Does a multidisciplinary team approach in a tertiary referral centre impact on the initial management of head and neck cancer?

Technology Enhanced Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences in Gynecologic Oncology: Impact on Quality and Education

Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) improve patient outcomes. Our goals were to investigate the impact of a technology platform, navify® Clinical Hub for Tumor Boards (nCH) on the quality and educational value of gynecologic oncology MCCs. We conducted a prospective, mixed methods study of the gynecologic oncology MCC at a comprehensive cancer center from 2020 to 2023. Using a validated observational tool, we assessed the quality of case presentation and discussion (as measured by a mean composite score) before and after the introduction of nCH. We also evaluated compliance of care plans with national guidelines, changes in care plans, and concordance of treatment received with MCC recommendations. Surveys and interviews were used to evaluate the educational value of the MCCs. Analyses were conducted using SAS v9.4 (Cary, NC) and Dedoose v9.0.17, (Los Angeles, CA). Pre- and post-nCH cohorts consisted of 49 and 60 patients, respectively. When comparing both cohorts, there was a difference in the mean composite score (50.57 vs 54.11; p = 0.016). Care plans were changed by the MCC in approximately 12% of cases, and MCC recommendations were 93-96% concordant with treatment received, but no statistically significant differences were observed. Additionally, MCC recommendations were 100% compliant with guidelines. Interviews of MCC participants revealed that the post-nCH presentation was more concise and structured. Despite limited use of some nCH features, GYN fellows reported a high educational value of the MCC. nCH improved the quality of the gynecologic oncology MCC and the educational experience of trainees.

Significance of Multidisciplinary Teams for Patients with Oral and Maxillofacial Surgical Diseases: An Observational Retrospective Study in a General Hospital in China

Objective

The multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach is increasingly being utilized in the management of complex head and neck diseases. This study analyzed the benefits of MDT for patients with head and neck diseases as primary or secondary conditions and categorized MDT meetings into two types: head and neck surgery initiation (HNI) and head and neck surgery participation (HNP). The study further explored the characteristics of these MDT meetings and the factors influencing patient compliance, aiming to optimize MDT treatment models to maximize patient benefits.

Design

Retrospective analysis.

Methods

MDT meetings from January 2021 to December 2023 were reviewed. The meetings and patients were classified into the HNI group and the HNP group. Various factors, including general patient conditions, disease characteristics et al were analyzed using chi-square tests and point biserial correlation tests. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 292 MDT cases were analyzed, comprising 127 cases in the HNI group and 165 cases in the HNP group. In the HNI group, the initial diagnosis was modified in 11 cases (8.7%), with 92 patients (72.4%) receiving major recommendations for their treatment plans. In the HNP group, the initial diagnosis was modified in 28 cases (17.0%). The head and neck surgeons had a major impact on treatment plans in 47 cases (28.5%). Notably, patients with head and neck tumors received more major recommendations (p<0.05) in the HIN group, and patients who had tumors (p<0.05) and from outpatient departments (p<0.05) exhibited poor compliance with recommendations.

Conclusion

The MDT approach in general hospitals has improved the rationality of medical decision-making, especially in rare diseases, tumors, and systematic conditions compared to MDT in a single center, with head and neck surgeons playing vital roles. MDT models can be further explored and established.

Impact of Multiprofessional Radiotherapy Peer Review on Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Staging in Head and Neck Cancer

AIMS

Cancer staging is routinely done in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM). There is however no established quality assurance (QA) for MDM-recorded cancer staging. Conversely, radiotherapy peer review is a recommended QA process. This study aimed to compare the cancer staging of the multiprofessional radiotherapy peer review (with radiologists) against the referring MDMs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All head and neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) cases discussed in peer review between May 2023 to April 2024 were prospectively evaluated. Any radiological disease progression (PD) on IMRT-planning scan since the diagnostic scans, and patients' cancer staging, were prospectively recorded. These were compared with the MDM-recorded outcomes data.

RESULTS

A total of 235 IMRT cases were peer-reviewed: 166 definitive, 63 post-operative and 6 palliatives. Of the analysable definitive cases, 44/150 (29%) were found to have PD, with a mean interval from diagnostic to IMRT-planning scan of 51 days (Standard Deviation SD = 25), compared to 38 days (SD = 21) in the cohort without PD (p < 0.01). After the exclusion of 28 patients with the most advanced non-metastatic stage, 35 (30%) were upstaged with a mean interval from diagnostic to IMRT-planning of 49 days (SD = 26), compared to 39 days (SD = 23) in the cohort without upstage (p = 0.05). Twenty (57%) upstaged patients had evidence of PD, while the other 15 (43%) were upstaged despite the absence of PD. Two MDM-recorded T3-category larynx cancers were subsequently recommended for a primary laryngectomy due to T4a-category at peer review, and both were proven T4a pathologically. Three upstaged patients were recommended concomitant chemotherapy. The peer review recommended IMRT volume changes to 156 (66%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Discrepancies in MDM staging can occur, and a protracted diagnosis and treatment pathway too can affect final cancer staging. Routine radiologist input in peer review can provide crucial post-MDM outcome assurance and the recommended clinical management.

Patterns of Discordance Between Clinical and Pathologic Stage in Head and Neck Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To enhance understanding in patterns of discordance between clinical and pathological T and N staging in multiple sites of head and neck squamous cell cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 580 newly diagnosed and surgically treated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients from a single institution over a 10-year period are presented. Clinical and pathologic staging are compared.

RESULTS

Notably, 33% of cases had staging discordance. Overall Cohen's kappa agreement was κ = 0.55 (moderate agreement). Highly discordant site stages with κ < 0.45 included: T2 oral cavity, T2 oropharynx, T3 larynx, and N1 lymph node. T2-4 oral cavity cancers were often overstaged, and more than one-third of T3 larynx cancers were understaged. Highly concordant site stages with κ>0.65 included: T1 larynx, T4 oropharynx, N0 lymph node, and N3 lymph node.

CONCLUSION

There exists a quantifiable and, in certain sites, clinically relevant pattern of discordance between clinical and pathologic staging. Tumor board multidisciplinary evaluation can highlight these discrepancies and aide in limiting effects on treatment decisions. However, discordant staging can affect the interpretation and application of prognostication, treatment, and data accuracy. Further investigation is warranted to improve clinical staging accuracy in areas of highest discordance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:4284-4291, 2024.

Lower survival for surgical treatment of HPV-related oropharynx cancer at community cancer centers

BACKGROUND

The rate of primary surgery for human papillomavirus-related oropharynx cancer (HPVOPC) has recently declined, while utilization of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has lagged at community cancer centers (CCs). We hypothesize that differences in overall survival (OS) exist between patients undergoing surgery for HPVOPC at CCs and low (<15 TORS/year; LVACs) and high (≥15 TORS/year; HVACS) TORS volume academic centers.

METHODS

Cases from the US National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of HPVOPC from 2010-2019 that underwent primary surgical treatment were included. Trends in TORS utilization, rates of positive surgical margins (PMs), quality of adjuvant treatment and 5-year OS were compared between CCs, LVACs and HVACs.

