Improving surgical resection rates in lung cancer without a two stop service

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Multidisciplinary care models for patients with lung cancer

Multidisciplinary care is the cornerstone of lung cancer treatment in the developed world, even though there is a relative lack of consistent evidence that this care model improves outcomes. In this review, we present the available literature regarding how to set up and run an efficient multidisciplinary care model for lung cancer patients with emphasis on team members' roles and responsibilities. Moreover, we present some limited evidence about multidisciplinary care and its impact on lung cancer outcomes and survival. This review provides simple guidance on setting up and running a multidisciplinary service for lung cancer patients. It highlights the importance of defined roles and responsibilities for team members. It also presents concise information based on the literature regarding the impact of multidisciplinary care in lung cancer outcomes (e.g. survival of patients undergoing lung cancer surgery).

Making the Evidentiary Case for Universal Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncologic Care

The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the state of the evidence for, and challenges to, sustainable implementation of multidisciplinary thoracic oncology programs. Multidisciplinary care is much advocated by professional groups and makers of clinical guidelines, but little practiced. The gap between universal recommendation and scant evidence of practice suggests the existence of major barriers to program implementation. We examine 2 articles published in this issue of Clinical Lung Cancer to illustrate problems with the evidence base for multidisciplinary care. The inherent complexity of care delivery for the lung cancer patient drives near-universal advocacy for multidisciplinary care as a means of overcoming the heterogeneous quality and outcomes of patient care. However, the evidence to support this model of care delivery is poor. Challenges include the absence of a clear definition of "multidisciplinary care" in the literature, a consequent hodge-podge of poorly-defined examples of tested models, methodologically flawed studies, exemplified by the near-total absence of prospective studies examining this model of care delivery, and absence of scientifically sound dissemination and implementation studies, as well as cost-effectiveness studies. Against this background, we examined the results of a recent large single-institutional retrospective study suggesting the survival benefit of care within a colocated multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic, and an ambitious systematic review of existing literature on multidisciplinary cancer clinics. Better-quality evidence is still needed to establish the value of the multidisciplinary care concept. Such studies need to be prospective, use standardized definitions of multidisciplinary care, and provide clear information about program structure.

Treatment of limited disease small cell lung cancer: the multidisciplinary team

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) presents multiple interdisciplinary challenges with several paradigm shifts in its treatment in recent years. SCLC treatment requires multidisciplinary management and timely treatment. The aim of this review is to focus on the team management aspects in the treatment of limited disease SCLC and how this can contribute towards improving outcomes.

Lung cancer survival in Norway, 1997-2011: from nihilism to optimism

We examine changes in survival and patient-, tumour- and treatment-related factors among resected and nonresected lung cancer patients, and identify subgroups with the largest and smallest survival improvements.National population-based data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, Statistics Norway and the Norwegian Patient Register were linked for lung cancer patients diagnosed during 1997-2011. The 1- and 5-year relative survival were estimated, and Cox proportional hazard regression, adjusted for selected patient characteristics, was used to assess prognostic factors for survival in lung cancer patients overall and stratified by resection status.We identified 34 157 patients with lung cancer. The proportion of histological diagnoses accompanied by molecular genetics testing increased from 0% to 26%, while those accompanied by immunohistochemistry increased from 8% to 26%. The 1-year relative survival among nonresected and resected patients increased from 21.7% to 34.2% and 75.4% to 91.5%, respectively. The improved survival remained significant after adjustment for age, sex, stage and histology. The largest improvements in survival occurred among resected and adenocarcinoma patients, while patients ≥80 years experienced the smallest increase.Lung cancer survival has increased considerably in Norway. The explanation is probably multifactorial, including improved attitude towards diagnostic work-up and treatment, and more accurate diagnostic testing that allows for improved selection for resection and improved treatment options.

Integration of tobacco cessation services into multidisciplinary lung cancer care: rationale, state of the art, and future directions

Tobacco use is the largest risk factor for lung cancer and many lung cancer patients still smoke at the time of diagnosis. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend that all patients receive evidence-based tobacco treatment, implementation of these services in oncology practices is inconsistent and inadequate. Multidisciplinary lung cancer treatment programs offer an ideal environment to optimally deliver effective smoking cessation services. This article reviews best practice recommendations and current status of tobacco treatment for oncology patients, and provides recommendations to optimize delivery of tobacco treatment in multidisciplinary practice.

Multidisciplinary Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Lung Cancer

Lung cancer diagnosis and treatment has evolved to require the input and expertise of multiple diverse medical and surgical specialties. The approach to lung cancer patients requires the adherence to a few principles that include thorough use of staging modalities to assure the proper treatment for each patient, and an understanding of the limitations and advantages of each of these modalities. Evidence is continuing to emerge that supports the notion that diagnostic workup and treatment of lung cancer patients is best done within the context of a multidisciplinary team devoted to this purpose.

Systematic review of multidisciplinary teams in the management of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

In several countries, clinical practice guidelines for lung cancer recommend that multidisciplinary (MD) teams should be used to plan the management of all lung cancer patients. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate and critically appraise the effectiveness of multidisciplinary teams for lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline searches were carried out for the period 1984 to July 2007. We included any study that mentioned team working among specialists with diagnostic and curative therapeutic intent, where members of the team met at a specified time, either in person or by video or teleconferencing, to discuss the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected lung cancer. All study designs were included. We were particularly interested in whether multidisciplinary working improved survival but also considered other outcomes such as practice patterns and waiting times.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies met the criteria for inclusion. Statistical pooling was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity. Only two of the primary studies reported an improvement in survival. Both were before-and-after designs, providing weak evidence of a causal association. Evidence of the effect of MD teams was stronger for changing patient management than for affecting survival. Six of the studies reported an increase in the percentage of patients undergoing surgical resection or an increase in the percentage of patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy with curative intent.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows limited evidence linking MD teams with improved lung cancer survival. This does not mean that MD teams do not improve survival, merely that currently available evidence of this is limited. It seems intuitively obvious that MD teams should improve outcomes for lung cancer patients, but there are difficulties in conducting randomised trials to show this. The best way forward would be prospective evaluation of the effectiveness of MD teams as they are implemented, paying particular attention to collecting data on potential confounders.