Determinants and outcomes of adherence to recommendations from a multidisciplinary tumour conference for hepatocellular carcinoma

Multidisciplinary approach for hepatocellular carcinoma patients: current evidence and future perspectives

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is challenging due to the complex relationship between underlying liver disease, tumor burden, and liver function. HCC is also notorious for its high recurrence rate even after curative treatment for early-stage tumor. Liver transplantation can substantially alter patient prognosis, but donor availability varies by each patient which further complicates treatment decision. Recent advancements in HCC treatments have introduced numerous potentially efficacious treatment modalities. However, high level evidence comparing the risks and benefits of these options is limited. In this complex situation, multidisciplinary approach or multidisciplinary team care has been suggested as a valuable strategy to help cope with escalating complexity in HCC management. Multidisciplinary approach involves collaboration among medical and health care professionals from various academic disciplines to provide comprehensive care. Although evidence suggests that multidisciplinary care can enhance outcomes of HCC patients, robust data from randomized controlled trials are currently lacking. Moreover, the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach necessitates increased medical resources compared to conventional cancer care. This review summarizes the current evidence on the role of multidisciplinary approach in HCC management and explores potential future directions.

The role of the multidisciplinary tumor board after endoscopic resection of malignant tumors: is it worth it?

OBJECTIVES

The value of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer patients is well known. Most of the current evidence focuses on advanced cancer cases, whereas little is known about the effect of MTBs on early tumors, especially after endoscopic resection. The aim of our study is to evaluate the value of the MTB after endoscopic resection of malignant tumors of the gastrointestinal tract.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all endoscopically resected malignant tumors in our department between 2011 and 2019, focusing on the existence of an MDT recommendation after endoscopic resection, the MDT adherence to the current guidelines, and the implementation of the recommendation by the patients.

RESULTS

We identified 198 patients fulfilling our inclusion criteria, of whom 168 (85%) were discussed in the MDT after endoscopic resection. In total, 155 of the recommendations (92%) were in accordance with the current guidelines, and 147 (88%) of them were implemented by the patients. The MDT discussion itself did not influence the overall survival, whereas the implementation of the MTB recommendation was associated with a significantly better prognosis. Deviations of the MDT recommendation from the guidelines had no effect on the overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The discussion of endoscopically resected malignant tumors in the MTB is crucial for the treatment of patients with this type of cancer, since the implementation of the MTB recommendation, even if it deviates from the current guidelines, improves the prognosis.

Effect of multidisciplinary team care on patient survival in chronic hepatitis B or C hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction

Multidisciplinary team care coordinates with medical teams to improve the quality of cancer care. This study explored multidisciplinary team care in hepatitis B or hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma patients from the time of diagnosis to the first-time treatment interval and investigated treatment outcomes and prognosis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included data from a nationwide population from 2007 to 2016. Data were collected from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database, linked to the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:2 to reduce the selection bias. A multiple regression model with generalized estimating equations was used to analyze whether multidisciplinary team care affected the diagnosis-to-treatment interval. The stratified Cox proportional hazards model examined whether involvement in multidisciplinary team care influenced survival status.

Results

A total of 10,928 and 21,856 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma received multidisciplinary and non-multidisciplinary care, respectively. Participants with multidisciplinary care had a longer diagnosis-to-treatment interval but a lower risk of cumulative cancer death (HR=0.88, 95% CI:0.84-0.92). In patients with intermediate- to advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, multidisciplinary team care has obvious benefits for improving survival.

Conclusion

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who participated in multidisciplinary team care had a longer diagnosis-to-treatment interval but a lower risk of cancer death. Patients with intermediate- to advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma who received multidisciplinary team care significantly benefited from this outcome. Hospitals should provide HCC patients with multidisciplinary team care to improve cancer care.

Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality in hepato-biliary surgery in Veneto region, Italy

Hepatobiliary resections are among the most complex and technically challenging surgical procedures. Even though robust evidence showed that complex surgical procedures such as hepatobiliary surgery have better short- and long-term outcomes and lower mortality rate when performed in high-volume centers, the minimal criteria of centers that can perform hepatobiliary activity are not clearly defined. We conducted a retrospective population study of patients who underwent hepatobiliary surgery for malignant disease in a single Italian administrative region (Veneto) from 2010 to 2021 with the aim to investigate the hospitals annual surgical volume for hepatobiliary malignant diseases and the effect of hospital volume on in-hospital, 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality. The centralization process of hepatobiliary surgery in Veneto is rapidly increasing over the past 10 years (rate of performed in highly specialized centers increased from 62% in 2010 to 78% in 2021) and actually it is really established. The crude and adjusted (for age, sex, Charlson Index) mortality rate after hepatobiliary surgery resulted significantly lower in centers with high-volume activity compared to them with low-volume activity. In the Veneto region, the "Hub and Spoke" model led to a progressive centralization of liver and biliary cancer treatment. High surgical volume has been confirmed to be related to better outcomes in terms of mortality rate after hepatobiliary surgical procedures. Further studies are necessary to clearly define the minimal criteria and associated numerical cutoffs that can help define the characteristics of centers that can perform hepatobiliary activities.

Adherence to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations in Patients With Curable Esophageal and Gastric Cancers

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) discussion is standard practice in the management of Upper Gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers. However, poor adherence to MDT recommendations may account for the lack of improved oncological outcomes with MDTs. We aim to quantify adherence rates and compare outcomes between adherent and non-adherent patients.

METHODS

We included all patients with potentially curable primary UGI carcinomas who were discussed at UGI MDT from 2017 to 2018. MDT recommendations were compared to actual treatment received. Oncological and survival outcomes were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Amongst 153 patients, 64 (41.8%) were non-adherent to MDT recommendations. Reasons for non-adherence were patient refusal (50.0%), treatment-related complications (31.3%), disease factors (17.2%) and clinician decision (1.56%). Univariate analysis showed that non-adherent patients were older (71.6 vs 65.2 years, p < 0.001), with higher clinical stage at point of diagnosis (p = 0.028), pathological stage after resection (p < 0.001) and were more likely to be recommended for multimodal therapy. No significant factors were associated with non-adherence at multivariate analysis. Non-adherent patients had worse median overall survival (19.5 months) compared to adherent patients (not reached at follow-up) with both unmatched and propensity-score matched analysis. Patients who received only part of the intended adjuvant chemotherapy course had worse median overall survival and disease-free survival compared to patients who completed or did not initiate adjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-adherence to MDT recommendations was associated with advanced age and tumor stage, and potentially contributes to the worse oncological outcomes in a group of patients already predisposed to poor outcomes.

Adherence to Tumor Board Recommendations in the Treatment of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a heterogeneous disease that typically arises in the setting of chronic liver disease, making treatment selection complex. Multidisciplinary liver tumor boards (MDLTB) have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with HCC. However, in many cases, patients evaluated by MDLTBs ultimately do not receive the board's recommended treatment.

Purpose

This study aims to assess adherence to MDLTB recommendations for the treatment of HCC, the reasons for non-adherence, and the survival of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Stage A patients treated with curative treatment compared to palliative locoregional therapy.

Patients and Methods

A single-site, retrospective cohort study was conducted of all patients with treatment-naïve HCC who were evaluated by an MDLTB at a tertiary care center in Connecticut between 2013 and 2016, of which 225 patients met inclusion criteria. Investigators conducted a chart review and recorded adherence to the MDLTB's recommendations, and in cases of discordance, evaluated and recorded the underlying cause; investigators assessed MDLTB recommendations' compliance with BCLC guidelines. Survival data was accrued through February 1st of 2022 and analyzed via Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression.