RESULTS

5,406 cases met study criteria. A significantly lower proportion of cases at CCs utilized TORS than at LVACs or HVACs (26.2% vs 44.0% vs 73.9%, respectively, p < .001). The rate of PMs was significantly higher at CCs than at LVACs or HVACs (25.7% vs 15.3% vs 9.2%, p < .001). A greater proportion of cases undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) received prolonged courses (23.6% vs 13.1% vs 8.8%, p < .001) or excessive doses (16.5% vs 11.5% vs 8.7%, p < .001) of RT at CCs than at LVACs or HVACs, respectively. 5-year OS was lowest at CCs (85.2%, 95%CI: 81.7-88.2%), intermediate at LVACs (88.9%, 95%CI: 87.2-90.4%), and highest at HVACs (91.4%, 95%CI: 89.5-92.9%; pLR<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in the type and quality of surgical and adjuvant treatment for HPVOPC exist between facility types based on TORS volume. Overall survival was lowest at CCs, intermediate at LVACs and highest at HVACs.

Delay in the Diagnosis of Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: Impact of Different Patient- and Healthcare Provider-Related Factors

Background In our setup, head and neck cancer (HNC) is the most common, and patients frequently present at an advanced stage, which results in dismal outcomes. Delays on the part of the patient (such as resistance to seeking treatment) or the provider (such as misdiagnosis or an extended wait period for consultation) may be the cause of a late presentation. The presentation stage may vary depending on several factors, including age, gender, smoking status, job status, and education. Objectives The study aims to identify factors that lead to advanced-stage presentations of HNCs and to determine the delays brought on by patient- or healthcare provider-related factors and how these factors affect HNC disease staging among biopsy-proven HNC patients. Materials and methods Participants in the study were those who initially presented with a biopsy-verified HNC at the cancer clinic of the department of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery at Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad. Patients answered questions on their first symptom presentation, past healthcare professional visits, and intervals between visits on a Cancer Symptom Interval Measure (C-SIM) questionnaire. For every patient, clinical and demographic information was gathered. TNM staging was completed. The test of significance was applied where applicable. Results Age, gender, education level, and smoking status had no bearing on the presentation stage. Patients without jobs present at a statistically significant higher stage (p = 0.038). The most prevalent histological form of HNC was squamous cell carcinoma 79 (82.29%), with the oral cavity and larynx being the most common sites of the disease 30 (31.25%) and 29 (30.21%) respectively. Patients took an average of 5.28 ± 9.12 months from the onset of symptoms to their first appointment with a healthcare provider. Prior to diagnosis, the majority of patients saw three or more healthcare providers (range: 1-8). The duration from the initial visit to a healthcare provider to the initiation of treatment was 3.06 ± 5.88 months. Based on the stage at presentation, there were no discernible variations in the times to presentation (p>0.05). Conclusion Significant delays and high stage of presentation are caused by unemployment. The majority of the delay was caused by the patient's tardiness in seeing a medical practitioner, yet the presentation stage was not greatly impacted by this delay.

Improving head and neck sarcoma care: The impact of a specialized multidisciplinary team approach on diagnosis and patient outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Globally, head & neck sarcoma care pathways remain unclear. In 2018, the London Sarcoma Service (LSS) set up a dedicated head and neck sarcoma (HNS) multidisciplinary team (MDT) with a clear objective to provide formal access to super-specialist expertise in diagnosis, treatment planning and management of HNS. The aim of the study is to provide first results of a dedicated HNS MDT.

METHODS

All patients discussed between 2018 and 2022, in HNS MDT, with a new histologically confirmed HNS diagnosis were included in the study. Demographics, anatomic site, morphology, MDT recommendation, treatment details and outcomes were obtained from electronic patient records.

RESULTS

A total of 337 patients were discussed in the HNS MDT of which 178 patients were included in the study, with a median age of 53 years(range 2-94); 67 % were soft tissue sarcomas(STS) and 33 % were bone sarcomas(BS), of which 43 % and 71 % were high grade, respectively. 55 % BS and 39 % STS underwent surgery. 9 % of BS and 7 % of STS received adjuvant Proton Beam therapy. With a median follow-up of 2.16 years, recurrence was observed in 12 %, distant metastasis in 6 % of patients and overall survival was 72 %.

CONCLUSION

The HNS MDT provides expertise on diagnosis and multi-modality management of HNS. STS are more likely to be misdiagnosed. Atypical imaging characteristics should trigger a specialist referral. Adequate surgery at first presentation remains the mainstay of treatment and the strongest prognosticator of overall survival. Formation of an expert working group specific to HNS must work towards streamlining sarcoma care.

A proposed framework for the implementation of head and neck cancer treatment at a new cancer center from a radiation oncology perspective

BACKGROUND

Establishing a new head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment center requires multidisciplinary team management and expertise. To our knowledge, there are no clear recommendations or guidelines in the literature for the commencement of HNC radiation therapy (RT) at a new cancer center. We propose a novel framework outlining the necessary components required to set-up a new radiation therapy HNC treatment.

METHODS

We reviewed the infrastructure and methodology in the commencement of HNC radiation therapy in our cancer care center and invited several external, experienced metropolitan head and neck radiation oncologists to develop a novel consensus guideline that may be used by new RT centers to treat HNC. Recommendations were presented to our internal and external staff specialists using a survey questionnaire with ratings utilized to determine consensus using pre-defined thresholds as per the American Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines Methodology Manual.

CONCLUSION

This consensus recommendation aims to improve RT utilization whilst advocating for optimal patient outcomes by presenting a framework for new radiation therapy centers ready to step up and manage the treatment of head and neck cancer patients. We propose these evidence-based consensus guidelines endorsed by external HNC radiation oncologists.

Changes in multidisciplinary team decisions in a high volume head and neck oncological center following those made in its preferred partner

Objective

Head and neck cancer care is highly complex, and multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) are vital for improved outcomes. In the Netherlands, head and neck cancer care is practiced in eight high-volume head and neck oncologic centers (HNOC) and six affiliated hospitals preferred partner (PP) centers. Patients treated in the PP are presented and discussed in the HNOC. To evaluate the importance of these mandatory and decisive steps in decision making, we have assessed the changes in treatment.

Materials and methods

Retrospective evaluation of head and neck cancer patients referred between January 2011 and October 2018 for a MDT evaluation to the HNOC was conducted. The differences in MDT recommendation were classified with regards to major and minor changes.

Results

Management recommendation(MR) changed after 113 of 515 MDT discussions within the PP (487 patients; 22%), of which 86 cases (16%) were major changes. In 67 cases (59.3%), escalation of management was recommended, while in 43 cases (38.1%) de-escalation was recommended.

Conclusion

There was a high rate of change of MRs, when comparing the PP recommendations with the HNOC recommendations. Since patient and tumor characteristics seem unable to predict these changes, we recommend all patients be seen for a clinical presentation, revision of diagnostics, and MDT discussion in a high volume HNOC.

