Should All Cases of Lung Cancer be Presented at Tumor Board Conferences?

Brazilian airway surgery survey indicates low overall numbers and need for improved teaching skills

OBJECTIVES

The Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgeons conducted an online survey to determine the number of surgeons that perform adult and paediatric airway surgery and to understand the practice patterns along the country.

METHODS

Active members were electronically invited to complete the questionnaire through the REDCapR platform. Invitations were sent from January to April 2020. The survey encompassed 40 questions that explored 4 different topics in the assessment of tracheal diseases: (i) surgeon's demography; (ii) institutional profile, (iii) education and training in laryngo-tracheal surgery and (iv) preoperative and postoperative evaluation.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine percentage of the responders declared to perform tracheal surgery with a median of 5 tracheal resection procedures per year [interquartile range (IQR) 3-12]. Interaction with other specialties occurs in 37.3% of cases. Access to technology and devices is highly variable across the country. Resident training in airway surgery consists in traditional lectures in 97% of the cases. Training in animals (15.2%), cadavers (12.1%) and simulators (6.1%) are rare. Preoperatory evaluation encompasses flexible bronchoscopy (97.8%) and/or computed tomography (CT) scan of the airways (90.6%). Swallowing (20.1%) and voice (14.4%) disorders are rarely evaluated. Eighty-nine percentage of the surgeons consider bronchoscopy to be the preoperatory gold-standard exam, followed by CT scan (38.8%) and CT-3D reconstruction (37.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Brazilian surgeons refer that airway resection and reconstruction are part of their current practice, but the total number of procedures per surgeon per year is low. Access to high-end technology and equipment is heterogenous. Training offered to residents in most academic institutions relies on traditional lectures.

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.

Benefits and Limitations of a Multidisciplinary Approach in Cancer Patient Management

Over the years, a growing body of literature has confirmed as beneficial the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach in the so-often-intricate scenario of cancer patients' management. Together with the consolidation of tumor-board experience in clinical practice, certain aspects have emerged as controversial and a source of current debate. In this systematic literature review, we focused our attention on the impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards, assessing benefits and limitations as a result of the dissemination of such approaches. On the bright side, adherence to clinical guidelines, treatment outcomes, and overall improvement in decision-making processes have been recognized as advantages. On the other side, our analysis highlights a few limitations that should be taken into account to optimize cancer patients' management. Of note, some issues, such as costs, legal responsibility, geographic barriers, and treatment delays, have yet to be resolved. In order partly to address this matter, software platforms and novel methods of computational analysis may provide the needed support. Therefore, the aim of our analysis was to describe the multidisciplinary approach in cancer care in terms of adherence to clinical guidelines, treatment outcomes, and overall improvement in decision-making processes through a systematic review of the literature.

Pre-diagnosis Multidisciplinary Tumor Board and Time to Staging in Lung Cancer: The Case Western MetroHealth Experience

Introduction

National guidelines support the discussion of cancer patients by multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB). We researched whether early pre-diagnosis multidisciplinary tumor board discussions are associated with shorter times to staging in lung cancer.

Methods

We reviewed our institution’s lung cancer and MTB registries to retrospectively study if an early discussion at pre-diagnostic MTB (pd-MTB) influenced the timeliness of diagnostic evaluation. Over 14 months, 161 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer were included. Fifty-five patients were presented at pd-MTB while 106 (controls) patients were not. The primary outcome was the difference in the time interval from suspicious imaging (Ix) to completion of staging (Sx). Outcomes were adjusted for key confounders with a multiple regression analysis.

Results

For stages I, II, and III lung cancer, where time to therapy matters, early discussion of patients with nodules suspicious for malignancy at pd-MTB was associated with no time delays when compared to patients who were not discussed in pd-MTB. The mean time intervals for imaging to staging (with standard deviations) are 65 days in controls (sd = 42.67) and 75 days (sd = 58.27) in tumor board cases (p=0.39). Adjusting for confounders with a multiple regression analysis among all stages revealed a similar lack of difference in time intervals to diagnosis, staging, and therapy.

