Systematic review of multidisciplinary teams in the management of lung cancer

The impact of multidisciplinary cancer conferences on overall survival: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary cancer conferences consist of regular meetings between diverse specialists working together to share clinical decision making in cancer care. The aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of multidisciplinary cancer conference intervention on the overall survival of patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for studies published up to July 2023. Studies reporting on the impact of multidisciplinary cancer conferences on patient overall survival were included. A standard random-effects model with the inverse variance-weighted approach was used to estimate the pooled hazard ratio of mortality (multidisciplinary cancer conference vs non-multidisciplinary cancer conference) across studies, and the heterogeneity was assessed by I2. Publication bias was examined using funnel plots and the Egger test.

RESULTS

A total of 134 287 patients with cancer from 59 studies were included in our analysis, with 48 467 managed by multidisciplinary cancer conferences and 85 820 in the control arm. Across all cancer types, patients managed by multidisciplinary cancer conferences had an increased overall survival compared with control patients (hazard ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval = 0.62 to 0.71, I2 = 84%). Median survival time was 30.2 months in the multidisciplinary cancer conference group and 19.0 months in the control group. In subgroup analysis, a positive effect of the multidisciplinary cancer conference intervention on overall survival was found in breast, colorectal, esophageal, hematologic, hepatocellular, lung, pancreatic, and head and neck cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our meta-analysis found a significant positive effect of multidisciplinary cancer conferences compared with controls. Further studies are needed to establish nuanced guidelines when optimizing multidisciplinary cancer conference integration for treating diverse patient populations.

Attitudes of physicians and patients toward immediate and intraoperative chemotherapy treatment in colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

We have shown in a Phase I trial that immediate adjuvant chemotherapy (IAC) during surgical resection and immediately postoperative is safe and feasible in patients with colon cancer (CC). IAC avoids delays in adjuvant treatment and has the potential to improve survival and quality of life. We aim to determine patients and providers attitudes toward this novel multidisciplinary treatment approach.

METHODS

Two web-based surveys were administered to newly diagnosed CC patients, survivors, surgeons and oncologists. Surveys assessed treatment preferences and perceived barriers to IAC. Chi-square tests were conducted to compare differences between patients' and providers' responses.

RESULTS

Responses were collected from 35 patients and 40 providers. Patients were more willing to: (1) proceed with IAC to finish treatment earlier thus possibly improving quality of life (p = 0.001); (2) proceed with IAC despite potential side effects (p < 0.001); and (3) proceed with a dose of intraoperative chemotherapy even if on final pathology, may not have been needed (p = 0.002). Patients were more likely to indicate no barriers to collaborative care (p = 0.001) while providers were more likely to cite that it is time consuming, thus a barrier to participation (p = 0.001), has scheduling challenges (p = 0.001), and physicians are not available to participate (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a discordance between what providers and patients value in perioperative and adjuvant CC treatment. Patients are willing to accept IAC despite potential side effects and without survival benefit, highlighting the importance of understanding patient preference.

Effect of Bone Metastasis Cancer Board on Spinal Surgery Outcomes: A Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives: Bone metastasis cancer boards (BMCBs) focusing on the management of bone metastases have been gathering much attention. However, the association of BMCBs with spinal surgery in patients with spinal metastases remains unclear. In this retrospective single-center observational study, we aimed to clarify the effect of a BMCB on spinal metastasis treatment. Materials and Methods: We reviewed consecutive cases of posterior decompression and/or instrumentation surgery for metastatic spinal tumors from 2008 to 2019. The BMCB involved a team of specialists in orthopedics, rehabilitation medicine, radiation oncology, radiology, palliative supportive care, oncology, and hematology. We compared demographics, eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOGPS), Barthel index (BI), number of overall versus emergency surgeries, and primary tumors between patients before (2008-2012) and after (2013-2019) BMCB establishment. Results: A total of 226 patients including 33 patients before BMCB started were enrolled; lung cancer was the most common primary tumor. After BMCB establishment, the mean patient age was 5 years older (p = 0.028), the mean operating time was 34 min shorter (p = 0.025), the mean hospital stay was 34.5 days shorter (p < 0.001), and the mean BI before surgery was 12 points higher (p = 0.049) than before. Moreover, the mean number of surgeries per year increased more than fourfold to 27.6 per year (p < 0.01) and emergency surgery rates decreased from 48.5% to 29.0% (p = 0.041). Patients with an unknown primary tumor before surgery decreased from 24.2% to 9.3% (p = 0.033). Postoperative deterioration rates from 1 to 6 months after surgery of ECOGPS and BI after BMCB started were lower than before (p = 0.045 and p = 0.027, respectively). Conclusion: The BMCB decreased the emergency surgery and unknown primary tumor rate despite an increase in the overall number of spinal surgeries. The BMCB also contributed to shorter operation times, shorter hospital stays, and lower postoperative deterioration rates of ECOGPS and BI.

Rare adrenal cavernous hemangioma: a case report highlighting diagnostic challenges

Introduction

Adrenal cavernous hemangiomas are rare benign vascular tumors that pose significant diagnostic challenges. Despite their benign nature, features overlapping with malignancies often complicate management decisions.

Case presentation

A 64-year-old male presented with a 4.4 cm necrotic left adrenal mass discovered incidentally on imaging. His medical history included papillary thyroid carcinoma, with subsequent thyroidectomy and radioactive iodine ablation. Evaluations for hiccups revealed multiple lung nodules, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and anemia. Given the patient's previous cancer history, elevated aldosterone/renin ratio, and mass size, our multidisciplinary tumor board decided to proceed with a left adrenalectomy. Post-surgical pathology confirmed a diagnosis of adrenal cavernous hemangioma.

Conclusion

The occurrence of ambiguous adrenal mass with other pathologies, such as our patient's papillary thyroid carcinoma, complicates the diagnostic and therapeutic landscape. As demonstrated in our case, opting for surgery remains a viable solution for adrenal cavernous hemangiomas, especially for masses greater than 4 cm. Interdisciplinary collaboration, exemplified by our tumor board's decision-making process, is crucial for optimal management. This case underscores the need for a multifaceted approach when confronting adrenal masses with such diagnostic ambiguity.