Special needs dentistry in multidisciplinary head and neck cancer management - characterizing scope and complexity of patient care

AIMS

To describe the involvement and need for specialists in special needs dentistry (SND) in the multidisciplinary management of patients and to characterize the complexity of patients with special health care needs.

METHODS

Referrals for SND review from the Fiona Stanley Hospital head and neck cancer (HNC) multidisciplinary team between January 1 and December 31, 2019 were screened. Data recorded included demographic information, medical history, dental status, and dental treatment provided prior to HNC management.

RESULTS

In total 127 patients were referred to the SND clinic in 2019 of which 89.0% were males and 74.8% were aged 50-79. The mean waiting time for SND review was 19.6 days. On average patients had a decayed, missing, filled tooth (DMFT) score of 20.3. During the study period 407 extractions and 30 restorations were completed. Seventeen patients (13.4%) had all their teeth removed prior to HNC management. The majority of patients (79.6%) were categorized as either moderate or severe complexity. Increasing complexity was seen in older age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant oral disease is seen in patients with HNC often requiring extensive dental treatment. Complexity is seen in patients requiring multidisciplinary care however characteristics that constitute complexity are varied given the spectrum encompassing 'special needs'.

Non-conventional laryngeal malignancies: a multicentre review of management and outcomes

PURPOSE

Non-conventional laryngeal malignancies (NSCC) often have limited published data to guide management despite individual histopathological subtypes often exhibiting heterogeneous behaviour, characteristics, and treatment responses compared to laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). This study aimed to compare oncological outcomes with SCC, specifically disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives were to compare treatment differences and perform a state of the art review.

METHODS

This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study at four tertiary head and neck centres. Survival outcomes between NSCC and SCC patients were analysed with Kaplan-Meier curves and compared by log rank testing. Univariate Cox regression analysis was performed to predict survival by histopathological subgroup, T-stage, N-stage and M-stage.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in 3-year DFS (p = 0.499), DSS (p = 0.329), OS (p = 0.360) or Kaplan Meier survival curves (DSS/OS) between SCC and overall NSCC groups. However, univariate Cox regression analysis identified "rare" histopathologies (mostly small cell carcinoma) to be predictive of less favourable OS (p = 0.035) but this result was not observed for other NSCC histopathological subgroups. N-stage (p = 0.027) and M-stage (p = 0.048) also predicted OS for NSCC malignancies. Significant differences in treatment modalities were identified with treatment of NSCC typically involving surgical resection and SCC often managed non-surgically (e.g., primary radiotherapy).

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall NSCC is managed differently compared to SCC, there do not appear to be differences in survival outcomes between these groups. N-stage and M-stage appear to be more predictive of OS than histopathology than many NSCC subtypes.

Survival Associated With Consolidated Multidisciplinary Care in Head and Neck Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare survival among patients with head and neck cancer before and after implementing a weekly multidisciplinary clinic and case conference.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study with chart review was conducted of 3081 patients (1431 preimplementation, 1650 postimplementation) diagnosed with stage I-IVB tumors in the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, nasopharynx, or larynx. Pre- and postimplementation differences in overall and disease-specific survival 1, 2, and 3 years after diagnosis were assessed with unadjusted Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models adjusted for demographic characteristics, comorbidity burden, smoking status, tumor site and stage, p16 status for oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer, and initial treatment modality.

RESULTS

Patients less commonly presented with oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer and advanced tumors (III-IVB) and received primary treatment with surgery alone or with adjuvant therapy preimplementation than postimplementation. Overall survival at 3 years was 77.1% and 79.9% (P = .07) and disease-specific survival was 84.9% and 87.5% (P = .05) among pre- and postimplementation patients, respectively. At 3 years, preimplementation patients had slightly poorer overall (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40) and disease-specific (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54) adjusted survival than postimplementation patients. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, survival improvements were more pronounced among patients with advanced disease.

DISCUSSION

A multidisciplinary clinic and case conference were associated with improved outcomes among patients with head and neck cancer, especially those with advanced tumors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

All patients with head and neck cancer should receive multidisciplinary team management, especially those with advanced tumors.

The Emergence of Virtual Tumor Boards in Neuro-Oncology: Opportunities and Challenges

Background

Virtual tumor board (VTB) platforms are an important aspect of cancer management. They enable easier access to a multidisciplinary team of experts. To deliver high-quality cancer care, it is necessary to coordinate numerous therapies and providers, share technical knowledge, and maintain open lines of communication among all professionals involved. The VTB is an essential tool in the diagnosis and treatment of brain cancer. For patients with glioma and brain metastases, multidisciplinary tumor board guidelines should guide diagnosis and therapy throughout the course of the illness. VTBs are an emerging resource across various cancer care networks in the United States.

Methodology

We performed a systematic search of all VTBs incorporating a platform designed for this specific role. We reviewed the records of the Genomet VTB, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) VTB, and Xcures VTB. Summary data examined included the year of launch, demographics, characteristics of cases, average response time, advantages, and how they handle protected health information.

Results

Overall, 30% of VTBs examined were launched in 2017. All had a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant online environment. On a review of Xcures records, the median age of the female patients was 57 years and the median age of the male patients was 55 years. The data showed that 44% (4.4 out of every 10 patients) with a confirmed treatment chose the VTB integrated option. Overall, 76% of patients in the Xcures registry had primary central nervous system tumors, with at least 556 patients in the tumor registry which included 46% glioblastoma cases (96% primary, 4% secondary). In the MUSC VTB project, 112 thoracic tumor cases and nine neuro-oncology cases were reviewed. The tumor board met weekly, and the average response time was within 24 hours of case review and presentation. The Genomet VTB de-identifies all patient information; this is a virtual platform primarily focused on neuro-oncology cases. Cases involved a median of five specialists most commonly neuro-oncologists, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, molecular pathologists, and neuroradiologists. The case review revealed an age range of six months to 84 years (mean age = 44.5 years), with 69.6% males and 30.4% females, 43.5% glioblastomas, 8.7% adenocarcinomas, and 8.7% infratentorial tumors. The average response time observed in all cases was ≤24 hours.

Conclusions

VTBs allow for quicker expert analysis of cases. This has resulted in an accelerated number of cases reviewed with a shortened communication time. More studies are needed to gain additional insights into user engagement metrics.

Will Multidisciplinary Collaboration Reduce the Disability Rate of Diabetic Foot (2009-2019)?-A Study Based on the Perspective of Organizational Reform

Objectives: Discuss the experience and practice of multidisciplinary cooperation of diabetic foot in China and analyze its impact on the quality of care.

Methods: This study observed the medical procedure by interviewing 12 key personnel in-depth. We extracted data from medical records and assessed the effect of MDT in three dimensions: quality, efficiency, and cost, to eventually achieve a final conclusion.

Results: The studied reform includes the following three aspects: the adjustment of hospital buildings layout and disciplines, one-stop outpatient, and one-stop inpatient service. After the multidisciplinary collaboration, the rate of above-knee amputation is reduced by 3.63%, the disability score per 100 diabetic foot patients decreases by 6.12, the average length of stay decreases significantly, and the cost of hospitalization shows an increasing trend.