Results

Treatment adherent to MDLTB recommendations occurred in 85.3% of patients (n=192). The majority of non-adherence occurred in the management of BCLC Stage A disease. In cases where adherence was possible but the recommendation was not followed, most discrepancies were whether to treat with curative or palliative intent (20/24), with almost all discrepancies occurring in patients (19/20) with BCLC Stage A disease. For patients with Stage A unifocal HCC, those who received curative therapy lived significantly longer than patients who received palliative locoregional therapy (5.55 years vs 4.26 years, p=0.037).

Conclusion

Most forms of non-adherence to MDLTB recommendations were unavoidable; however, treatment discordance in the management of patients with BCLC Stage A unifocal disease may present an opportunity for clinically significant quality improvement.

Liver Diseases in Latin America: Current Status, Unmet Needs, and Opportunities for Improvement

Purpose of review

To assess the current challenges regarding liver diseases, including the burden of disease, access to care, screening, and treatment needs in Latin America.

Recent findings

Latin America is a region with a rich multicultural heritage and important socioeconomic differences. The burden of liver diseases is high and mainly determined by a high level of alcohol intake and the surge of risk factors associated with NAFLD (i.e., sedentary lifestyles, broader access to highly processed foods, obesity, and type 2 diabetes mellitus). Hepatotropic viruses also play a role in the development of chronic liver diseases, although their comparative frequency has been decreasing over the last decades. There are important disparities in access to screening and treatment for liver diseases in Latin America, which are reflected in low access to critical treatments such as direct-acting antiviral agents and drugs to treat hepatocellular carcinoma. Also, important barriers to liver transplantation are present in multiple countries, including a low deceased donors’ rate and a lack of availability in several countries (especially in Central America). Our region also has disadvantages in research and education in liver diseases, which limits regional academic development and improvement in quality of care of liver diseases.

Summary

In order to tackle an increasing health burden due to liver diseases, Latin America urgently needs tailored interventions aiming to control the main risk factors for these disorders through the establishment of effective public health policies. Also, development of liver transplantation programs and improvement of medical education and research capabilities as well as extensive collaboration between all stakeholders are keys to address the liver disease agenda in the region.

Argentinian clinical practice guideline for surveillance, diagnosis, staging and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

The A.A.E.E.H has developed this guideline for the best care of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from Argentina. It was done from May 2018 to March 2020. Specific clinical research questions were systematically searched. The quality of evidence and level of recommendations were organized according to GRADE. HCC surveillance is strongly recommended with abdominal ultrasound (US) every six months in the population at risk for HCC (cirrhosis, hepatitis B or hepatitis C); it is suggested to add alpha-feto protein (AFP) levels in case of inexeperienced sonographers. Imaging diagnosis in patients at risk for HCC has high specificity and tumor biopsy is not mandatory. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer algorithm is strongly recommended for HCC staging and treatment-decision processes. Liver resection is strongly recommended for patients without portal hypertension and preserved liver function. Composite models are suggested for liver transplant selection criteria. Therapies for HCC with robust clinical evidence include transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and first to second line systemic treatment options (sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib and ramucirumab). Immunotherapy with nivolumab and pembrolizumab has failed to show statistical benefit but the novel combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has recently shown survival benefit over sorafenib in frontline.

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.

Role of Multidisciplinary Care in the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Despite advances in treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), 5-year survival for HCC remains below 20%. This poor survival is multifactorial but is partly related to underuse of curative treatment in clinical practice. In light of growing treatment options, delivered by different types of providers, optimal management requires input from multiple specialties. A multidisciplinary approach has been evolving over the past couple of decades, bringing different specialists together to develop a therapeutic plan to treat and manage HCC, which significantly increases timely guideline-concordant treatment and improves overall survival. The present review attempts to highlight the need for such a multimodal approach by providing insights on its potential structure and impact on the various aspects of HCC management.

Multidisciplinary Team Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Is Standard of Care

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality, but unlike other leading causes of cancer death, HCC is increasing in mortality and burden of management. Management of HCC is unique because it usually arises in a diseased liver, which itself may be a driver of mortality. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) for the management of complex diseases are becoming more common, but are especially needed in the management of patients with HCC. Liver cancer MDTs are used in most centers providing comprehensive care for patients with HCC, and should be considered the standard of care for these patients.

