Overcoming the Implementation Gap in Multidisciplinary Oncology Care Programs

Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Care Within a Community-Based Health Care System

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary lung cancer care is assumed to improve care delivery by increasing transparency, objectivity, and shared decision making; however, there is a lack of high-level evidence demonstrating its benefits, especially in community-based health care systems. We used implementation and team science principles to establish a colocated multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic in a large community-based health care system and evaluated patient experience and outcomes within and outside this clinic.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective frequency-matched comparative effectiveness study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02123797) evaluating the thoroughness of lung cancer staging, receipt of stage-appropriate treatment, and survival between patients receiving care in the multidisciplinary clinic and those receiving usual serial care. Target enrollment was 150 patients on the multidisciplinary arm and 300 on the serial care arm. We frequency-matched patients by clinical stage, performance status, insurance type, race, and age.

RESULTS

A total of 526 patients were enrolled: 178 on the multidisciplinary arm and 348 on the serial care arm. After adjusting for other factors, multidisciplinary patients had significantly higher odds (odds ratio [OR]: 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5 to 3.4]) of trimodality staging compared with serial care. Patients on the multidisciplinary arm also had higher odds of receiving invasive stage confirmation (OR: 2.0 [95% CI, 1.4 to 3.1]) and mediastinal stage confirmation (OR: 1.9 [95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8]). Additionally, patients receiving multidisciplinary care were significantly more likely to receive stage-appropriate treatment (OR: 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1 to 3.0]). We found no significant difference in overall or progression-free survival between study arms.

CONCLUSION

The multidisciplinary clinic delivered significant improvements in evidence-based quality care on multiple levels. Even in the absence of a demonstrable survival benefit, these findings provide a strong rationale for recommending this model of care.

Survival Impact of an Enhanced Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference in a Regional Community Health Care System

INTRODUCTION

We compared NSCLC treatment and survival within and outside a multidisciplinary model of care from a large community health care system.

METHODS

We implemented a rigorously benchmarked "enhanced" Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference (eMTOC) and used Tumor Registry data (2011-2017) to evaluate guideline-concordant care. Because eMTOC was located in metropolitan Memphis, we separated non-MTOC patient by metropolitan and regional location. We categorized National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment as "preferred," or "appropriate" (allowable under certain circumstances). We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across cohorts using chi-square tests and survival using Cox regression, adjusted for multiple testing. We also performed propensity-matched and adjusted survival analyses.

RESULTS

Of 6259 patients, 14% were in eMTOC, 55% metropolitan non-MTOC, and 31% regional non-MTOC cohorts. eMTOC had the highest rates of African Americans (34% versus 28% versus 22%), stages I to IIIB (63 versus 40 versus 50), urban residents (81 versus 78 versus 20), stage-preferred treatment (66 versus 57 versus 48), guideline-concordant treatment (78 versus 70 versus 63), and lowest percentage of nontreatment (6 versus 21 versus 28); all p values were less than 0.001. Compared with eMTOC, hazard for death was higher in metropolitan (1.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-1.7) and regional (1.7, 1.5-1.9) non-MTOC; hazards were higher in regional non-MTOC versus metropolitan (1.1, 1.0-1.2); all p values were less than 0.05 after adjustment. Results were generally similar after propensity analysis with and without adjusting for guideline-concordant treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary NSCLC care planning was associated with significantly higher rates of guideline-concordant care and survival, providing evidence for rigorous implementation of this model of care.

Health Resource and Cost Savings Achieved in a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Clinic