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) 2023 Expert Consensus Document: Staging and multidisciplinary management of patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

Novel targeted therapy and immunotherapy drugs have recently been approved for use in patients with surgically resectable lung cancer. Accurate staging, early molecular testing, and knowledge of recent trials are critical to optimize oncologic outcomes in these patients.

Assessment of Attitudes Toward Initiation of Immediate Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Early initiation of chemotherapy after surgery for colon cancer has survival benefits. Immediate adjuvant chemotherapy (IAC) involves giving chemotherapy during surgical resection and immediately postoperatively. This novel approach has been shown to be safe, eliminating delays in adjuvant treatment that could increase the risk of micro-metastatic spread. The aim of this study was to assess the willingness of the general public to accept IAC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March and April 2021, 800 telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of adult New York State residents. The Survey Research Institute of Cornell University conducted all surveys. Kruskal-Wallis, chi-squared, and Fisher's tests were conducted using R 4.0.2.

RESULTS

Three scenarios were presented: (1) receiving IAC resulting in improved survival and quality of life, (2) finishing chemotherapy earlier without survival impact, and (3) finishing chemotherapy earlier but with possible side effects. Respondents with higher education were more likely to accept (1) & (2), males were more likely to accept (2) & (3), higher income respondents were more likely to accept (1) & (3), and those with more work hours were more likely to accept (2). Lastly, 16% responded they would be very or extremely likely, and 52% respondents would be somewhat likely or likely to accept intraoperative chemotherapy, even if it may not be necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents were likely to accept IAC if offered. Given the known risk of delayed adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in colon cancer, further research is warranted to determine the survival and quality of life (QOL) benefits of IAC.

Morphologic Severity of Atypia Is Predictive of Lung Cancer Diagnosis

In cytologic analysis of lung nodules, specimens classified as atypia cannot be definitively diagnosed as benign or malignant. Atypia patients are typically subject to additional procedures to obtain repeat samples, thus delaying diagnosis. We evaluate morphologic categories predictive of lung cancer in atypia patients. This retrospective study stratified patients evaluated for primary lung nodules based on cytologic diagnoses. Atypia patients were further stratified based on the most severe verbiage used to describe the atypical cytology. Logistic regressions and receiver operator characteristic curves were performed. Of 129 patients with cytologic atypia, 62.8% later had cytologically or histologically confirmed lung cancer and 37.2% had benign respiratory processes. Atypia severity significantly predicted final diagnosis even while controlling for pack years and modified Herder score (p = 0.012). Pack years, atypia severity, and modified Herder score predicted final diagnosis independently and while adjusting for covariates (all p < 0.001). This model generated a significantly improved area under the curve compared to pack years, atypia severity, and modified Herder score (all p < 0.001) alone. Patients with severe atypia may benefit from repeat sampling for cytologic confirmation within one month due to high likelihood of malignancy, while those with milder atypia may be followed clinically.

Multidisciplinary approach to cancer care in Rwanda: the role of tumour board meetings

Introduction

Cancer treatment is complex and necessitates a multidisciplinary approach. Tumour Board Meetings (TBMs) provide a multidisciplinary platform for health care providers to communicate about treatment plans for patients. TBMs improve patient care, treatment outcomes and, ultimately, patient satisfaction by facilitating information exchange and regular communication among all parties involved in a patient's treatment. This study describes the current status of case conference meetings in Rwanda including their structure, process and outcomes.

Methods

The study included four hospitals providing cancer care in Rwanda. Data gathered included patients' diagnosis, number of attendance and pre-TBM treatment plan, as well as changes made during TBMs, including diagnostic and management plan changes.

Results

From 128 meetings that took place at the time of the study, Rwanda Military Hospital hosted 45 (35%) meetings, King Faisal Hospital had 32 (25%), Butare University Teaching Hospital (CHUB) had 32 (25%) and Kigali University Teaching Hospital (CHUK) had 19 (15%). In all hospitals, General Surgery 69 (29%) was the leading speciality in presenting cases. The top three most presented disease site were head and neck 58 (24%), gastrointestinal 28 (16%) and cervix 28 (12%). Most (85% (202/239)) presented cases sought inputs from TBMs on management plan. On average, two oncologists, two general surgeons, one pathologist and one radiologist attended each meeting.

Conclusion

TBMs in Rwanda are increasingly getting recognised by clinicians. To influence the quality of cancer care provided to Rwandans, it is crucial to build on this enthusiasm and enhance TBMs conduct and efficiency.

The Impact of Tumor Boards on Breast Cancer Care: Evidence from a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, with a complex clinical path that involves several professionals and that requires a multidisciplinary approach. However, the effectiveness of breast cancer multidisciplinary care and the processes that contribute to its effectiveness have not yet been firmly determined. This study aims to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on breast cancer care outcomes. A systematic literature review was carried out through Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed databases. The search was restricted to articles assessing the impact of MTB implementation on breast cancer care. Fourteen studies were included in the review. The most analyzed outcomes were diagnosis, therapy and survival. Four out of four studies showed that, with implementation of an MTB, there was a change in diagnosis, and all reported changes in the treatment plan after MTB implementation. A pooled analysis of three studies reporting results on the outcome "mortality" showed a statistically significant 14% reduction in mortality relative risk for patients enrolled versus not enrolled in an MTB. This study shows that MTB implementation is a valuable approach to deliver appropriate and effective care to patients affected by breast cancer and to improve their outcomes.

