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

Barriers and enablers of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a qualitive study of clinicians

OBJECTIVES

To identify and explore barriers to, and enablers of, active surveillance (AS) in men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPCa), as perceived by PCa clinicians.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Urologists and radiation oncologists in Australia and New Zealand were purposively sampled for a cross-section on gender and practice setting (metropolitan/regional; public/private). Using a grounded theory approach, semi-structed interviews were conducted with participants. Interviews were coded independently by two researchers using open, axial, and selective coding. A constant comparative approach was used to analyse data as it was collected. Thematic saturation was reached after 18 interviews, and a detailed model of barriers to, and enablers of, AS for LRPCa, as perceived by clinicians was developed.

RESULTS

A model explaining what affects clinician decision making regarding AS in LRPCa emerged. It was underpinned by three broad themes: (i) clinician perception of patients' barriers and enablers; (ii) clinician perception of their own barriers and enablers; and (iii) engagement with healthcare team and resource availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians unanimously agree that AS is an evidence-based approach for managing LRPCa. Despite this many men do not undergo AS for LRPCa, which is due to the interplay of patient and clinician factors, and their interaction with the wider healthcare system. This study identifies strategies to mitigate barriers and enhance enablers, which could increase access to AS by patients with LRPCa.

Novel hormone therapy and coordination of care in high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs in 20-50% of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing primary definitive treatment. Patients with high-risk BCR have an increased risk of metastatic progression and subsequent PCa-specific mortality, and thus could benefit from treatment intensification. Given the increasing complexity of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, multidisciplinary care (MDC) can play a crucial role in the individualized management of this patient population. This review explores the role for MDC when evaluating the clinical evidence for the evolving definition of high-risk BCR and the emerging therapeutic strategies, especially with novel hormone therapies (NHTs), for patients with either high-risk BCR or oligometastatic PCa. Clinical studies have used different characteristics to define high-risk BCR and there is no consensus regarding the definition of high-risk BCR nor for management strategies. Next-generation imaging and multigene panels offer potential enhanced patient identification and precision-based decision-making, respectively. Treatment intensification with NHTs, either alone or combined with radiotherapy or metastasis-directed therapy, has been promising in clinical trials in patients with high-risk BCR or oligometastases. As novel risk-stratification and treatment options as well as evidence-based literature evolve, it is important to involve a multidisciplinary team to identify patients with high-risk features at an earlier stage, and make informed decisions on the treatments that could optimize their care and long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, MDC data are scarce in the BCR or oligometastatic setting. Efforts to integrate MDC into the standard management of this patient population are needed, and will likely improve outcomes across this heterogeneous PCa patient population.

Multidisciplinary team meetings in Hematology: a national mixed-methods study

Multidisciplinary team meetings are a current international practice in cancer care, but to date, few data exist on the specificity of its practice in hematology.In this manuscript, we present the result of the first national study, realized with quantitative and qualitative methods in France, which brings new insights in order to improve the collegial decision-making process.To improve the effectiveness of MDTMs, the needs to focus on complex cases, to enhance patient centeredness and teamwork are relevant aspects, and a specific focus on hematological particularities is warranted to truly improve process.Background Understanding the Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) process in different medical specialties facilitates the identification of core factors supporting effective MDTM work. Our mixed-methods study explores the participants' perceptions of hematology MDTMs.Design Online questionnaires collected data concerning the decision-making process, benefits and inconveniences of MDTMs for both patients and professionals. Semi-directive phone interviews were conducted and analyzed, thereby supplying qualitative data.Results A total of 205 professionals responded to the questionnaire and 22 participated in the qualitative interviews. The data indicate the unique characteristics of hematology, including a specific definition of collegiality, the frequent solicitation of expert advice and the anticipation of treatment even prior to the occurrence of MDTMs. Additional information concerning patients' wishes and psychosocial conditions are also needed. Participants emphasize the subjective aspects and the impact of the climate of MDTMs on medical decisions.Conclusion Although MDTMs are recognized to be a valuable tool, organizational and relational issues may interfere with their efficiency.To improve the effectiveness of MDTMs, the needs to focus on complex cases, to enhance patient centeredness and teamwork are relevant aspects. A specific focus on hematological particularities might be warranted to truly improve the collegial decision-making process in the context of hematology.

Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) provide an integrated team approach to ensure individualized and evidence-based treatment recommendations and best expert advice in cancer care. A growing number of patients and more complex treatment options challenge MDTM resources and evoke needs for case prioritization. In this process, decision aids could provide streamlining and standardize evaluation of case complexity. We applied the recently developed Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC, instrument with the aim to validate its performance in another healthcare setting and diagnostic area as a means to provide cases for full MDTM discussions.

METHODS

The 26-item MeDiC instrument evaluates case complexity and was applied to 364 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden. MeDiC scores were generated from individual-level health data and were correlated with clinicopathological parameters, healthcare setting, and the observed clinical case selection for MDTMs.

RESULTS

Application of the MeDiC instrument was feasible with rapid scoring based on available clinical data. Patients with high-risk prostate cancers had significantly higher MeDiC scores than patients with low or intermediate-risk cancers. In the total study, population affected lymph nodes and metastatic disease significantly influenced MDTM referral, whereas comorbidities and age did not predict MDTM referral. When individual patient MeDiC scores were compared to the clinical MDTM case selection, advanced stage, T3/T4 tumors, involved lymph nodes, presence of metastases and significant physical comorbidity were identified as key MDTM predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the MeDiC instrument in prostate cancer may be used to streamline case selection for MDTMs in cancer care and may complement clinical case selection.

An approach to genetic testing in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Singapore

Introduction

There has been a rapid evolution in the treatment strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following the identification of targetable mutations, making genetic testing essential for patient selection. Although several international guidelines recommend genetic testing for patients with mCRPC, there is a lack of locally endorsed clinical practice guidelines in Singapore.

Method

A multidisciplinary specialist panel with representation from medical and radiation oncology, urology, pathology, interventional radiology, and medical genetics discussed the challenges associated with patient selection, genetic counselling and sample processing in mCRPC.

Results

A clinical model for incorporating genetic testing into routine clinical practice in Singapore was formulated. Tumour testing with an assay that is able to detect both somatic and germline mutations should be utilised. The panel also recommended the "mainstreaming" approach for genetic counselling in which pre-test counselling is conducted by the managing clinician and post-test discussion with a genetic counsellor, to alleviate the bottlenecks at genetic counselling stage in Singapore. The need for training of clinicians to provide pre-test genetic counselling and educating the laboratory personnel for appropriate sample processing that facilitates downstream genetic testing was recognised. Molecular tumour boards and multidisciplinary discussions are recommended to guide therapeutic decisions in mCRPC. The panel also highlighted the issue of reimbursement for genetic testing to reduce patient-borne costs and increase the reach of genetic testing among this patient population.

Conclusion

This article aims to provide strategic and implementable recommendations to overcome the challenges in genetic testing for patients with mCRPC in Singapore.

Real-world experience of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: long-term results of the prospective ABItude study

Background

Limited real-world data exist on the effectiveness and safety of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone hereafter) in the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) naive to chemotherapy. Most of the few available studies had a retrospective design and included a small number of patients. In the interim analysis of the ABItude study, abiraterone showed good clinical effectiveness and safety profile in the chemotherapy-naive setting over a median follow-up of 18 months.

Patients and methods

We evaluated clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of chemotherapy-naive mCRPC patients treated with abiraterone as for clinical practice in the Italian, observational, prospective, multicentric ABItude study. mCRPC patients were enrolled at abiraterone start (February 2016-June 2017) and followed up for 3 years; clinical endpoints and PROs, including quality of life (QoL) and pain, were prospectively collected. Kaplan–Meier curves were estimated.

Results

Of the 481 patients enrolled, 454 were assessable for final study analyses. At abiraterone start, the median age was 77 years, with 58.6% elderly patients and 69% having at least one comorbidity (57.5% cardiovascular diseases). Visceral metastases were present in 8.4% of patients. Over a median follow-up of 24.8 months, median progression-free survival (any progression reported by the investigators), time to abiraterone discontinuation, and overall survival were, respectively, 17.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.1-19.4 months], 16.0 months (95% CI 13.1-18.2 months), and 37.3 months (95% CI 36.5 months-not estimable); 64.2% of patients achieved ≥50% reduction in prostate-specific antigen. QoL assessed by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Prostate, the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level, and European Quality of Life Visual Analog Scale remained stable during treatment. Median time to pain progression according to Brief Pain Inventory data was 31.1 months (95% CI 24.8 months-not estimable). Sixty-two patients (13.1%) had at least one adverse drug reaction (ADR) and 8 (1.7%) one serious ADR.