Effects of volume on outcome in hepatobiliary surgery: a review with guidelines proposal

The positive relationship between volume and outcome in hepatobiliary surgery has been demonstrated for many years. As for other complex surgical procedures, both improved short- and long-term outcomes have been associated with a higher volume of procedures. However, whether the centralization of complex hepatobiliary procedures makes full sense because it should be associated with higher quality of care, as reported in the literature, precise criteria on what to centralize, where to centralize, and who should be entitled to perform complex procedures are still missing. Indeed, despite the generalized consensus on centralization in hepatobiliary surgery, this topic remains very complex because many determinants are involved in such a centralization process, of which some of them cannot be easily controlled. In the context of different health systems worldwide, such as national health systems and private insurance, there are different stakeholders that demand different needs: politicians, patients, surgeons, institutions and medical associations do not always have the same needs. Starting from a review of the literature on centralization in hepatobiliary surgery, we will propose some guidelines that, while not data-driven due to low evidence in the literature, will be based on good clinical practice.

Multidisciplinary Approach to HCC Management: How Can This Be Done?

Multidisciplinary tumor boards have evolved to address the increasing complexity of cancer care management. Given that hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often arises in the setting of underlying cirrhosis, expert input from hepatologists alongside hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, radiation oncologists, interventional and body radiologists, and medical oncologists has become increasingly important in order to offer patients appropriate cancer treatments. The MDLTB structure has evolved since the early 2000s to bring these specialists together at regularly scheduled meetings to develop a therapeutic treatment plan for HCC management. MDLTBs have reduced the time to treatment and improved patient satisfaction. Standardized documentation with common data elements has been recommended to ensure adequate communication from MDLTB to referring healthcare providers. Retrospective studies consistently highlight the frequency of changes in treatment plans after MDLTB review to better adhere to guideline recommended care. Despite several decades of MDLTBs implementation, few studies describe clinical outcomes associated with MDLTBs such as patient survival and cost benefits. More research is needed in this area to further justify the heavy use of resources that are needed to maintain MDLTBs. Development and use of a centralized database to store such information may assist with future studies of clinical outcomes and inform quality improvement projects.

Multidisciplinary approach is associated with improved survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Background

Given the complexity of managing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a multidisciplinary approach (MDT) is recommended to optimize management of HCC patients. However, evidence suggesting that MDT improves patient outcome is limited.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients newly-diagnosed with HCC between 2005 and 2013 (n = 6,619). The overall survival (OS) rates between the patients who were and were not managed via MDT were compared in the entire cohort (n = 6,619), and in the exactly matched cohort (n = 1,396).

Results

In the entire cohort, the 5-year survival rate was significantly higher in the patients who were managed via MDT compared to that of the patients who were not (71.2% vs. 49.4%, P < 0.001), with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.41–0.53). In the exactly matched cohort, the 5-year survival rate was higher in patients who were managed via MDT (71.4% vs. 58.7%, P < 0.001; HR [95% CI] = 0.67 [0.56–0.80]). The survival benefit of MDT management was observed in most pre-defined subgroups, and was especially significant in patients with poor liver function (ALBI grade 2 or 3), intermediate or advanced tumor stage (BCLC stage B or C), or high alphafetoprotein levels (≥200 ng/ml).

Conclusion

MDT management was associated with improved overall survival in HCC patients, indicating that MDT management can be a valuable option to improve outcome of HCC patients. This warrants prospective evaluations.