From “Cure” to “Care”: The Role of the MultiDisciplinary Team on Colorectal Cancer Patients’ Satisfaction and Oncological Outcomes

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of malignancy-related mortality worldwide due to its heterogeneous features and diagnosis at a late stage. Artificial intelligence (AI) is good at handling a large volume of computational and repeated labor work and is suitable for assisting doctors in analyzing image-dominant diseases like lung cancer. Scientists have shown long-standing efforts to apply AI in lung cancer screening via CXR and chest CT since the 1960s. Several grand challenges were held to find the best AI model. Currently, the FDA have approved several AI programs in CXR and chest CT reading, which enables AI systems to take part in lung cancer detection. Following the success of AI application in the radiology field, AI was applied to digitalized whole slide imaging (WSI) annotation. Integrating with more information, like demographics and clinical data, the AI systems could play a role in decision-making by classifying EGFR mutations and PD-L1 expression. AI systems also help clinicians to estimate the patient's prognosis by predicting drug response, the tumor recurrence rate after surgery, radiotherapy response, and side effects. Though there are still some obstacles, deploying AI systems in the clinical workflow is vital for the foreseeable future.

Multidisciplinary Approach to Older Adults with Hematologic Malignancies-a Paradigm Shift

Hematologic malignancies are most likely to present in the seventh and eighth decades of life. Continued population growth will lead to increasing numbers of older adults with hematologic malignancies. Oncology care for older adults is complex and must account for the effect of aging on disease biology and treatment tolerance. Multidisciplinary oncology care has been utilized in solid tumor oncology for decades, initially driven by the need for multi-modality treatment. In this review, we make the case for multidisciplinary oncogeriatric care for older adults with hematologic malignancies in order to best navigate the intersection of aging and blood cancer.

Time to treatment and hospital visits for patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in a single payer system

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) requires coordination of various services to ensure timely and accurate delivery of care. This can result in multiple hospital visits and extend time to treatment (TTT). The primary purpose of our study was to evaluate time to NAC for patients at a regional cancer centre. Healthcare resource use in the form of hospital visits before NAC was also evaluated.

METHODS

A retrospective chart analysis of patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent NAC between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2018 was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 286 patients underwent NAC. Median TTT was 22 days (range: 2-105). Median number of visits between first consultation and NAC was 5 (range: 0-12). Majority of additional visits were for diagnostic imaging/interventions, with a median number of 4 visits (range: 0-10). Each additional hospital visit increased time to NAC treatment by 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

Women undergoing NAC require multiple visits before initiating treatment-the majority of these visits are for diagnostic imaging. These results support the need for the coordination of multidisciplinary care and diagnostic imaging for breast cancer patients undergoing NAC to reduce hospital visits, improve the patient experience, and reduce TTT.

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.

The role of the medical oncologist in the holistic care of patients with cancer in the Philippines

In the past decade, cancer care in the Philippines has advanced in response to the complex heterogeneity inherent to the disease and the constantly increasing number of patients. Central to this development is the increased awareness and universal acceptance of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach in providing cancer care to optimize outcomes where medical oncologists play a vital role. This position paper summarizes the unique and multifaceted roles of the medical oncologist in ensuring that the best possible care is given to patients with cancer by actively participating in the whole spectrum of the patient’s journey—from diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, until providing palliative care and addressing end-of-life issues

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.

Feasibility and Value of Establishing a Community-Based Virtual Multidisciplinary Sarcoma Case Conference

PURPOSE

Management of soft tissue and bone sarcoma presents many challenges, both diagnostically and therapeutically, and requires multidisciplinary collaboration; however, such collaboration is often challenging to establish, especially in the community setting. We share our experiences of a virtual multidisciplinary sarcoma case conference (VMSCC).

METHODS

We conducted retrospective review of the VMSCC data-initially via Webex, now Microsoft Teams-and the surveys of referring physicians to understand the feasibility and value of the VMSCC.

RESULTS

The VMSCC was established in March 2013 in Kaiser Permanente Northern California with consistent participation of the Departments of Musculoskeletal Oncology (orthopedic oncology), Musculoskeletal Radiology, Pathology, Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Nuclear Medicine, Surgical Oncology, and Genetics. Pediatric Oncology participated ad hoc when pediatric sarcoma cases were presented. Referrals were from multiple specialties and regions, including the Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic and Hawaii regions. From March 2013 to December 2019, 1,585 cases were reviewed encompassing 36 histologic types. More than 300 cases were reviewed per year from 2017 to 2019. Survey results of referring physicians demonstrate that the VMSCC enhanced the confidence of treating physicians, and its recommendations frequently led to treatment changes.

CONCLUSION

Establishing a valuable community-based VMSCC is feasible. VMSCC recommendations frequently led to treatment changes and improved the confidence of treating physicians.

Improving Cancer MDT performance in Western Sydney - three years' experience

Background

While multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are now considered an essential part of cancer care decision-making, how they perform varies widely. The authors hypothesised that a comprehensive, multipronged improvement program, and associated annual member survey, could strengthen MDT performance across a whole cancer service.

Methods

The study comprised the introduction of a structured program, the Tumour Program Strengthening Initiative (TPSI) linked with an annual survey of member’s perceptions of their performance. Three iterations of the survey have been completed (2017, 2018 and 2019). Generalised estimating equations (GEEs) were used to test for a difference in the proportion of positive survey responses between 2017 and 2019 adjusted for team clustering.

Results

Twelve teams participated in TPSI. One hundred twenty-nine, 118 and 146 members completed the survey in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. Of the 17 questions that were asked in all three years, nine showed significant improvement and, of these, five were highly significant. Documenting consensus, developing Terms of Reference (TORs), establishing referral criteria and referring to clinical practice guidelines showed most improvement. Questions related to patient considerations, professional development and quality improvement (QI) activities showed no significant change.

Conclusions

TPSI resulted in sustained and significant improvement. The MDT survey not only allowed MDT members to identify their strengths and weaknesses but also provided insights for management to flag priority areas for further support. Overall program improvement reflected the strengthening of the weakest teams as well as further improvement in highly performing MDTs. Importantly, the initiative has the potential to achieve behaviour change amongst clinicians.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06203-y.

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.