Background: Lung cancer (LC) care is resource and cost intensive. We launched a Multidisciplinary LC Clinic (MDC), where patients with a new LC diagnosis received concurrent oncology consultation, resulting in improved time to LC assessment and treatment. Here, we evaluate the impact of MDC on health resource utilization, patient and caregiver costs, and secondary patient benefits. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients in a rapid assessment clinic with a new LC diagnosis pre-MDC (September 2016-February 2017) and post-MDC implementation (February 2017-December 2018). Data are reported as means; unpaired t-tests and ANOVA were used to assess for significance. We also conducted a cost analysis. Resource utilization, out-of-pocket costs, procedure-related costs, and indirect costs were evaluated from the societal perspective and presented in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD); multi-way worst/best case and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: We reviewed 428 patients (78 traditional model, 350 MDC). Patients in the MDC model required significantly fewer oncology visits from LC diagnosis to first LC treatment (1.62 vs. 2.68, p < 0.001), which was significant for patients with stage 1, 3, and 4 disease. Compared with the traditional model, there was no change in mean biopsies/patient (1.32 traditional vs. 1.17 MDC, p = 0.18) or staging investigations/patient (2.24 traditional vs. 2.02 MDC, p = 0.20). Post-MDC, there was an increase in invasive mediastinal staging for patients with stage 2/3 LC (15.0% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001). Over 22 months, MDC resulted in savings of CAD 48,389 including CAD 24,167 CAD in direct patient out-of-pocket expenses. For the threshold analyses, MDC was estimated to cost CAD 25,708 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), considered to be below current willingness to pay thresholds (at CAD 80,000 per QALY). MDC also facilitated oncology assessment for 29 non-LC patients. Conclusions: An MDC led to a reduction in patient visits and direct patient and caregiver costs.

Patient and physician perceptions of lung cancer care in a multidisciplinary clinic model

Background

Lung cancer (lc) is a complex disease requiring coordination of multiple health care professionals. A recently implemented lc multidisciplinary clinic (mdc) at Kingston Health Sciences Centre, an academic tertiary care hospital, improved timeliness of oncology assessment and treatment. This study describes patient, caregiver, and physician experiences in the mdc.

Methods

We qualitatively studied patient, caregiver, and physician experiences in a traditional siloed care model and in the mdc model. We used purposive sampling to conduct semi-structured interviews with patients and caregivers who received care in one of the models and with physicians who worked in both models. Thematic design by open coding in the ATLAS.ti software application (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, Berlin, Germany) was used to analyze the data.

Results

Participation by 6 of 72 identified patients from the traditional model and 6 of 40 identified patients from the mdc model was obtained. Of 9 physicians who provided care in both models, 8 were interviewed (2 respirologists, 2 medical oncologists, 4 radiation oncologists). Four themes emerged: communication and collaboration, efficiency, quality of care, and effect on patient outcomes. Patients in both models had positive impressions of their care. Patients in the mdc frequently reported convenience and a positive effect of family presence at appointments. Physicians reported that the mdc improved communication and collegiality, clinic efficiency, patient outcomes and satisfaction, and consistency of information provided to patients. Physicians identified lack of clinic space as an area for mdc improvement.

Conclusions

This qualitative study found that a lc mdc facilitated patient communication and physician collaboration, improved quality of care, and had a perceived positive effect on patient outcomes.

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.

Pragmatic trial of a multidisciplinary lung cancer care model in a community healthcare setting: study design, implementation evaluation, and baseline clinical results

Background

Responsible for 25% of all US cancer deaths, lung cancer presents complex care-delivery challenges. Adoption of the highly recommended multidisciplinary care model suffers from a dearth of good quality evidence. Leading up to a prospective comparative-effectiveness study of multidisciplinary vs. serial care, we studied the implementation of a rigorously benchmarked multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic.

Methods

We used a mixed-methods approach to conduct a patient-centered, combined implementation and effectiveness study of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care. We established a co-located multidisciplinary clinic to study the implementation of this care-delivery model. We identified and engaged key stakeholders from the onset, used their input to develop the program structure, processes, performance benchmarks, and study endpoints (outcome-related process measures, patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes, survival). In this report, we describe the study design, process of implementation, comparative populations, and how they contrast with patients within the local and regional healthcare system. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02123797.

Results

Implementation: the multidisciplinary clinic obtained an overall treatment concordance rate of 90% (target >85%). Satisfaction scores were high, with >95% of patients and caregivers rating themselves as being "very satisfied" with all aspects of care from the multidisciplinary team (patient/caregiver response rate >90%). The Reach of the multidisciplinary clinic included a higher proportion of minority patients, more women, and younger patients than the regional population. Comparative effectiveness: The comparative effectiveness trial conducted in the last phase of the study met the planned enrollment per statistical design, with 178 patients in the multidisciplinary arm and 348 in the serial care arm. The multidisciplinary cohort had older age and a higher percentage of racial minorities, with a higher proportion of stage IV patients in the serial care arm.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates a comprehensive implementation of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care, which will advance the science behind implementing this much-advocated clinical care model.