Conclusions: Multidisciplinary collaboration is performed based on spatial layout adjustment and clinical pathway optimization, which provide more comprehensive and integrated care than a general medical team or a single specialist, thereby reducing the rate of disability, shortening the length of hospitalization. Besides, the new measurable indicator called disability score per 100 diabetic foot patients has been verified to evaluate the living ability of patients after surgery. This paper provides a reference for organizational reform of multidisciplinary diseases to support treatment and management of other multiorgan diseases.

Geographic remoteness from a multidisciplinary team is associated with an increased clinical staging of head and neck cancer: a Newcastle (Australia) study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between a patient's residential distance from a tertiary referral regional multidisciplinary team (MDT) and the clinical staging of their head and neck cancer (HNC) at presentation. A retrospective cohort study was performed of all attendees with HNC who had undergone an MDT assessment. The period of study was January 2016 to January 2017. The primary predictor variable was the patient's residential distance from the MDT. Demographic and clinicopathological factors were recorded. The primary outcome variable was the clinical staging conferred by the MDT. Descriptive and ordinal logistical regression analyses were conducted to examine the data. There were 286 observations; 230 patients were male and 56 were female. The mean age of the cohort was 66.52 years. The average residential distance from the MDT was 68.16 km. Regression analysis, while not statistically significant, indicated that those living more than 100 km (range 102-592 km) from the MDT had a 1.49 times increased risk of being diagnosed with an advanced stage of cancer when compared to those living less than 100 km away. This study provides insights into the potential adverse effect geographic remoteness has on initial staging of HNC and the need for further strategies to serve this at-risk population.

Quality improvement intervention to reduce time to postoperative radiation in head and neck free flap patients

BACKGROUND

Best-practice guidelines for head and neck cancer patients advise postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) initiation within 6 weeks of surgery. We report our institutional experience improving timeliness of adjuvant radiation in free-flap patients.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients met inclusion criteria in the 2017-2019 study period. We divided into "Early" (n = 19) and "Late" (n = 20) time-period groups to compare performance over time. The primary endpoint was time to PORT initiation, with success defined as <6 weeks.

RESULTS

The number of patients achieving timely PORT improved from 10.5% in the Early group to 50.0% in the Late group (p = 0.014). Patients undergoing concurrent adjuvant chemoradiation were more likely to meet the PORT target in the Late group (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

We ascribe this quality improvement in free-flap patients to increased communication among multidisciplinary care teams, proactive consultation referrals, and a targeted patient-navigator intervention. Though work is needed to further improve performance, insight gained from our experience may benefit other teams.

Barriers to Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Care in a Community Oncology Practice

Complex, coordinated, and collaborative care of patients with head and neck cancer can be challenging yet amazingly rewarding and successful. The high symptom burden across multiple functional domains in patients with head and neck cancer, even in early stages of disease, mandates a multidisciplinary team approach that harnesses the combined contributions of physicians and ancillary providers to drive greater patient-centered care, addressing factors that heavily influence morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Well-organized community-based multidisciplinary teams fulfill this unmet need and benefit patients with conveniently located comprehensive services that are typically found in large academic centers. Equivalent, if not superior, outcomes can be achieved in a unified community-based multidisciplinary team with shared patient-centered and outcomes-based goals. However, implementing true multidisciplinary team care in today's complex health care environment is fraught with challenges and pitfalls. So how have some community-based practices managed to create safe and efficient programs with successful outcomes? The purpose of this review is to discuss barriers to reaching this success and emphasize practical solutions to such challenges.

Physician practice variation in head and neck cancer therapy: Results of a national survey

OBJECTIVES

Choice between surgical or medical treatments in head and neck cancer depends of many patient-related and disease-related factors. We investigated how patients' socioeconomic status and practitioners' specialty could affect medical decision-making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online, nationwide survey, send to surgeons, oncologists and radiotherapists specialized in head and neck oncology. We collected data on medical decision-making for seven clinical scientific scenarios involving head and neck carcinoma and physicians' demographic data. Patients' gender and socioeconomic position were distributed across scientific scenarios using a Latin square design. The scientific scenarios were grouped into several categories according to the prognostic and functional impact of the therapeutic choice.

RESULTS

We obtained 206 assessable answers. Surgeons seemed to propose surgery in 49% of cases, whereas oncologists and radiotherapists opted for it in 34% of cases only. This was particularly relevant when the oncological result of surgery and the medical approach were equivalent, and when the surgery appeared to be superior in terms of curative potential but was burdened by a large functional impact. Patient's socioeconomic position also influence therapeutic decision. Among surgeons, the "single male manager" had significantly more chance of being offered surgery than the "married male blue-collar worker". Among oncologists and radiotherapists, the "single male blue-collar worker" had the lowest probability of being proposed surgery. Regarding gender, surgeons tended to offer surgical management more to women regardless of their clinical profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' sex, marital status, socioeconomic status, practitioners' specialty affect therapeutic management decisions in head and neck oncology.

Impact of quality certification of multidisciplinary head and neck tumor centers

Background

Certification of multidisciplinary tumor centers is nowadays seen as the gold standard in modern oncological therapy for optimization and realization of guideline-based therapy and better outcomes. Single cases are reimbursed based on diagnosis-related groups (DRG). We aimed to review efficiency, cost analysis, and profitability following a certification.

Methods

Tumor board certification at the university hospital Aachen was implemented in 2013. We compared 1251 cases of oropharyngeal cancer treated from 2008 to 2017 before and after certification. For this purpose, several patient characteristics, surgery, and stay-related constants, as well as expenses and reimbursement heights were analyzed statistically.

Results

Following certification, the total case and patient number, surgery duration, hours of mechanical ventilation, case mix index points, DRG reimbursements as well as the costs increased significantly, whereas days of intensive care unit, amount of blood transfusions, patient clinical complexity level (PCCL) and the overall stay were significantly lowered. No changes were observed for the patient’s age and gender distribution. Also, the predetermined stay duration stayed constant.

Conclusions

Certification of head-neck tumor centers causes a concentration of more complex cases requiring higher surgical efforts, which can be processed more efficiently due to a higher level of professionalism. Despite their benefits in cancer care, without compensation, centers may be struggling to cover their expenses in a system, which continuously underestimates them.

Therapeutic challenges in radiation-induced salivary gland cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To give an overview of recent advances in therapeutic approaches of radiation-induced salivary gland cancers (ri-SGCs).

RECENT FINDINGS

Reirradiation with protons and carbon ions demonstrated to be feasible, safe and to offer good local control rates, with the possibility of overcoming radioresistance and dosimetric issues in previously irradiated cancer patients. Chromosomal rearrangements, gene fusions and expression profiles are important to identify specific cancer subtypes and can guide tailored systemic therapy.