Feasibility and Value of Establishing a Community-Based Virtual Multidisciplinary Sarcoma Case Conference

PURPOSE

Management of soft tissue and bone sarcoma presents many challenges, both diagnostically and therapeutically, and requires multidisciplinary collaboration; however, such collaboration is often challenging to establish, especially in the community setting. We share our experiences of a virtual multidisciplinary sarcoma case conference (VMSCC).

METHODS

We conducted retrospective review of the VMSCC data-initially via Webex, now Microsoft Teams-and the surveys of referring physicians to understand the feasibility and value of the VMSCC.

RESULTS

The VMSCC was established in March 2013 in Kaiser Permanente Northern California with consistent participation of the Departments of Musculoskeletal Oncology (orthopedic oncology), Musculoskeletal Radiology, Pathology, Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Nuclear Medicine, Surgical Oncology, and Genetics. Pediatric Oncology participated ad hoc when pediatric sarcoma cases were presented. Referrals were from multiple specialties and regions, including the Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic and Hawaii regions. From March 2013 to December 2019, 1,585 cases were reviewed encompassing 36 histologic types. More than 300 cases were reviewed per year from 2017 to 2019. Survey results of referring physicians demonstrate that the VMSCC enhanced the confidence of treating physicians, and its recommendations frequently led to treatment changes.

CONCLUSION

Establishing a valuable community-based VMSCC is feasible. VMSCC recommendations frequently led to treatment changes and improved the confidence of treating physicians.

Earlier multidisciplinary palliative care intervention for people with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lung cancer is the most common cancer and leading cause of cancer mortality globally. Lung cancer is associated with significant morbidity, with symptoms often being poorly managed, causing significant symptom burden for both patients and their family caregivers. In people with life-limiting illnesses including advanced cancer, palliative care has been effective in improving symptom control, physical and mental wellbeing, quality of life, and survivorship; with benefits extending to caregivers while in the role and subsequently. Earlier integration of palliative care within oncology may be associated with improved patient outcomes, and has been supported by two Lancet commissions and national guidelines. The evidence for its effectiveness, however, has been mixed across the cancer spectrum. The aim of this review was to evaluate the current evidence for the effectiveness of early integrated palliative care in improving outcomes for people with lung cancer and their caregivers. Meta-analyses were performed where studies used the same measure. Otherwise, synthesis used a narrative approach. Similar to other types of advanced cancer, this review reveals mixed evidence for the effectiveness of early referral to palliative care and for the effectiveness of individual palliative interventions for people with lung cancer and their caregivers. Evidence that on-demand palliative care is equally, if not more effective than palliative care that is routinely provided, raises the question whether initiation and provision of palliative care as part of multidisciplinary lung cancer care ought to be guided by an early referral or need-based referral. Better understanding of what constitutes palliative care when delivered to people with lung cancer and their caregivers will help delineate the correlation with reported outcomes for these populations.

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.

Accuracy of lung cancer staging in the multidisciplinary team setting

Accurate staging of lung cancer is of utmost importance in determining the stage-appropriate treatment and prognosis. Imaging tests which include contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) examination of the chest to include the liver and adrenal glands and 18-fluoro-2 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scan facilitate the initial tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging of the disease and provide guidance on the optimal biopsy site and biopsy method. The diagnostic and staging approach should be tailored to the individual patient according to risk, benefit, patient preferences, and available expertise. Diagnosis and staging should preferably be accomplished with a single procedure or the least number of invasive procedures if more than one is needed. Ideally, centers managing lung cancer patients should have a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology board prescribing personalized evidence-based management tailored to each individual patient. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings provide a platform for key experts from various disciplines to contribute specific advice on the management of each individual patient. As assessment of mediastinal lymph node involvement is an important component of lung cancer staging, optimal mediastinal staging can be achieved with a variety of techniques that can be discussed and performed by the various specialists in the MDT. Despite a relative paucity of quality evidence that MDT contributes to improvements in lung cancer survival outcomes, this approach has evolved to become the standard of care in many centers around the world. Thoracic MDT has resulted in more focused and timely investigations for histopathologic diagnosis and disease staging which translate into earlier treatment initiation. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that MDT care facilitates and allows access to investigations that lead to improved accuracy of tumor and nodal staging. However, there is still a paucity of evidence on the accuracy of lung cancer staging in the MDT setting.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines compliance of a sarcoma service: A retrospective review

BACKGROUND

Clinical workup and treatment guidelines have been published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) to ensure patients are treated uniformly and appropriately. This study sought to retrospectively review patients with a new diagnosis of sarcoma who were treated in a National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated center and determine compliance rates with guidelines for sarcoma.

AIM

To evaluate our compliance of NCCN sarcoma guidelines at a major NCI designated center and to report instances of deviation that could be used for future studies to improve patient care.

METHODS

Data was collected retrospectively as an internal review and quality assessment of 35 newly diagnosed and treated patients. Demographic data were recorded and information concerning whether patients had appropriate imaging, biopsy and management. Variables of interest were expressed as raw numbers and percentages.

RESULTS

Primary site imaging was obtained in 100% of cases. Chest and full-body imaging were obtained in 97% and 100% of indicated cases, respectively. Tissue was obtained preoperatively in 97% of cases. Imaging was reviewed at multidisciplinary Treatment Planning Conference (TPC) in 97% of cases. Pathology was reviewed in 94% of cases in TPC. Both tumor, node, metastasis staging and plan of care were reviewed in 100% of cases in TPC. Treatment guidelines were followed in 94% of cases reviewed.

CONCLUSION

This study evaluated the workup and treatment provided by a single NCI designated sarcoma service to a series of patients with pathologies defined with the NCCN sarcoma treatment guidelines. Although adherence to NCCN was reported to be very high future prospective studies are required to investigate whether NCCN guidelines impact patient outcomes.

B3GNT3, a Direct Target of miR-149-5p, Promotes Lung Cancer Development and Indicates Poor Prognosis of Lung Cancer

Background

B3GNT3 (β1, 3-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase-3) belongs to the β3GlcNAcT family and is essential to form extended core 1 oligosaccharides. Previous studies revealed that B3GNT3 expression was dysregulated in multiple cancers. Here, we aimed to understand the expression profile and function of B3GNT3 in lung cancer.