Conclusion

With longer follow-up, abiraterone therapy remains safe, well tolerated, and active in a large unselected population.

•

A prospective real-life study of abiraterone acetate in mCRPC patients.

•

In 481 chemotherapy-naive mCRPC patients (median follow-up: 25 months), abiraterone plus prednisone was effective and safe.

•

QoL, measured with various tools, remained stable during treatment with abiraterone plus prednisone.

•

The median time to pain progression was 31.1 months.

Multicenter study on multidisciplinary committees in advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Although Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) are recommended in the management of Advanced Prostate Cancer (APC), their functioning in real practice has been poorly evaluated. We carried out a multicenter study with the objective of evaluating the functioning of uro-oncology MDTs in 6 hospitals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed. The level of Compliance with the Fundamental Quality Requirements (CFQR) of the MDTs was evaluated by means of a questionnaire filled out by the coordinators of the MDTs in each hospital. The information on the perspective of the members of the MDTs was evaluated through an anonymous survey.

RESULTS

A high level of CFQR in MDTs was evidenced (75%), showing deficiencies in terms of protocol update, agendas, audits, and scientific production. The survey was answered by 62.32% of the 69 physicians surveyed (urologists, oncologists, radiation therapists, radiologists, and pathologists). The 88.4% consider the duration of the meetings appropriate. There are disparate opinions concerning the protection of the MDT meeting time as well as protocol update. Of the patients with APC presented at the MDTs meeting, 62,8% require intervention from two specialties. Only 50% of respondents believe that all CRPC cases are discussed and that there is a prior agenda. The decisions made by the MDTs are reflected in the clinical history in 65.1% and are binding only in 60.5% of the cases. Half of the respondents have not been trained in MDTs. Most participants (90.7%) agree on the fact that MDTs. convey benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluations of the MDTs identify rectifiable deficiencies by modifying hospital inertia and care planning.

Translation of oncology multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) recommendations into clinical practice

Background

Multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) processes differ according to clinical setting and tumour site. This can impact on decision making. This study aimed to evaluate the translation of MDM recommendations into clinical practice across solid tumour MDMs at an academic centre.

Methods

A retrospective audit of oncology records was performed for nine oncology MDMs held at Liverpool Hospital, NSW, Australia from 1/2/17–31/7/17. Information was collected on patient factors (age, gender, country of birth, language, postcode, performance status, comorbidities), tumour factors (diagnosis, stage) and MDM factors (number of MDMs, MDM recommendation). Management was audited up to a year post MDM to record management and identify reasons if discordant with MDM recommendations. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess for factors associated with concordant management.

Results

Eight hundred thirty-five patients were discussed, median age was 65 years and 51.4% were males. 70.8% of patients were presented at first diagnosis, 77% discussed once and treatment recommended in 73.2%. Of 771 patients assessable for concordance, management was fully concordant in 79.4%, partially concordant in 12.8% and discordant in 7.8%. Concordance varied from 84.5% for lung MDM to 97.6% for breast MDMs. On multivariable analysis, breast and upper GI MDMs and discussion at multiple MDMs were significantly associated with concordant management. The most common reason for discordant management was patient/guardian decision (28.3%).

Conclusion

There was variability in translation of MDM recommendations into clinical practice by tumour site. Routine measurement of implementation of MDM recommendations should be considered as a quality indicator of MDM practice.

Survival Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board for Breast Cancer in Mozambique, Sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

Despite the international endorsement of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) for breast cancer care, implementation is suboptimal worldwide, and evidence regarding their effectiveness in developing countries is lacking. We assessed the impact on survival and the cost-effectiveness of implementing an MTB in Mozambique, sub-Saharan Africa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 205 patients with breast cancer diagnosed between January 2015 and August 2017 (98 before and 107 after MTB implementation), followed to November 2019. Pre- and post-MTB implementation subcohorts were compared for clinical characteristics, treatments, and overall survival. We used hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI), computed by Cox proportional hazards regression. The impact of MTB implementation on the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was estimated from the provider perspective.