SUMMARY

Ri-SGCs are rare and heterogeneous. Patients are often heavily pretreated and at risk of toxicities, and their management remain challenging. A multidisciplinary approach in referral centers is mandatory. Knowledge about SGCs cellular and molecular mechanisms is constantly evolving. In the last years, novel advances in therapeutic approaches, such as carbon ion radiotherapy, are emerging as safe and effective options in active treatment, but further efforts are needed to offer tailored personalized treatments and to improve survival.

Head and neck tumors in children and adolescents: Impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board

INTRODUCTION

Cancer treatment in France is based on Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB). In the Ile-de-France region (IDF), which includes 12 million inhabitants from Paris and the surrounding area, pediatric tumors of head and neck are discussed since 2013 in a dedicated Interregional Pediatric Multicentric MTB (IPMTB). The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the IDF head and neck IPMTB on the management of these tumors, 5 years after their implementation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of all patient files presented in the IPMTB for a benign or malignant head-and-neck tumor, between 2013 and 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 679 discussions were analyzed representing 428 patients. Median age was 7.5 years (range: 0-31 years). Malignant tumors represented 71% of cases, including 36% of rhabdomyosarcoma. Overall, 12% percent of the cases discussed came from centers outside of IDF. All meetings complied with multidisciplinary criteria required by French law. Proposals made during the IPMTB were followed in 86% of cases. Among the 251 proposals made by the referring teams prior to the IPMTB, 29% were secondarily modified after being discussed in the IPMTB.

CONCLUSION

Thanks to their multidisciplinarity, high number of cases discussed and usual respect of their proposals, the IPMTB have made it possible to improve the coordination between all specialties involved in the patient's management, to apply the most recent and scientifically validated protocols, and to share the knowledge of different teams concerning the management of particularly rare tumors.

Impact of a dedicated radiologist as a member of the head and neck tumour board: a single-institution experience

The aim of this study was to quantify the impact of radiologic image review performed by experienced radiologists in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) for head and neck cancers (HNCs). We performed a retrospective review of cases discussed at MDT meetings from April 2014 to March 2017 for which radiologic review was required. All changes in the former radiologic report were collected and classified as follows: 1) modifications of radiological reports (patients for whom the treatment strategy had not been defined at the moment of MDT meeting) and 2) modifications in treatment strategy (patients for whom treatment strategy had previously been defined and subsequently modified according to the outcome of radiologic revision). The latter subgroup was further categorised as “major changes” and as “minor changes”. A total of 540 cases were retrieved. Imaging review was required at the time of tumour diagnosis in 310 (57.4%) cases. Most patients (69%) had advanced stage tumours (III and IV). In 262 (48%) cases, no change of the initial radiologic report was made. In a total of 144 (27%) cases, the available imaging was not considered sufficient for a final indication to treatment and further imaging was required. In the remaining 134 (25%) cases, radiologic review led to a modification of either tumour staging (55%) or treatment strategy (45%). Specifically, major and minor modifications were applied in 44 (13%) and 17 (11%) of the cases considered, respectively. Among 134 patients for whom the radiologic review led to stage/treatment modification, follow-up was available for 118. In all but one patient, we could confirm the original reports were correctly modified per MDT discussion results. Our data strongly support the importance of including an experienced radiologist as a core member of the MDT for HNCs.

Multidisciplinary Management of Radiation-Induced Salivary Gland Carcinomas in the Modern Radiotherapy Era

Simple Summary

Etiopathogenesis of salivary gland cancers [SGCs] is largely unknown, even if exposition to ionizing radiation is a recognized risk factor for SGCs development. To date, exhaustive data to guide clinicians in managing patients with radiation-induced [ri] SGCs are scarce and their treatment remains challenging. The purpose of this work is to describe and to analyze clinical and histopathological features, delivered treatments, and outcome of a series of patients with ri-SGCs treated at two Italian cancer referral sites. Given the rarity of ri-SGCs, this retrospective analysis conducted on a case series of 13 patients adds further knowledge to the paucity of literature. The management of these malignancies is extremely complex requiring a multidisciplinary treatment approach.

Abstract

Clinical data of ri-SGCs patients treated between 2015 and 2019 at a tertiary cancer center and a national hadron therapy facility were reviewed. Latent time (LT) from first RT to ri-SGCs diagnosis, overall (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed. Thirteen patients developed 14 ri-SGCs (one patient had 2 synchronous ri-SCGs), after a median LT of 23 years (range 16–34). Parotid was the primary site in 8 cases (57%) and salivary duct carcinoma was the most frequent histotype (29%). Nine patients (69%) underwent surgery (Sx). Among them, 4 patients (31%) underwent Sx alone, 5 received post-operative treatments: 3 (23%) photon-based (X) reRT, one (8%) protons and carbon ions, one (8%) carbon ions only. One patient (8%) received definitive XRT. The remaining 3 patients (23%) received androgen deprivation therapy. With a median follow-up of 48 months (range 24–72), median OS and PFS were 74 and 24 months, respectively. In the subgroup of AR⁺ ri-SGCs, median PFS and OS were 12 and 74 months, respectively. Given the rarity of ri-SGCs, this work adds further knowledge to the paucity of literature. The management of these malignancies is extremely complex requiring a multidisciplinary treatment approach.

Oral squamous cell carcinoma resection and neck dissection mortality: a 10-year national audit study

BACKGROUND

Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is a significant public health issue. Australia had 448 deaths from lip and oral cavity cancer in 2018, some of which could be prevented. Consideration of the factors contributing to mortality after OSCC resection can provide a greater insight into how deaths can be prevented.

METHODS

This paper used data from the Australia and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality from the last 10 years from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2018 for analysis. All surgical deaths were captured as the treating surgeons were mandated to complete a surgical case form for assessment by an independent surgeon from the same specialty.

RESULTS

This study found 25 cases of death after OSCC resection. In 44% of cases, death was related to cardiac causes and 40% was related to respiratory causes. Fourteen cases were found to have issues with management, and 25 issues were raised. In 36% of issues, it was found to be related to decision to operate. There were no obvious differences between the patients who had neck dissections and those who did not.

CONCLUSION

The decision to operate on high-risk patients, cardiovascular and respiratory causes were the major contributors to surgical mortality. The small number of deaths and the limitation of using existing data limited statistical analysis and conclusions. Changes could be made to the Australia and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality to improve the results for analysis.

Salvage surgery in head and neck cancer

Salvage surgery after failed organ preservation treatment offers challenges for both the patient and the surgeon. The outcome is often uncertain and even today, 5‐year overall survival does not exceed 50 per cent. The chemoradiotherapy induced toxicity asks for meticulous discussion and planning in a multidisciplinary manner in a changing environment of increasing incidence of human papillomavirus induced oropharyngeal tumours, evolving surgical techniques and patient participation. Herein, we discuss the latest literature on salvage surgery and the need for identifying the proper prognosticators to ensure for an optimal treatment plan in potentially salvageable patients.