Materials and Methods

The expression of B3GNT3 was measured by immunohistochemistry and public database analysis. B3GNT3 was knocked down to evaluate the lung cancer cell proliferation, migration and invasion in in vitro and in vivo tumor formation experiments. miR-149-5p targeting B3GNT3 was identified with TargetScan analysis and confirmed with reporter assay. Overexpression of miR-149-5p was achieved using microRNA mimics and function of microRNA-149-5p/B3GNT3 axis was tested in vitro.

Results

B3GNT3 was upregulated in lung cancer, and B3GNT3 overexpression was associated with poor prognosis of lung cancer patients. High expression of B3GNT3 was associated with advanced TNM stages, larger tumor size, tumor metastasis and recurrence. Functionally, we demonstrated that knockdown of B3GNT3 suppressed lung cancer cell growth and invasion in vitro. Knockdown of B3GNT3 suppressed lung cancer development in a xenograft tumor model. Moreover, miR-149-5p was validated to negatively regulate B3GNT3 expression through directly targeting B3GNT3 3ʹ-UTR. Overexpression of miR-149-5p could antagonize the tumorigenesis effect of B3GNT3 in vitro.

Conclusion

In summary, our study demonstrated that B3GNT3 overexpression was correlated with poor prognosis of lung cancer patient, indicating that B3GNT3 could be a promising prognostic biomarker for lung cancer. miR-149-5p negatively regulated B3GNT3 expression, which might be utilized for therapeutic target in lung cancer.

Understanding Patients' Attitudes Toward Cancer Multidisciplinary Meetings: A Mixed Methods Study

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary cancer meetings (MDMs) are an integral component of quality care; however, little research exists regarding patients' views on this model of care. We aimed to explore and understand the attitudes of patients toward MDMs.

METHODS

A mixed methods exploratory design was used. Qualitative data from patients with a current or previous diagnosis of cancer were collected and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results informed the development of a questionnaire survey that was administered to patients with a current or previous diagnosis of cancer. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Nine patients participated in 3 focus groups, and 152 patients (response rate, 90%) completed the questionnaire. Patients were strongly supportive of MDMs and thought that all patients with cancer should be routinely discussed. More than 90% of surveyed patients believed MDMs were reassuring, meant all treatment modalities were considered, and led to evidence-based treatment recommendations. Patients wanted MDMs to focus on medical treatment planning rather than psychosocial issues, and 87% regarded the meeting as confidential. Patients described a preference for doctor-led decision making, and most (84%) wanted MDM treatment decisions to be discussed with them in a subsequent consultation, with 73% of patients also wanting this in a written format.

CONCLUSION

Patients strongly endorse MDMs as a means to develop an evidence-based, medical treatment plan agreed to by consensus. They want to be purposely informed of the meeting and its outcomes. Results from this study can help inform future guidelines on the conduct of MDMs.

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.

The impact of tumor board on cancer care: evidence from an umbrella review

Background

Tumor Boards (TBs) are Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings in which different specialists work together closely sharing clinical decisions in cancer care. The composition is variable, depending on the type of tumor discussed. As an organizational tool, MDTs are thought to optimize patient outcomes and to improve care performance. The aim of the study was to perform an umbrella review summarizing the available evidence on the impact of TBs on healthcare outcomes and processes.

Methods

Pubmed and Web of Science databases were investigated along with a search through citations. The only study design included was systematic review. Only reviews published after 1997 concerning TBs and performed in hospital settings were considered. Two researchers synthetized the studies and assessed their quality through the AMSTAR2 tool.

Results

Five systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2017 were retrieved. One review was focused on gastrointestinal cancers and included 16 studies; another one was centered on lung cancer and included 16 studies; the remaining three studies considered a wide range of tumors and included 27, 37 and 51 studies each. The main characteristics about format and members and the definition of TBs were collected. The decisions taken during TBs led to changes in diagnosis (probability to receive a more accurate assessment and staging), treatment (usually more appropriate) and survival (not unanimous improvement shown). Other outcomes less highlighted were quality of life, satisfaction and waiting times.

Conclusions

The study showed that the multidisciplinary approach is the best way to deliver the complex care needed by cancer patients; however, it is a challenge that requires organizational and cultural changes and must be led by competent health managers who can improve teamwork within their organizations. Further studies are needed to reinforce existing literature concerning health outcomes. Evidence on the impact of TBs on clinical practices is still lacking for many aspects of cancer care. Further studies should aim to evaluate the impact on survival rates, quality of life and patient satisfaction. Regular studies should be carried out and new process indicators should be defined to assess the impact and the performance of TBs more consistently.

Evaluating A Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference Checklist: Practice Versus Perceptions

BACKGROUND

Presentation to multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) supports optimal treatment of young women with breast cancer (YWBC). However, research shows barriers to MCC practice, and variation in professional attendance and referral patterns. A checklist may help overcome these barriers and support MCC practice with YWBC.

METHODS

We developed, piloted and evaluated an MCC checklist in sites participating in a pan-Canadian study (RUBY; Reducing the bUrden of Breast cancer in Young women). A survey assessed checklist processes and impacts, and checklist data were analysed for checklist uptake, MCC presentation rates and MCC processes including staff attendance.

RESULTS

Fifteen RUBY sites used the checklist (~50%), mostly for data collection/tracking. Some positive effects on clinical practice such as increased presentation of YWBC at MCC were reported, but most survey participants indicated that MCC processes were sufficient without the checklist. Conversely, checklist data show that only 31% of patients were presented at MCC. Of those, 41% were recommended treatment change.

CONCLUSION

Despite limited checklist uptake, there was evidence of its clinical practice benefit. Furthermore, it supported data collection/quality monitoring. Critically, checklist data showed gaps in MCC practice and low MCC presentation rates for YWBC. This contrasts with overall provider perceptions that MCCs are working well. Findings suggest that supports for MCC are needed but may best take the form of clear national practice recommendations and audit and feedback cycles to inform awareness of good MCC practice and outcomes. In this setting, tools like the MCC checklist may become helpful in supporting MCC practice.