Hepatocellular carcinoma in Latin America: Diagnosis and treatment challenges

Latin America, a region with a population greater than 600000000 individuals, is well known due to its wide geographic, socio-cultural and economic heterogeneity. Access to health care remains as the main barrier that challenges routine screening, early diagnosis and proper treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Therefore, identification of population at risk, implementation of surveillance programs and access to curative treatments has been poorly obtained in the region. Different retrospective cohort studies from the region have shown flaws in the implementation process of routine surveillance and early HCC diagnosis. Furthermore, adherence to clinical practice guidelines recommendations assessed in two studies from Brazil and Argentina demonstrated that there is also room for improvement in this field, similarly than the one observed in Europe and the United States. In summary, Latin America shares difficulties in HCC decision-making processes similar to those from developed countries. However, a transversal limitation in the region is the poor access to health care with the consequent limitation to standard treatments for overall population. Specifically, universal health care access to the different World Health Organization levels is crucial, including improvement in research, education and continuous medical training in order to expand knowledge and generation of data promoting a continuous improvement in the care of HCC patients.

Overall survival after resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma at academic cancer centers versus community cancer centers: An analysis of the National Cancer Data Base

BACKGROUND

Operative resection remains the definitive curative therapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma. Data published recently show a correlation between improved outcomes for complex oncologic operations and treatment at academic centers. For large retroperitoneal sarcomas, operative resection can be complex and require multidisciplinary care. We hypothesized that survival rates vary between type of treating center for patients undergoing resection for retroperitoneal sarcoma.

METHODS

Patients with stage I to III nonmetastatic retroperitoneal sarcomas who underwent operative resection were identified from the National Cancer Database during the years 2004-2013. Treating centers were categorized as academic cancer centers or community cancer centers. Overall survival was analyzed by log-rank test and graphed using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 2,762 patients were identified. A majority of patients (59.4%, n = 1,642) underwent resection at an academic cancer centers. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years old. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was more common at academic cancer centers, while adjuvant radiotherapy was more common at community cancer centers. Improved overall survival was seen at academic cancer centers across all stages compared with community cancer centers (P = .014) but, after multivariable Cox regression analysis, was not a significant independent predictor of survival (hazard ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.04, P = .171). Academic cancer centers exhibited a greater rate of R0 resection (55.9% vs 47.0%, P < .001) and a lesser odds of positive margins (odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.99, P = .044) after multivariable logistic regression.

CONCLUSION

Resection for retroperitoneal sarcoma performed at academic cancer centers was an independent predictor of margin-negative resection but was not a statistically significant factor for survival. This observation suggests that site of care may contribute to some aspect of improved oncologic resection for retroperitoneal sarcoma.

"A rising tide lifts all boats": establishing a multidisciplinary genomic tumor board for breast cancer patients with advanced disease

Background

Research suggests that multidisciplinary genomic tumor boards (MGTB) can inform cancer patient care, though little is known about factors influencing how MGTBs interpret genomic test results, make recommendations, and perceive the utility of this approach. This study’s objective was to observe, describe, and assess the establishment of the Breast Multidisciplinary Genomic Tumor Board, the first MGTB focused on interpreting genomic test results for breast cancer patients with advanced disease.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative case study involving participant observation at monthly MGTB meetings from October 2013 through November 2014 and interviews with 12 MGTB members. We analyzed social dynamics and interactions within the MGTB regarding interpretation of genomic findings and participants’ views on effectiveness of the MGTB in using genomics to inform patient care.

Results

Twenty-two physicians, physician-scientists, basic scientists, bioethicists, and allied care professionals comprised the MGTB. The MGTB reviewed FoundationOne™ results for 40 metastatic breast cancer patients. Based on findings, the board mostly recommended referring patients to clinical trials (34) and medical genetics (15), and Food and Drug Administration-approved (FDA) breast cancer therapies (13). Though multidisciplinary, recommendations were driven by medical oncologists. Interviewees described providing more precise care recommendations and professional development as advantages and the limited actionability of genomic test results as a challenge for the MGTB.

Conclusions

Findings suggest both feasibility and desirability of pooling professional expertise in genomically-guided breast cancer care and challenges to institutionalizing a Breast MGTB, specifically in promoting interdisciplinary contributions and managing limited actionability of genomic test results for patients with advanced disease.