Transition to a virtual multidisciplinary tumor board during the COVID-19 pandemic: University of Pittsburgh experience

Multidisciplinary conferences (MDC) are an important component of head and neck oncologic care including diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Virtual MDC allows for improved collaboration between providers at distant sites and proper allocation of health care resources in a time of crisis. When approached systematically, a virtual MDC is feasible to design and implement in a large academic medical center with multiple satellite hospitals.

Contemporary Multidisciplinary Management of Sinonasal Mucosal Melanoma

Sinonasal mucosal melanoma (SNMM) is a rare tumor, comprising less than 10% of sinonasal malignancies. SNMM most frequently occurs in the nasal cavity (70%) and maxillary sinus (14%), typically as black patches. Overall, SNMM harbors a very poor prognosis; 5-year survival is less than 30%. Nasal cavity tumors confer a better prognosis than sinus melanoma. The primary management for SNMM is surgery, when feasible, followed by adjuvant radiotherapy. Recent studies suggest that immunotherapy may confer survival benefit to patients with advanced disease. The multidisciplinary team approach has been shown to optimize treatment, reduce costs, and minimize adverse events, while maximizing the chances for cure.

Radiotherapy Quality Assurance for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

The impact of radiotherapy (RT) quality assurance (QA) has been demonstrated by numerous studies and is particularly important for head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment due to the complexity of RT target volumes in this region and the multiple adjacent organs at risk. The RT planning process includes many critical steps including interpretation of diagnostic imaging, image fusion, target volume delineation (tumor, lymph nodes, and organs at risk), and planning. Each step has become highly complex, and precise and rigorous QA throughout the planning process is essential. The ultimate aim is to precisely deliver radiation dose to the target, maximizing the tumor dose and minimizing the dose to surrounding organs at risk, in order to improve the therapeutic index. It is imperative that RT QA programs should systematically control all aspects of the RT planning pathway and include regular end-to-end tests and external audits. However, comprehensive QA should not be limited to RT and should, where possible, also be implemented for surgery, systemic therapy, pathology, as well as other aspects involved in the interdisciplinary treatment of HNC.

Impact of GI Tumor Board on Patient Management and Adherence to Guidelines

Purpose

As the burden of cancer on the population and the health care system continues to increase with more complicated treatment options, the need for multidisciplinary teams to be as efficient as possible becomes more vital. Our study aimed to evaluate the consistency of GI Tumor Board (GI TB) recommendations with international guidelines, the adherence of physicians involved in patient care to TB recommendations, and the impact on the management of patients.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted from January to June 2016 at our institution, which is a major tertiary hospital that provides comprehensive cancer care. All cases presented at the GI TB during this period were included. Data regarding adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, adherence to TB recommendations, and changes made to the management of patients were collected weekly from the GI TB in a data collection form.

Results

Of the 104 patients included, 57 (55%) were males and the median age was 58 (16 to 85) years. Colorectal cancer was the most common diagnosis, in 65 patients (63%). Nearly one-half of cases (45%) were stage IV cancers. Starting new treatment was recommended for 72 patients (69%). Further investigations were requested for 15 patients (14%). For imaging, 24 recommendations (23%) were made. Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was observed in 97% of total recommendations. New findings were found in pathology (11%), radiology (13%), and staging (4%). Management plans were changed in 37 cases (36%). Over a 3-month period after presentation to the GI TB, most of the recommendations (87%) were performed.

Conclusion

A multidisciplinary tumor board enhances the adherence to guidelines and has an impact on patient management in approximately one-third of patients. Among physicians, adherence to recommendations of the TB was high.

Head and Neck Cancer in Belgium: Quality of Diagnostic Management and Variability Across Belgian Hospitals Between 2009 and 2014

Aims: The study assessed the quality of diagnosis and staging offered to patients with a head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and the variability across Belgian hospitals. Methods: In total, 9,245 patients diagnosed with HNSCC between 2009 and 2014, were identified in the population-based Belgian Cancer Registry (BCR). The BCR data were coupled with other databases providing information on diagnostic and therapeutic procedures reimbursed by the compulsory health insurance, vital status data, and comorbidities. The use of diagnosis and staging procedures was assessed by four quality indicators (QI) (i.e., use of dedicated head and neck imaging studies, use of PET-CT, TNM reporting and interval between diagnosis and start of treatment), for which a target was defined before the analysis. The association between the binary QIs and observed survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for potential confounders. Results: Overall, 82.5% of patients received staging by MRI and/or CT of the head and neck region before the start of treatment. In 47.6% of stage III-IV patients eligible for treatment with curative intent, a whole-body FDG-PET(/CT) was performed. The proportion of patients whose cTNM and pTNM stage was reported to the BCR was 80.5 and 78.4%, respectively. The median interval from diagnosis to first treatment with curative intent was 32 days (IQR: 19-46). For none of these QIs the pre-set targets were reached and a substantial variability between centers was observed for all quality indicators. No binary QI was significantly associated with observed survival. Conclusions: The four quality indicators related to diagnosis and staging in HNSCC all showed substantial room for improvement. For none of them the pre-set targets were met at the national level and the variability between centers was substantial. Each Belgian hospital received an individual feedback report in order to stimulate reflection and quality improvement processes.

Quality of Care Indicators for Head and Neck Cancers: The Experience of the European Project RARECAREnet

Background: Monitoring and improving quality of cancer care has become pivotal today. This is especially relevant for head and neck cancers since the disease is complex, it needs multi therapy, patients tend to be older, they tend to have comorbidities and limited social support. However, information on quality of care for head and neck cancers is scarce. In the context of the project "Information Network on Rare Cancers" we aimed to identify indicators of quality of care specific for the head and neck cancers management and to measure the quality of care for head and neck cancers in different EU Member States. Methods: We defined indicators of quality of care for head and neck cancers based on a multidisciplinary and expert-based consensus process at a European level. To test the proposed indicators, we performed an observational population-based retrospective study in four countries (Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, and Slovenia) in the years 2009-2011. Results: The main quality indicators identified are: availability of formalized multidisciplinary team, participation in clinical and translational research; timeliness of care, high quality of surgery and radiotherapy, and of pathological reporting. For head and neck cancers, the quality of care did not reach the optimal standards in most of the countries analyzed. A high proportion of patients was diagnosed at an advanced disease stage, showed delays in starting treatment (especially for radiotherapy), and there was only a very limited use of multi therapy. Conclusions: According to the achieved consensus, indicators of quality of care for head and neck cancers have to cover the patient journey (i.e., diagnosis and treatment). Our results, showed suboptimal quality of care across countries and call for solutions for ensuring good quality of care for head and neck cancer patients in all EU countries. One possible option might be to refer head and neck cancer patients to specialized centers or to networks including specialized centers.

Radiation Oncology Quality Assessment Tool: A proposal for a new audit tool in modern radiation oncology

INTRODUCTION

As a consequence of the development of improved treatment techniques and utilisation of digital records in radiation oncology, the RANZCR Peer Review Audit Tool has become outdated. The aim of this internal audit was to objectively evaluate the practice of our radiation oncology department to ensure that patients are being treated according to evidence-based national guidelines through the use of a new self-audit algorithm, the Radiation Oncology Quality Assessment Tool (ROQAT).