"All boats will rise": Physicians' perspectives on multidisciplinary lung cancer care in a community-based hospital setting

PURPOSE

We explored the perceived strengths, barriers to implementation, and suggestions for sustainable implementation of a multidisciplinary model within a community-based hospital system from the physicians' perspectives.

METHODS

We conducted 9 focus groups with 37 physicians involved in the care of lung cancer patients. Grounded theory methodology guided the identification of recurrent themes that emerged from the qualitative data analysis.

RESULTS

The majority of study participants agreed that the multidisciplinary model could benefit patients by promoting high quality, efficient, and well-coordinated care. Co-location, financial disincentives, and time constraints were identified as major deterrents to full participation in a multidisciplinary clinic. Other perceived challenges were the integration of a multidisciplinary care model into the existing healthcare system, maintenance of referral streams, and designation of the physician primarily responsible for a patient's care. Educating physicians about the availability of a multidisciplinary clinic, establishing efficient processes for initial consultations, implementing technology for virtual participation, and using a nurse navigator with reliable closed-loop communication were suggested to improve the implementation of the multidisciplinary model.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians generally agreed that the multidisciplinary model could improve lung cancer care, but they perceived significant personal, institutional, and system-level barriers that need to be addressed for its successful implementation in a community healthcare setting.

Multidisciplinary management improves survival at 1 year after surgical treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer: a propensity score-matched study

OBJECTIVES

The management of patients affected by lung cancer requires the expertise of specialists from different disciplines. Although the advantages of multidisciplinary team discussions seem obvious, there are limited studies evaluating the influence of this approach on postoperative outcomes in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study is to examine the impact of a multidisciplinary approach on survival of patients undergoing surgery for NSCLC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive patients who underwent surgery for NSCLC between January 2008 and December 2015. Data were compared between patients treated before the implementation of a multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB), between 2008 and 2012, and those who received treatment after the implementation of the MTB, between 2012 and 2015. Patients were matched one to one according to the discussion of the MTB and on the basis of a propensity score built using several patient characteristics. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to compare patient outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 246 patients were treated prior to the initiation of the MTB and 231 patients after the initiation of the MTB. Based on the propensity score, 2 well-matched groups of 170 patients were identified. Patients who were discussed at the MTB were noted to have better outcomes when compared with those who were not discussed at the MTB on different terms including complete staging evaluation, early tumour, node and metastasis (TNM) stages and 1-year survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a multidisciplinary thoracic malignancy conference increased the 1-year survival rate of patients who underwent a surgical resection for NSCLC.

How multidisciplinary are multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care? An observational study in oncology departments in Flanders, Belgium

Background

In current cancer care, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) aim at uniting care professionals from different disciplines to decide upon the best possible treatment plan for the patients based on the available scientific evidence. In Belgium, the multidisciplinary approach is mandatory and formally regulated since 2003. Current research indicates that MDTMs are not always truly multidisciplinary, ie, with a mix of medical as well as paramedical disciplines, and that the medical profession (physicians and medical specialists) tends to dominate the interaction in MDTMs. To ensure that MDTMs can benefit from their diverse membership to achieve their full potential, significant attention should be devoted to the multidisciplinary character of these meetings. The aim of this study is to explore and describe the multidisciplinary character in MDTMs and how it is actually shaped in practice in different Flemish medical oncology departments.

Methods

For this study, we carried out an observational comparative case study. We studied 59 multidisciplinary team meetings at inpatient medical oncology departments in five different Belgian hospitals (academic as well as general) and explored multidisciplinarity and how it is actually shaped in practice.

Results

The study is unique in identifying and analyzing three distinct types of MDTMs. The analysis of the three types revealed an inconsistent and, at times, contradictory picture of multidisciplinary team meetings. The findings also align with previous studies arguing that MDTMs in oncology are typically driven by doctors, with limited input of nurses and other nonmedical staff in which decisions are argued on biomedical information and far less consideration of psychosocial aspects.

Conclusion

The concept of a MDTM should not merely be a group of care professionals who work essentially independently and occasionally liaise with one another. Yet, this study has shown a worryingly low awareness of the true character of multidisciplinarity, particularly among medical disciplines.

Interactive 3D Reconstruction of Pulmonary Anatomy for Preoperative Planning, Virtual Simulation, and Intraoperative Guiding in Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lung Surgery

OBJECTIVES

Routine imaging modalities combined with state-of-the-art reconstruction software can substantially improve preoperative planning and simplify complex procedure by enhancing the surgeon's knowledge of the patient's specific anatomy. The aim of the current study was to demonstrate the feasibility of interactive three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) reconstructions for preoperative planning and intraoperative guiding in video-assisted thoracoscopic lung surgery (VATS) with 3D vision.

METHODS

Twenty-five consecutive patients referred for an anatomic pulmonary resection by a single surgeon were included. Data were collected prospectively. All patients underwent a CT angiography in the diagnostic pathway prior to referral. 3D reconstruction of the pulmonary anatomy was obtained from CT scans with dedicated software. An interactive PDF file of the 3D reconstruction with virtual resection was created, in which all the pulmonary structures could be individually selected. Furthermore, the reconstructions were used for intraoperative guiding on double monitor during VATS with 3D vision.

RESULTS

In total, 26 procedures were performed for 5 benign and 21 malignant conditions. Lobectomy and segmentectomy were performed in 20 (76.9 %) and 6 (23.1%) cases, respectively. In all patients, preoperative 3D reconstruction of pulmonary vessels corresponded with the intraoperative findings. Reconstructions revealed anatomic variations in 4 (15.4%) patients. No conversion to thoracotomy or in-hospital mortality occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative planning with interactive 3D CT reconstruction is a useful method to enhance the surgeon's knowledge of the patient's specific anatomy and to reveal anatomic variations. Intraoperative 3D guiding in VATS with 3D vision is feasible and could contribute to the safety and accuracy of anatomic resection.