Conclusion

Our stage I-III lung cancer cases (pd-MTB) completed staging in a timely manner, similar to controls (no pd-MTB). The severity of illness at presentation and the availability of diagnostic services and others likely influence the results. Our manuscript shares important numerical data on timelines during cancer diagnosis and treatment. Using this data, prospective registries examining the process workflow may help standardize cancer quality goals and maximize referrals from primary-care/specialty providers. The key findings in our study create a paradigm for future studies to create and achieve “door-to-balloon” time targets for lung cancer care (akin to cardiac care) across different styles of tumor boards.

A narrative synthesis of the quality of cancer care and development of an integrated conceptual framework

The general paradigms that exist to guide measures in quality of care do not sufficiently deal with the changing needs of cancer management. The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding the quality of cancer care and develop a conceptual framework relevant to current practice. A textual narrative review of the literature was conducted by searching electronic databases from the last 10 years. Articles were then screened and included if they were both relevant to the management of cancer and standards in quality of care. Thematic analysis of the included articles was performed. Eighty-three articles were included and 12 domains identified and integrated with current models to develop a conceptual framework. These included: healthcare delivery system; timeliness; access; appropriateness of care; multidisciplinary and coordinated care; patient experience; technical aspects; safety; patient-centred outcomes; disease-specific outcomes; innovation and improvement and value. We propose a conceptual framework for the quality of cancer care based on relevant and current oncology practice. This presents a more practical and comprehensive approach than general models, and can be used by healthcare providers, managers and policy makers to guide and identify the need for metrics for quality improvements.

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.

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal diseases: an observational study

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) are frequently employed in cancer centers but their value has been debated. We reviewed the decision-making process and resource utilization of our MDTB to assess its utility in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal tract conditions.

METHODS

A prospectively-collected database was reviewed over a 12-month period. The primary outcome was change in management plan as a result of case discussion. Secondary outcomes included resources required to hold MDTB, survival, and adherence to treatment guidelines.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventy cases were reviewed. MDTB resulted in a change in the proposed plan of management in 101 of 402 evaluable cases (25.1%). New plans favored obtaining additional diagnostic workup. No recorded variables were associated with a change in plan. For newly-diagnosed cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n = 33), survival time was not impacted by MDTB (p = .154) and adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was 100%. The estimated cost of physician time per case reviewed was $190.

CONCLUSIONS

Our MDTB influences treatment decisions in a sizeable number of cases with excellent adherence to national guidelines. However, this requires significant time expenditure and may not impact outcomes. Regular assessments of the effectiveness of MDTBs should be undertaken.

Evolution of induction chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer over the last 30 years: A surgical appraisal

BACKGROUND

Induction chemotherapy (ICT) is supposed to reduce the risk of micrometastatic progression and improve resectability of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, best indications for ICT strategy remain unclear in published meta-analyses. Based on this observation, an evaluation of daily practice is of importance. Therefore, we reviewed indications and efficacy time trends in our 30-year series.

METHODS

A database including all patients with NSCLC who underwent surgical resection in two French centers from 1980 to 2009 (n = 5563) was prospectively set and retrospectively reviewed. The indications, clinical and pathologic response rates, and overall survival of ICT patients (n = 732) were analyzed during three successive time-periods: P1 from 1980 to 1989, P2 from 1990 to 1999, and P3 from 2000 to 2009.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients who benefited from ICT increased over time, from 2.8% (n = 35) in P1 to 12.5% (n = 274) in P2, and 20.2% (n = 423) in P3. Indications evolved over time with more N2 patients (n = 211; 49.8%) and less initially unresectable patients (n = 72; 17%) in P3. The clinical response rate between P1 and P2 increased. Five and 10-year survival rates of ICT patients were 35.2% and 21.5%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, time-period, age, type of resection, histology, and pathologic response to chemotherapy were significant prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our report on the off-trial use of induction therapy during the last 30 years demonstrates an increased use of ICT, a progressive focus on N2 disease, and improved response rates.

