task shifting in healthcare

Globally, health systems are faced with the difficult challenge of how to get the best results with the often limited number of health workers available to them. Exacerbating this challenge is the task of meeting ever-changing needs of service users and managing unprecedented technological advances. The process of matching skills to changing needs and opportunities is termed task shifting. It involves questioning health service goals, what health workers do, asking if it can be done in a better way, and implementing change. Task shifting in healthcare is often conceptualised as a process of transferring responsibility for 'simple' tasks from high-skilled but scarce health workers to those with less expertise and lower pay, and predominantly viewed as a means to reduce costs and promote efficiency. Here we present a position paper based on the work and expertise of the European Commission Expert Panel on Effective ways of Investing in Health. It contends that this is over simplistic, and aims to provide a new task shifting framework, informed by relevant evidence, and a series of recommendations. While far from comprehensive, there is a growing body of evidence that certain tasks traditionally undertaken by one type of health worker can be undertaken by others (or machines), in some cases to a higher standard, thus challenging the persistence of rigid professional boundaries. Task shifting has the potential to contribute to health systems strengthening when accompanied by adequate planning, resources, education, training and transparency.

Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Allied Health Optimisation Clinic for Cancer Patients with Complex Needs

This study examined the feasibility of implementing a multidisciplinary allied health model of care (MOC) for cancer patients with complex needs. The MOC in this retrospective study provided up to eight weeks of nutritional counselling, exercise prescription, fatigue management and psychological support. Implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, fidelity and appropriateness) were evaluated using nine patient interviews, and operational data and medical records of 185 patients referred between August 2017 and December 2018. Adoption, including intention to try and uptake, were acceptable: 88% of referred patients agreed to screening and 71% of eligible patients agreed to clinic participation. Fidelity was mixed, secondary to inpatient admissions and disease progression interrupting patient participation. Clinician compliance with outcome assessment was variable at program commencement (dietetic, 95%; physiotherapy, 91%; occupational therapy, 33%; quality of life, 23%) and low at program completion (dietetic, 32%; physiotherapy, 13%; occupational therapy, 10%; quality of life, 11%) mainly due to non-attendance. Patient interviews revealed high satisfaction and perceived appropriateness. Adoption of the optimisation clinic was acceptable. Interview responses suggest patients feel the clinic is both acceptable and appropriate. This indicates a multidisciplinary model is an important aspect of comprehensive, timely and effective care. However, fidelity was low, secondary to the complexities of the patient cohort.

Value of multidisciplinary collaboration in acute and chronic pancreatitis

Multidisciplinary collaboration (MDC) has been widely adopted in healthcare to optimize patient care. MDC brings several specialized healthcare providers to the table using several methods, including multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs), multidisciplinary clinics, teleconferences, and online multidisciplinary expert panels, to reach the goal of achieving the best diagnosis and treatment plan for complex diseases. Diagnosis and management of acute/chronic pancreatitis is complex which necessitates the development and utilization of MDC. The key members of pancreatitis MDM include gastroenterologists, radiologists, pathologists, hepatobiliary surgeons, chairperson, and a coordinator. After selection of admitted or referred patients, the availability of required information is reviewed, and then each case is discussed. The final diagnosis and treatment plan is confirmed by consensus, especially for complex cases that require endoscopic intervention or pancreatectomy and patients with the possibility of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. It has been shown that MDMs have improved the clinical outcome of patients with acute/chronic pancreatitis. In addition to MDM, the feasibility of multidisciplinary clinics, teleconferences, and online multidisciplinary expert panels for the management of pancreatic disorders has been investigated. Understanding structure, potential advantages, and limitations of MDC will help clinicians and healthcare systems in developing an optimized MDC to improve the management of acute/chronic pancreatitis. This narrative review summarized prior recommendations and explored the impact of MDC on clinical outcomes of patients with pancreatitis. Our recommendations offer a generalizable method that can be utilized by healthcare systems.

Effectiveness of a nurse-led multidisciplinary self-management program for patients with coronary heart disease in communities: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of a nurse-led multidisciplinary self-management program (NMSP) on self-management behaviors, self-efficacy, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and unplanned health service utilization (HSU) among Chinese patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in communities.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial with repeated measurements was used. A convenience sample of 144 participants was recruited from a community health center in China. All participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 72) in the newly developed NMSP or a control group (n = 72) in routine care. Outcome measurement was performed at baseline, 3 months and 6 months using Coronary Artery Disease Self-Management Scale (CADSs), Self-efficacy for Chronic Disease 6-item Scale (SECD6), and Short Form-12 health survey questionnaire (SF-12).