Taking the pulse of multidisciplinary cancer conferences for breast cancer care in Canada: A stocktake of current practice

AIM

International guidelines highlight the importance of implementation supports and quality monitoring of multidisciplinary care for breast cancer. In Canada, Ontario has standards for formal multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs), but other provinces/territories do not. This study aimed to stocktake MCCs for breast cancer in Canadian sites participating in the RUBY cohort study (Reducing the Burden of Breast Cancer in Young Women) to better understand variations in multidisciplinary care across Canada and to add to the international literature.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted with surgeons and surgical oncologists representing 34 clinical centres participating in RUBY. Questions were grouped according to: type of multidisciplinary care, implementation, function, practice, participation and presentation, operation, and demographics, and included a mix of Likert-based, tick box and open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Twenty-two responses (65%) were received. 91% of respondents reported that formal MCCs are part of regular practice. However, variation exists in the supports in place for ongoing implementation of MCCs, the understanding of the functions of MCCs, and the patients presented for discussion. Results also suggest less formalized processes for MCC in provinces without practice standards.

CONCLUSIONS

Response differences between Ontario and elsewhere suggest that standards for MCC and supports for their implementation make a positive difference in their operation. However, ongoing operational challenges and issues with attendance exist for all sites and suggest that along with development of practice standards, incentives for participation and further education on benefits and function of MCC may support uptake of MCCs in clinical practice.

Characteristics of professionalism of specialists and advantages of multidisciplinary teams in thyroid cancer: results of a national opinion survey

INTRODUCTION

The opinion of professionals about multidisciplinary teams (MDT) in thyroid cancer has not been studied in Spain. This study was intended to ascertain the opinion of specialists about the characteristics of the professionals and the advantages provided by these teams.

METHODS

A survey was designed to assess the opinion about the characteristics of professionalism and the advantages of MDT for patients, professionals, and the health care system. The survey was posted online from November 15, 2017 to February 15, 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 226 surveys were evaluated. The ability for teamwork was considered the most important characteristic to be met by professionals by 37.2% of respondents, while scientific competence was the most important indicator of professionalism for 37.6%. More than two thirds of specialists felt that MDTs improve the choice of treatments and diagnostic procedures, decrease clinical variability, facilitate implementation of clinical guidelines, improve ongoing training, and increase patient satisfaction and hospital prestige. The degree of agreement with the advantages of MDTs was significantly higher among specialists who had a MDT at their hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall opinion of professionals on the MDT model is highly favorable. Hospital managers and health care authorities should take these facts into account in order to encourage and support implementation of these teams.

Impact of the Interdisciplinary Tumor Board of the Cooperative Ewing Sarcoma Study Group on local therapy and overall survival of Ewing sarcoma patients after induction therapy

BACKGROUND

The Interdisciplinary Tumor Board (ITB) of the Cooperative Ewing Sarcoma Study (CESS) Group was investigated to assess its impact on the overall survival (OAS) of Ewing sarcoma (EwS) patients. The ITB functions as a reference center for the international institutions participating in the clinical trials of the CESS group, but is also available internationally to patients who have not been treated within an appropriate clinical trial. The value of tumor boards in terms of benefit for the patients and the health care system in general is not well documented and is also the subject of controversial discussions. A review of the representative literature is included.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from 481 patients who had been registered into the European Ewing Tumor Working Initiative of National Groups (EURO E.W.I.N.G.-99) clinical trial via the CESS data center between 2006 and 2009; this included 331 patients with localized disease and another 150 individuals with metastases at diagnosis. Median follow-up time was 3.2 years.

RESULTS

Improved OAS was observed for patients with metastases who had received recommendations from the ITB compared with those who had not received recommendations. In patients with localized disease, a recommendation from the ITB had no influence on OAS.

CONCLUSION

As a reference center for a rare disease, recommendations from our ITB impacted local therapy and led to higher OAS in patients with metastatic disease. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis that examines the value of a reference tumor board on a rare disease.

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.

INTEGRATED CARE PATHWAYS IN LUNG CANCER: A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

BACKGROUND

Non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) diagnosis and treatment is a highly complex process, requiring managerial skills merged with clinical knowledge and experience. Integrated care pathways (ICPs) might be a good strategy to overview and improve patient's management. The aim of this study was to review the ICPs of NSCLC patients in a University Hospital and to identify areas of quality improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The electronic medical records of 169 NSCLC patients visited at the University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Quality of care (QoC) has been measured trough fifteen indicators, selected according main international Guidelines and approved by the multi-disciplinary team for thoracic malignancies. Results have been compared with those of a similar retrospective study conducted at the same hospital in 2008.

RESULTS

A total of 146 patients were considered eligible. Eight of fifteen indicators were not in line with the benchmarks. We compared the results obtained in the two separate periods. Moreover, we process some proposal to be discussed with the general management of the hospital, aimed to redesign NSCLC care pathways.

CONCLUSIONS

ICPs confirm to be feasible and to be an effective tool in real life. The periodic measurement of QoC indicators is necessary to ensure clinical governance of patients pathways.

Molecular Tumor Boards: Ethical Issues in the New Era of Data Medicine

The practice and development of modern medicine requires large amounts of data, particularly in the domain of cancer. The future of personalized medicine lies neither with "genomic medicine" nor with "precision medicine", but with "data medicine" (DM) (big data, data mining). The establishment of this DM has required far-reaching changes, to establish four essential elements connecting patients and doctors: biobanks, databases, bioinformatic platforms and genomic platforms. The "transformation" of scientific research areas, such as genetics, bioinformatics and biostatistics, into clinical specialties has generated a new vision of care. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) are one response to these changes and are now providing better access to next-generation sequencing (NGS) and new cancer treatments to patients with inoperable or metastatic cancers, and those for whom the usual treatment has failed. However, MTB face a crucial ethical challenge: maintaining and improving the trust of patients, clinicians, researchers and industry in academic medical centers supported by private or public funding rather than providing genetic data directly to private companies. We believe that, in this era of DM, appropriate modern digital communication networks will be required to maintain this trust and to improve the organization and effectiveness of the system. There is, therefore, a need to reconsider the form and content of informed consent (IC) documents at all academic medical centers and to introduce dynamic and electronic informed consent (e-IC).