RESULTS

We found no significant differences between pre- and post-MTB subcohorts regarding clinical characteristics or treatments received. Among patients with early breast cancer (stage 0-III; n = 163), the 3-year overall survival was 48.0% (95% CI, 35.9-59.1) in the pre-MTB and 73.0% (95% CI, 61.3-81.6) in the post-MTB subcohort; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27-0.81). The absolute 3-year mean cost increase was $119.83 per patient, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $802.96 per QALY, corresponding to 1.6 times the gross domestic product of Mozambique.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a MTB in Mozambique led to a 53% mortality decrease among patients with early breast cancer, and it was cost-effective. These findings highlight the feasibility of implementing this strategy and the need for scaling-up MTBs in developing countries, as a way to improve patient outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Currently, more than half of the deaths from breast cancer in the world occur in developing countries. Strategies that optimize care and that are adjusted for available resources are needed to improve the outcomes of patients with breast cancer in these regions. The discussion of cases at multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) may improve survival outcomes, but implementation is suboptimal worldwide, and evidence regarding their effectiveness in developing countries is lacking. This study evaluated the impact of implementing an MTB on the care and survival of patients with breast cancer in Mozambique, sub-Saharan Africa and its cost-effectiveness in this low-income setting.

Medical oncology referral and systemic therapy of patients with advanced stage urothelial carcinoma

Aim: To understand physician visit patterns among patients with stage IV (including nonmetastatic [M0] and metastatic [M1] disease) urothelial carcinoma (UC) and understand factors associated with a timely referral to a medical oncologist and systemic treatment. Patients & methods: Retrospective analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data. Results: First physician encounter was with a urologist (M0: 69%; M1: 53%) or primary care physician ([PCP]; M0: 19%, M1: 25%) for the majority of patients around UC diagnosis. After the index urologist encounter, most patients had a subsequent medical oncologist visit at a median of 52 days (M0: 69.5 days, M1: 33 days). In an adjusted model, older age, index PCP visit, higher comorbidities and M0 disease were negatively associated with a medical oncologist referral. Among those referred to a medical oncologist, older age, Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black race and not being married were negatively associated with subsequent chemotherapy receipt (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Many patients with advanced UC encounter multiple specialists during their disease course. Older patients or those with a first UC-related encounter with a PCP are less likely to be referred to medical oncology. Once referred to medical oncology, social determinants, including race and marital status, are relevant predictors of receiving chemotherapy.

Health Professionals' Views on Key Enabling Factors and Barriers of National Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study

Purpose

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are an integral component of cancer care. Increasingly, virtual MDTMs are used to grant high-quality treatment recommendations across health-care regions, which expands and develops the local MDTM team to a regional or national expert network. We investigated health professionals' experiences from national, virtual MDTMs for rare cancer with a focus on key enabling factors and barriers.

Methods

Health professionals who participate in seven national, virtual MDTMs in Swedish health-care responded to a questionnaire exploring key enabling factors, barriers and opportunities for MDTM development. Conventional content analysis was used to identify thematic categories based on free-text responses.

Results

Participants´ perspectives could be assigned into three categories ie, a national arena with potential for comprehensive knowledge and collaboration, prerequisites for decision-making and organization and responsibilities. These categories consisted of nine sub-categories that referred to, eg, collective competence, resources, clinical research, case discussion, meeting climate, patient-related information, MDTMs potential, referral and technical insufficiencies.

Conclusion

National, virtual MDTMs represent a new multidisciplinary collaborative arena that introduces benefits as well as challenges. Consideration of key enabling factors and barriers may ease implementation and further optimize MDTMs in cancer care.

Physician And Patient Barriers To Radiotherapy Service Access: Treatment Referral Implications

Radiotherapy is one of the mainstays of cancer treatment, and about 60% of cancer patients receive this type of treatment during their course of treatment. An evident gap between optimal and actual radiotherapy utilization proportions has recently been reported, which has been ascribed to lack of referral to radiation oncology. There are many factors influencing the radiotherapy referral, including patient anxiety about toxicity, wrong perception of efficacy and side effects by physicians and patients, insufficient knowledge of referral process. These factors, defined as barriers can be categorized in health system barriers, physician and patient barriers. In the present brief narrative review, we discussed barriers to radiotherapy referral focusing on physician and patient barriers.