RESULTS

Over the six months, the two groups reported significant differences in disease medical and emotional management of CADSs, confidence in symptom and disease management of SECD6, physical and mental component summary of SF-12, as well as emergency and outpatient visits of unplanned HSU.

CONCLUSIONS

The NMSP improves self-management behaviors, self-efficacy, HRQoL and reduces unplanned HSU among CHD patients in communities.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study provides an effective approach to empower CHD patients with emphasizing on collaboration support of health professionals in communities.

Patient and physician perceptions of lung cancer care in a multidisciplinary clinic model

Background

Lung cancer (lc) is a complex disease requiring coordination of multiple health care professionals. A recently implemented lc multidisciplinary clinic (mdc) at Kingston Health Sciences Centre, an academic tertiary care hospital, improved timeliness of oncology assessment and treatment. This study describes patient, caregiver, and physician experiences in the mdc.

Methods

We qualitatively studied patient, caregiver, and physician experiences in a traditional siloed care model and in the mdc model. We used purposive sampling to conduct semi-structured interviews with patients and caregivers who received care in one of the models and with physicians who worked in both models. Thematic design by open coding in the ATLAS.ti software application (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, Berlin, Germany) was used to analyze the data.

Results

Participation by 6 of 72 identified patients from the traditional model and 6 of 40 identified patients from the mdc model was obtained. Of 9 physicians who provided care in both models, 8 were interviewed (2 respirologists, 2 medical oncologists, 4 radiation oncologists). Four themes emerged: communication and collaboration, efficiency, quality of care, and effect on patient outcomes. Patients in both models had positive impressions of their care. Patients in the mdc frequently reported convenience and a positive effect of family presence at appointments. Physicians reported that the mdc improved communication and collegiality, clinic efficiency, patient outcomes and satisfaction, and consistency of information provided to patients. Physicians identified lack of clinic space as an area for mdc improvement.

Conclusions

This qualitative study found that a lc mdc facilitated patient communication and physician collaboration, improved quality of care, and had a perceived positive effect on patient outcomes.

Cost Analysis of a Multidisciplinary Vascular Anomaly Clinic

Objective:

Multidisciplinary vascular anomaly clinics (VACs) offer important value to pediatric patients with complex vascular anomalies whose care overlaps specialties. These clinics are labor intensive and costly to operate since providers see fewer patients compared to their individual specialty clinic. Our North American tertiary care institution’s VAC specialists include a pediatric otolaryngologist, pediatric surgeon, pediatric plastic surgeon, pediatric dermatologist, and interventional radiologist. To assess financial feasibility, we conducted a cost analysis of our VACs comprised of 2 half-day multidisciplinary physician attended clinics (5 specialists at our main campus and 2 specialists at a satellite clinic) and a half-day nurse practitioner clinic.

Method:

Assessment of net revenue based on net collections for clinic, professional, operative, hospital setting, and facility charges generated during 12 consecutive monthly VACs beginning July 1, 2015. Expense calculations included provider and staff salaries, benefits, supply costs, and clinic leasing costs.

Results:

There were 469 clinic visits, of which 202 were new patient evaluations. Sixty-eight patients underwent 93 procedures under general anesthesia, including procedures performed by our interventional radiologist, most commonly sclerotherapy or embolization (n = 37), surgical interventions including endoscopy (n = 36), or laser procedures (n = 20). Three patients were admitted. Fifty-seven patients received a new diagnosis different from that for which they were referred. Gross revenue was $1 810 525, and net revenue was 42.5%, or $783 152. Expenses totaled $453 415 for a net positive revenue of $329 737.

Conclusion:

When including direct downstream revenue, particularly from operative procedures, our VAC program operates on a net positive margin, making the program financially feasible.

Improving Timeliness of Oncology Assessment and Cancer Treatment Through Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Clinic

PURPOSE

Timely lung cancer care has been associated with improved clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. We identified improvement opportunities in lung cancer management pathways at Kingston Health Sciences Centre. Quality improvement strategies led to the implementation of a multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic (MDC).

