How do surgeons decide to refer patients for adjuvant cancer treatment? Protocol for a qualitative study

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.

Barriers of Access to Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively summarize barriers of access to breast reconstruction and evaluate access using the Penchansky and Thomas conceptual framework based on the six dimensions of access to care.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review that focused on (1) breast reconstruction, (2) barriers, and (3) breast cancer. Eight databases (i.e., EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, ePub MEDLINE, ProQuest, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched. English peer-reviewed articles published between 1996 and 2016 were included.

RESULTS

The authors' search retrieved 4282 unique articles. Two independent reviewers screened texts, selecting 99 articles for inclusion. All studies were observational and qualitative in nature. The availability of breast reconstruction was highest in teaching hospitals, private hospitals, and national cancer institutions. Accessibility affected access, with lower likelihood of breast reconstruction in rural geographic locations. Affordability also impacted access; high costs of the procedure or poor reimbursement by insurance companies negatively influenced access to breast reconstruction. Acceptability of the procedure was not universal, with unfavorable physician attitudes toward breast reconstruction and specific patient and tumor characteristics correlating with lower rates of breast reconstruction. Lastly, lack of patient awareness of breast reconstruction reduced the receipt of breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the access-to-care framework by Penchansky and Thomas, the authors found that barriers to breast reconstruction existed in all six domains and interplayed at many levels. The authors' systematic review analyzed this complex relationship and suggested multiprong interventions aimed at targeting breast reconstruction barriers, with the goal of promoting equitable access to breast reconstruction for all breast cancer patients.

Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Breast Cancer: Factors Influencing Surgeons' Referrals

Background

This study aimed to assess the influence of disease- and patient-related factors on surgeons’ decisions to refer patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC) for neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST).

Methods

An online survey of United States surgeons evaluated the influence of selected disease- and patient-related factors on surgeons’ decisions, rated their influence (individually and in combination), and provided a relative ranking of jointly considered factors using best–worst scaling.

Results

The participants in this study were 100 licensed surgeons. The surgeons referred approximately 25 % of EBC patients for NST to improve surgical management. Approximately 75 % of the surgeons agreed that NST is important for EBC, if only to improve surgical management. More than half were “very likely” to refer EBC patients for NST based on anatomicopathologic factors. Less than 50 % were “very likely” to do so when considering tumor phenotype factors. Tumor size and lymph node status were ranked highest in hypothetical patient scenarios. Regarding combinations of factors, the importance of any single factor varied according to the combinations presented. Less than half of the respondents were “very familiar,” and half were “somewhat familiar” with NST guidelines for breast cancer. More than half of the respondents were unaware that findings have shown achievement of pathologic complete response (pCR) after NST to be associated with improved survival.

Conclusions

Surgeons’ decision to refer for NST is strongly driven by surgical management goals. Anatomicopathologic factors are more influential than tumor phenotype. However, no single disease or patient factor consistently drives the decision to refer for NST. Surgeons’ awareness of the association between pCR achievement and longer survival could be improved.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5296-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.