Interdisciplinary counseling service for renal malignancies: a patient-centered approach to raise guideline adherence

OBJECTIVES

Tumor boards have become an integral part of high-quality cancer care, but in general, patients are not directly involved. To overcome this weakness, we established an interdisciplinary counseling service for renal malignancies where 4 specialists talked to the patient at once. We evaluated this approach from the patients' and physicians' perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For 3 months, we assessed organizational and clinical data. Within a standardized telephone interview lasting for 14 ± 8 minutes, we explored the patients' view 1 week after counseling. A focus group contributed the physicians' perspective. Costs and revenues were calculated from the hospital's perspective.

RESULTS

We included 52 consecutive patients aged 62 ± 10 years. Patients' initiative for a "second opinion" triggered 37% of all appointments. Patients had localized (52%) and systemic (48%) disease presenting with primary diagnosis (48%), relapse (27%), or under continuous therapy (25%). The treatment strategy was changed significantly in 16 of 30 (53%) patients reporting a specific external opinion. The most frequent changes in recommendation were nephron-sparing surgery instead of radical nephrectomy in 8 cases and divergent judgments on restaging causing changes in systemic treatment in 6 cases. We successfully interviewed 43 of 52 patients. Overall, patients rated the consultation as very positive and only 1 patient (2%) was dissatisfied. Patients rated the quality of interpersonal interaction as very positive and said they would recommend the consultation service to others. Disease state was not associated with ratings. Physicians expressed a very positive opinion, highlighting the patients' benefit and very constructive case discussions. Nevertheless, they report remarkable efforts concerning time investment and effective coordination of medical experts. We estimated a deficit of 39 Euro per patient given the German health care system. There might be relevant secondary positive economic effects for the hospital such as recommendations from one patient to another leading to acquisition of additional patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient involvement in multidisciplinary tumor boards is feasible and well regarded by patients and physicians likewise. By stimulating interdisciplinary collaboration, the interdisciplinary counseling service improves patient satisfaction and clinical decision making. The interdisciplinary counseling service corrected half of the external treatment plans for better guideline adherence. These positive effects come at the price of higher resource utilization. (www.germanctr.de, number DRKS00003279).

[Impact of induction therapies on pathology and outcome after surgical resection of non-small lung cancer: a 30-year experience of 859 patients]

The management of localized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been modified over the last decades, with induction therapies being increasingly recommended as a prerequisite to surgical resection. However, the relative impact of chemo- and chemoradiotherapy on tumours' pathology and patients' survival is still discussed.

METHODS

We set a retrospective study including every patient who underwent surgical resection for NSCLC in 2 French centres from 1980 to 2009. We then compared the tumours' pathology and patients' survival according to the use of induction chemotherapy (group 1) or induction chemoradiotherapy (group 2).

RESULTS

There were 733 patients in group 1 and 126 patients in group 2. In group 1, 669 patients (91%) had platinum-based chemotherapy, for 2 to 3 cycles in 564 cases (77%). In group 2, chemoradiotheray was concomitant in 68 patients (54%), and sequential in 58 patients (46%). As compared with group 1, group 2 was characterized by younger age (mean 59.8±9.5 vs 56.4±9.6, respectively, P<.001), a higher rate of tumours deemed unresectable before induction treatment (25% vs 44%, P<.001), and a higher proportion of T4 (25% vs 44%, P<.001) or N2 diseases (56% vs 69%, P=.005). The type of resection, postoperative complications, and postoperative mortality were not significantly different between groups. On final pathologic report, as compared with group 1, there were more N0 and N1 disease in group 2 (N0: 43% vs 58%, P=.002; N1: 22% vs 10%, P=.002) while the rate of N2 disease was comparable (34% vs 32%, P=ns). The median, 5-, and 10-year survivals were 28 months, 35%, and 21% for group 1, and 29 months, 36%, and 23% for group 2, respectively (P=ns).

CONCLUSION

As compared with induction chemotherapy, induction chemoradiotherapy was performed in more advanced NSCLC, and resulted in better downstaging, similar postoperative course, and comparable long-term outcome after surgical resection.