METHODS

We set an outcome measure of decreasing the time from diagnosis to first cancer treatment by 10 days within 6 months of clinic implementation. We implemented a weekly MDC that involved respirologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists at which patients with new lung cancer diagnoses were offered concurrent oncology consultation. We used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to guide our improvement initiatives. A total of five Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles spanned 14 months and consisted of an MDC pilot clinic, large-scale MDC launching, debriefing meetings, and clinic expansion. Pre-MDC data were analyzed retrospectively to establish baseline and prospectively for improvement. Statistical Process Control XmR(i) charts were used to report data.

RESULTS

Since MDC initiation, 128 patients have been seen in 34 MDC clinics (3.8 patients per clinic). Mean days from diagnosis to first oncology assessment decreased from 12.4 days to 3.9 days, and mean days from diagnosis to first cancer treatment decreased from 39.5 to 15.0 days, both of which demonstrated special cause variation. Time to assessment and treatment improved for patients with every stage of lung cancer and for both small-cell and non-small-cell subtypes.

CONCLUSION

MDC shortens the time from lung cancer diagnosis to oncology assessment and treatment. Time to treatment improved more than time to oncology assessment, which suggests the improvement is related to benefits beyond faster oncology assessment.

Methylenetetrahydrofolate Dehydrogenase 1 Silencing Expedites the Apoptosis of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cells via Modulating DNA Methylation

BACKGROUND Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for about 85% of all types of lung cancer. Methylenetetrahydrofolate dehydrogenase 1 (MTHFD1) is involved in DNA methylation, and DNA methylation is related to tumorigenesis. The role of MTHFD1 in NSCLC was examined in our study. MATERIAL AND METHODS The correlation between the expression of MTHFD1 and the clinicopathological features of patients diagnosed with lung cancer was investigated using the chi-square test. The viability and apoptosis of NCI-H1299 cells was respectively detected using cell counting kit-8 and flow cytometry assays. The expression levels of MTHFD1, apoptosis-related factors and DNA methyltransferase-related factors were assessed by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) and western blot assays. RESULTS We found that MTHFD1 expression in the tumor tissues and cells was higher than that of adjacent normal tissues and cells. The survival time of patients with high MTHFD1 expression was shorter than those with low MTHFD1 expression. The expression level of MTHFD1 was related to tumor size, TNM stage, histologic grade, and metastasis, but not linked to gender and age. Besides, si-MTHFD1 significantly decreased the viability of cells in a time-dependent manner, and increased cell apoptosis. When cells were transfected with MTHFD1-siRNA, the levels of surviving and B-cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2) were attenuated, while p53 and Bcl-2 associated X protein (Bax) levels were enhanced. Moreover, si-MTHFD1 markedly downregulated the expression levels of DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1), DNMT3a, and DNMT3b. CONCLUSIONS Collectively, our results proved that MTHFD1 silencing obviously reduced the proliferation and enhanced the apoptosis of NSCLC via suppressing DNA methylation.

Making the Evidentiary Case for Universal Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncologic Care

The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the state of the evidence for, and challenges to, sustainable implementation of multidisciplinary thoracic oncology programs. Multidisciplinary care is much advocated by professional groups and makers of clinical guidelines, but little practiced. The gap between universal recommendation and scant evidence of practice suggests the existence of major barriers to program implementation. We examine 2 articles published in this issue of Clinical Lung Cancer to illustrate problems with the evidence base for multidisciplinary care. The inherent complexity of care delivery for the lung cancer patient drives near-universal advocacy for multidisciplinary care as a means of overcoming the heterogeneous quality and outcomes of patient care. However, the evidence to support this model of care delivery is poor. Challenges include the absence of a clear definition of "multidisciplinary care" in the literature, a consequent hodge-podge of poorly-defined examples of tested models, methodologically flawed studies, exemplified by the near-total absence of prospective studies examining this model of care delivery, and absence of scientifically sound dissemination and implementation studies, as well as cost-effectiveness studies. Against this background, we examined the results of a recent large single-institutional retrospective study suggesting the survival benefit of care within a colocated multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic, and an ambitious systematic review of existing literature on multidisciplinary cancer clinics. Better-quality evidence is still needed to establish the value of the multidisciplinary care concept. Such studies need to be prospective, use standardized definitions of multidisciplinary care, and provide clear information about program structure.