METHODS

Using ROQAT, a retrospective audit was conducted of patients who received definitive treatment within the first six months (June 2017-November 2017) of opening a new radiation oncology department at the Sunshine Coast University Hospital. Data were collected from MOSAIQ^® and electronic medical records.

RESULTS

Two hundred and six patients were included. The median age was 65 years. Most commonly treated tumour streams included: breast (n = 62), skin (n = 31), colorectal (n = 25), genitourinary (n = 21) and head and neck (n = 21). Documentation was complete for all patients. Seventy-four per cent of patients were discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting. Fifty-five per cent of patients were treated with inverse planning techniques. Treatment with radiation therapy was indicated in 97% of patients. Dose and fractionation were concordant with protocols in 83% of cases. Thirty-nine per cent received concurrent chemotherapy, and of these, 93% were in accordance with protocols. More than 50% were treated according to published delineation protocols.

CONCLUSION

The ROQAT is a proposal for a new audit tool that reflects modern radiation therapy practice, with emphasis on compliance with evidence-based guidelines.

The impact of the multidisciplinary tumor board on head and neck cancer outcomes

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Although the multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) is accepted as best practice for the management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), there is limited evidence showing its impact on survival. Our goal was to investigate the impact of an MTB following the hiring of a fellowship-trained head and neck surgeon and implementation of an MTB at our institution. We hypothesized that these changes would demonstrate an improvement in survival.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

METHODS

A review of HNSCC treated at our institution between October 2006 and May 2015 was performed. The cohort was divided into pre-MTB (October 2006-February 2011) and post-MTB (February 2011-May 2015) cohorts. Patient demographics, cancer stage, and treatment outcomes were reviewed. Univariate, multivariate, and survival analysis were performed.

RESULTS

The study included 224 patients, 98 in the pre-MTB cohort and 126 in the post-MTB cohort. Of total patients, 139 (62%) were black and 91 (40%) were on Medicaid or uninsured. Average follow-up time was 2.8 years, and most cases were advanced stage (68%). On Kaplan-Meier evaluation, overall survival and disease-specific survival were significantly improved in the post-MTB cohort compared with the pre-MTB cohort, with a 5-year disease-specific survival of 52% vs. 75% (P = .003). A matched cohort analysis showed that the post-MTB cohort had significantly lower risk of death (hazard ratio: 0.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that treatment of HNSCC by a dedicated multidisciplinary team results in improved survival. Multidisciplinary care should be considered best practice in the care of HNSCC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3b Laryngoscope, 130:946-950, 2020.

Quality insurance in head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A watchful eye on real-life experience

INTRODUCTION

Although Multidisciplinary Team Management (MDT) is integrated in most international head and neck cancer treatment guidelines, its applications and proceedings were rarely described. The present study explores a 6-year real-life experience in a French Comprehensive Cancer Care Center.

METHODS

Patients, tumor and meeting characteristics of all consecutive cases discussed in head and neck MDT meetings between 2010 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2015, 1849 cases (accounting for 1786 patients) were discussed in 138 MDT meetings. Median age was 62 (range: 15-96). When reported (n = 310, 16.8%), performance status was ≥2 in 36.1% of patients. Tumors were mainly squamous cell carcinomas (n = 1664, 91.5%) of the larynx/hypo-pharynx (n = 630, 34.4%), oropharynx (n = 518; 28.3%) and oral cavity (n = 339; 18.5%). Tumors were diagnosed at a locally (n = 358, 25%), locally advanced (n = 946, 66%) or metastatic setting (n = 53, 3.7%). Mean number of discussed patients per MDT meeting was 16 (range: 3-32). Most patients were discussed once (n = 1663, 97%). Most patients (n = 969, 52%) underwent treatment before MDT meetings: mainly surgery (n = 709, 73.2%). The mean time between MDT meeting and first radiation course was 21 days (range: 1-116).

DISCUSSION

Optimal multimodal treatment management is based on MDT meetings and results from the interaction and coordination of surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists. In the present series, most patients were discussed once despite the number of expected recurrences, suggesting that the management of tumor progression was not discussed in head and neck MDT meetings. Furthermore, most patients had surgery before MDT meeting, pointing out that MDT role and place still needs to be improved. Finally, the present population significantly differed from patients included in phase III clinical trials, with more advanced age and poorer condition. It calls for the necessity of a high-quality head and neck MDT meeting since evidence-based recommendations should be adapted to patient's frailties.

Referral rates to multidisciplinary team meetings: Is there disparity between tumour streams?

INTRODUCTION

The multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) approach is accepted as standard of care to optimise treatment for patients diagnosed with cancer. This retrospective audit reviews the proportion of patients whose care is being discussed at cancer MDTMs within the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service (SCHHS).

METHODS

Patients included were those diagnosed with cancer within the SCHHS between 2010 and 2015, and subsequently referred to a public MDTM for discussion. Data were extracted from the Queensland Cancer Control Analysis Team (QCCAT) database regarding the incidence of breast, lung, upper gastrointestinal (GI), colorectal, genitourinary and malignant haematological cancers and the number of patients referred to the corresponding MDTM.

RESULTS

Data from 2015 show referral rates to MDTMs as follows: lung 100%, upper gastrointestinal 100%, colorectal 64%, breast 60%, malignant haematology 40% and genitourinary 28%. Of the genitourinary presentations, 70% were prostate cases and 14% bladder cases. Review of genitourinary MDTM outcomes found that, of the patients with prostate cancer discussed, 30% were metastatic, 19% were poor surgical candidates and 15% had biochemical recurrence.

CONCLUSION

This audit demonstrates variable utilisation of MDTMs between tumour streams. Our study shows a high and increasing referral rate to all tumour stream MDTMs except for genitourinary. This suggests a possible underutilisation of genitourinary MDTMs to discuss treatment options for patients with genitourinary cancer. Collaborative research is warranted to further investigate whether this is a local or widespread issue.

Presence in head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team meeting: The patient's experience and satisfaction

BACKGROUND

In oncology, multi-disciplinary team meetings improve overall survival and reduce time to treatment in head and neck cancer. Interestingly, no study has examined the experience of patients attending an MTM. The present study addressed two questions: Does the MTM cause anxiety/depression for patients who are present? Are patients satisfied at the end of the meeting?

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included all patients attending an MTM, who agreed to participate in the study and who fully completed two questionnaires. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and a satisfaction questionnaire were filled out at three time-points: T0 before MTM, T1 at end of MTM, and T2 1 month after MTM for the HADS; and T1 and T2 for the satisfaction questionnaire.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the number of patients experiencing anxiety between T0 and T1 (P=0.6085), T0 and T2 (P=1) or T1 and T2 (P=1). Likewise, there were no significant differences in the number of patients in depression between T0 and T1 (P=0.9397), T0 and T2 (P=1) or T1 and T2 (P=1). Mean satisfaction was good (question 14 on the satisfaction questionnaire: 8.7/10 at T1 and 7.7/10 at T2), but with a significant decrease between T1 and T2 (P=0.0009: i.e.,<0.05). Percentage information remembered (question 12) significantly decreased between T1 (mean 86%, standard deviation 0.2, median 94%) and T2 (78%±0.2, median 81%) (P=0.03). Presence in the MTM did not appear to induce or increase anxiety or pre-existing depressive syndrome.