Successful strategies in implementing a multidisciplinary team working in the care of patients with cancer: an overview and synthesis of the available literature

In many health care systems globally, cancer care is driven by multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs). A large number of studies in the past few years and across different literature have been performed to better understand how these teams work and how they manage patient care. The aim of our literature review is to synthesize current scientific and clinical understanding on cancer MDTs and their organization; this, in turn, should provide an up-to-date summary of the current knowledge that those planning or leading cancer services can use as a guide for service implementation or improvement. We describe the characteristics of an effective MDT and factors that influence how these teams work. A range of factors pertaining to teamwork, availability of patient information, leadership, team and meeting management, and workload can affect how well MDTs are implemented within patient care. We also review how to assess and improve these teams. We present a range of instruments designed to be used with cancer MDTs - including observational tools, self-assessments, and checklists. We conclude with a practical outline of what appears to be the best practices to implement (Dos) and practices to avoid (Don'ts) when setting up MDT-driven cancer care.

Implementation of a lung cancer multidisciplinary team standardised template for reporting to general practitioners: a mixed-method study

OBJECTIVES

Few interventions have been designed that provide standardised information to primary care clinicians about the diagnostic and treatment recommendations resulting from cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) (tumour board) meetings. This study aimed to develop, implement and evaluate a standardised template for lung cancer MDTs to provide clinical information and treatment recommendations to general practitioners (GPs). Specific objectives were to (1) evaluate template feasibility (acceptability, appropriateness and timeliness) with GPs and (2) document processes of preimplementation, implementation and evaluation within the MDT setting.

DESIGN

A mixed-method study design using structured interviews with GPs and qualitative documentation of project logs about implementation processes.

SETTING

Two hospitals in Central Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

61 GPs evaluated the template. Two lung cancer MDTs, consisting of 33 clinicians, and eight researchers participated in template development and implementation strategy.

RESULTS

The MDT-reporting template appears to be a feasible way of providing clinical information to GPs following patient presentation at a lung cancer MDT meeting. Ninety-five per cent of GPs strongly agreed or agreed that the standardised template provided useful and relevant information, that it was received in a timely manner (90%) and that the information was easy to interpret and communicate to the patient (84%). Implementation process data show that the investment made in the preimplementation stage to integrate the template into standard work practices was a critical factor in successful implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that it is feasible to provide lung cancer MDT treatment recommendations to GPs through implementation of a standardised template. A simple intervention, such as a standardised template, can help to address quality gaps and ensure that timely information is communicated between tertiary and primary care healthcare providers.

Impact of a Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Educational Program for Interdisciplinary Teams

BACKGROUND

Successful implementation of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evidence-based guideline recommendations requires effective educational programs that target all clinicians from interdisciplinary teams. This study describes and evaluates the Engaging an Interdisciplinary Team for NSCLC (GAIN 3.0) experiential learning-based educational curriculum.

METHODS

GAIN 3.0 was designed to enhance interdisciplinary collaboration for effective NSCLC diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. The program used a flipped classroom model that included an e-learning component prior to a live 6-hour interactive program. The interactive program included hands-on simulations, small group workshops, gamification, and case discussions. Participants included academic and community members of multidisciplinary lung cancer teams. Assessments included an online baseline survey, a pretest and posttest, a program evaluation, a long-term survey (LTS), and on-site faculty evaluation of participants.

RESULTS

Of 416 attendees to 13 live GAIN 3.0 programs (nine in the United States and four in Europe), 304 (73%) completed the pretest and 187 (45%) completed the posttest. Out of a perfect score of 12 points, program participants had a mean test score of 6.3 ± 2.1 on the pretest (52%) and 7.8 ± 2.1 on the posttest (65%) (P = .03). There was an overall knowledge increase of 13% from pretest to posttest. Most LTS respondents (65%) rated the GAIN 3.0 live programs as "high impact." On the LTS, the areas with the greatest gains in participants who had very high confidence were communication across disciplines, use of a team-based approach, and personalized treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

GAIN 3.0 was a highly successful interdisciplinary activity that improved participants' knowledge, competence, and likely the clinical care provided to patients with NSCLC.

Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in practice: Results from a multi-institutional quantitative survey and implications for policy change

AIM

Multidisciplinary care is advocated as best practice in cancer care. Relatively little is documented about multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting functioning, decision making and the use of evidence to support decision making in Australia. This descriptive study aimed to examine team functioning, the role of team meetings and evidence use in MDTs whose institutions are members of Sydney Catalyst Translational Cancer Research Centre.

METHODS

We designed a structured 40-item survey instrument about topics that included meeting purpose, organization, resources and documentation; caseload estimates; use of evidence and quality assurance; patient involvement and supportive care needs; and open-ended items about the MDTs strengths and weaknesses. Participants were invited to participate via email and the survey was administered online. Data were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven MDTs from seven hospitals participated (100% response) and represented common (70%) and rare tumor groups (30%). MDT meeting purpose was reported as treatment (100%) or diagnostic decision making (88%), or for education purposes (70%). Most MDTs based treatment decisions on group consensus (92%), adherence to clinical practice guidelines (57%) or other evidence-based medicine sources (33%). The majority of MDTs discussed only a proportion of new patients at each meeting emphasizing the importance of educational aspects for other cases. Barriers exist in the availability of data to enable audit and reflection on evidence-based practice. MDT strengths included collaboration and quality discussion about patients.

CONCLUSIONS

MDT meetings focus on treatment decision making, with group consensus playing a significant role in translating research evidence from guidelines into clinical decision making. With a varying proportion of patients discussed in each MDT meeting, a wider audit of multidisciplinary care would enable more accurate assessments of whether treatment recommendations are in accordance with best-practice evidence.