Impact of treatment expertise on the outcome of patients with head and neck cancer treated within 6 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the impact of center expertise, in terms of number of patients treated, on the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

METHODS

We performed a pooled analysis including data from 6 randomized trials in head and neck SCC conducted in Italy. We evaluated the association between OS or PFS and the number of patients recruited by the center.

RESULTS

The outcome of 903 patients who had received radiotherapy (RT) was analyzed (median follow-up 76 months). The hazard ratio (HR) comparing the third and the first quartiles of the distribution of number of patients per center showed an advantage in PFS (HR 0.59, range 0.53-0.65, P < .0001) and in OS (HR 0.70, 0.60-0.81, P < .0001) for centers with a higher number of patients recruited. A similar benefit was observed in PFS (HR 0.63, 0.60-0.66) and OS (HR 0.74, 0.69-0.79) considering the mean number of patients per year.

CONCLUSIONS

The PFS and OS were longer for patients treated in high-case-volume centers.

Impact of a Multidisciplinary Team Approach for Managing Advanced and Recurrent Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The wide variety of treatment strategies makes clinical decision-making difficult in advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer cases. Many hospitals have started multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings comprising a team of dedicated specialists for discussing cases. MDTs for selected cases that are difficult to diagnose and treat are alternatives to regular MDTs. This study's aim was to determine the impact of a MDT for colorectal cancer on clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Cases were discussed when clinical specialists had difficulty making decisions alone. All processes done by the MDT were then recorded in prospectively designed medical case forms.

RESULTS

From Jan 2011 to Dec 2014, 1383 cases were discussed. A total of 549 (39.8%) case forms were completed for patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer, whereas 833 (60.2%) were completed for those with recurrent diseases. The MDT altered the proposed treatment of the referring physician in 179 (13%) cases. In 85 of the 179 (47.5%) altered cases, the radiologist's review of clinical information affected the diagnosis and decision. Furthermore, 152 of the 1383 MDT decisions were not implemented. Treatment intent, therapeutic plan, and alteration of decision were important reasons for not following the MDT's recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Case discussions in MDT meetings resulted in altered clinical decisions in >10% cases. Implementation rates after MDT discussions might be affected by the treatment decision-making process. Imperfect decisions made by individual physicians can be decreased by the multidisciplinary decision-making process.

Multidisciplinary Team Planning for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

The multidisciplinary team planning conference is critical in the evaluation and management of patients with head and neck cancer. The management is complex and dictates the care of a multidisciplinary team for optimal results. First, the head and neck multidisciplinary team ensures the complete evaluation of patients before beginning treatment. Second, the team improves the accuracy of diagnosis and staging on which to base the most appropriate treatment. Third, the team improves the outcomes of treatment by appealing to the best available evidence, by following clinical practice guidelines and treatment algorithms, and by engaging in clinical research trials.

The Case Volume Issue in Head and Neck Oncology

OPINION STATEMENT

In the past few years, several evidences reported better outcomes, in terms of reduced toxicities and longer survival, for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients when "regionalized," namely if they are managed at "high-volume" cancer referral centers (CRC). The benefit of case volume has been demonstrated in HNC patients primarily treated with surgery and in those receiving curative radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Many factors could explain these positive results: organization, facilities, processes of care, quality assurance programs, professional expertise, technology, and patient referral bias. In other words, the "high volume" could be linked both to all hospital-related volume and to the expertise of each involved professional figure (e.g., surgeon, radiation oncologist, medical oncologist, etc.). In this context, it is still debatable whether there is a need to understand which one of these factors is more able to influence the final outcomes of HNC patients. Considering the complexity and heterogeneity of HNC, all of these aspects are likely to impact and plot each other. However, there is no consensus regarding the criteria and the cut-off used to define as "high" the case volume. Moreover, some limitations or biases of the regionalization process have to be highlighted: (1) personal and financial discomfort of patients, their caregivers, and families; (2) a frequent referral of the healthiest or youngest patients to CRC could change the survival outcomes; (3) potential higher difficulties for colleagues working outside of CRC in the emergency. Nevertheless, the case volume represents one of the factors impacting on the quality of the treatment itself, in terms of reduced toxicity and better treatment outcome. Therefore, it should be considered as a stratifying factor in randomized controlled trials for HNC patients.

Head and neck cancer: improving outcomes with a multidisciplinary approach

For early-stage head and neck cancer (HNC), surgery (S) or radiotherapy (RT) is a standard treatment. The multidisciplinary approach, which includes multimodality treatment with S followed by RT, with or without chemotherapy (CT) or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT), is required for locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC). CRT improves prognosis, locoregional control (LRC), and organ function in LAHNC, compared to RT alone. Prognosis in recurrent/metastatic HNC (R/M HNC) is dismal. Platinum-based CT, combined with the anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) antibody (Ab) cetuximab, is used in first-line setting, while no further validated options are available at progression. The complexity of disease is, in part, due to the heterogeneity of organs and functions involved and the need for a multimodality approach. In addition, the patient population (often elderly and/or patients with smoking and alcohol habits) argues for an individually tailored treatment plan. Furthermore, treatment goals - which include cure, organ, and function preservation, quality of life and palliation - must also be considered. Thus, optimal management of patients with HNC should involve a range of healthcare professionals with relevant expertise. The purpose of the present review is to 1) highlight the importance and necessity of the multidisciplinary approach in the treatment of HNC; 2) update the knowledge regarding modern surgical techniques, new medical and RT treatment approaches, and their combination; 3) identify the treatment scenario for LAHNC and R/M HNC; and 4) discuss the current role of immunotherapy in HNC.

The Benefit of a Multidisciplinary Approach to the Patient Treated with (Chemo) Radiation for Head and Neck Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

In the past two decades, multidisciplinary care has emerged as new way to manage cancer given the need to gather together specific areas of expertise and to discuss the variety of treatment approaches available for each patient. Of all the cancer subtypes, head and neck cancer might be considered one of the most valid areas, from an oncological point of view, for a multidisciplinary approach to be applied. Head and Neck Cancer is a complex disease area due to its varied histology and subsites, its numerous feasible treatments, its multiple typical comorbidities, and its treatment-induced toxicities whose management requires the simultaneous involvement of several professionals as part of the same health care team. However, the benefits of a multidisciplinary team approach in this particular area have not yet been properly documented in terms of survival outcomes. Moreover, there are some concerns and the limitations of a multidisciplinary team approach for Head and Neck Cancer patients are still open to question: cost-efficiency, the implications from a medical law perspective, the level of expertise required and the timing of each intervention (fixed or as required; before, during or after oncological treatment), and the role of the leader with other interested specialists to optimize all multidisciplinary care mechanisms.