Multidisciplinary care of breast cancer patients: a scoping review of multidisciplinary styles, processes, and outcomes

Background

Clinical practice guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care that brings together all relevant disciplines to discuss optimal disease management. However, the literature is characterized by heterogeneous definitions and few reviews about the processes and outcomes of multidisciplinary care. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and classify the definitions and characteristics of multidisciplinary care, as well as outcomes and interventions for patients with breast cancer.

Methods

A systematic search for quantitative and qualitative studies about multidisciplinary care for patients with breast cancer was conducted for January 2001 to December 2017 in the following electronic databases: medline, embase, PsycInfo, and cinahl. Two reviewers independently applied our eligibility criteria at level 1 (title/abstract) and level 2 (full-text) screening. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively.

Results

The search yielded 9537 unique results, of which 191 were included in the final analysis. Two main types of multidisciplinary care were identified: conferences and clinics. Most studies focused on outcomes of multidisciplinary care that could be variously grouped at the patient, provider, and system levels. Research into processes tended to focus on processes that facilitate implementation: team-working, meeting logistics, infrastructure, quality audit, and barriers and facilitators.

Summary

Approaches to multidisciplinary care using conferences and clinics are well described. However, studies vary by design, clinical context, patient population, and study outcome. The heterogeneity of the literature, including the patient populations studied, warrants further specification of multidisciplinary care practice and systematic reviews of the processes or contexts that make the implementation and operation of multidisciplinary care effective.

Accompanying DCIS in breast cancer patients with invasive ductal carcinoma is predictive of improved local recurrence-free survival

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) often accompanies invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). The presence of co-existing DCIS is postulated to present as a less aggressive phenotype than IDC alone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving mastectomy were evaluated. Only patients without adjuvant radio- and chemotherapy were included to decrease treatment bias on local recurrence (LR).

RESULTS

Of 2239 breast cancer patients, 198 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The overall LR rate was 11.6%. Tumor stage (p = 0.002), nodal status (pN2 vs. pN0, p = 0.023) and pure IDC compared with IDC-DCIS (p = 0.029) were multivariate independent factors for increased LR risk. Patients with IDC-DCIS were significantly younger (p < 0.001), had smaller tumors (p = 0.001), less lymph node involvement (p = 0.012). The LR rate was significantly increased in patients with pure IDC (p = 0.012). The time to distant metastases was decreased in patients with pure IDC compared with that observed in patients with IDC-DCIS (log rank = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

Invasive ductal carcinoma accompanied by DCIS is associated with lower LR. The prognostic value of co-existing DCIS in the adjuvant decision-making process may be considered a new independent prognostic marker. This finding needs further studies to evaluate its usefulness in premenopausal women.

Omission of axillary dissection after a positive sentinel node dissection may influence adjuvant chemotherapy indications in operable breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to evaluate how the omission of axillary dissection would have altered the indication for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in patients with early breast cancer submitted to conservative surgery with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs).

METHODS

We identified 321 women in our institutional database who fulfilled the characteristics. All underwent completion axillary lymph node dissection (AD). Each case was blindly reviewed by our breast team in two rounds, and the total number of positive lymph nodes was disclosed only in the second. At each round, the panel chose between: (1) recommend, (2) discuss, (3) do not recommend ACT. Changes between round 1 and 2 were studied by the marginal homogeneity test. Exploratory logistic regression analyses were performed to study predictors of non-SLN involvement and of changes in the indication for ACT.

RESULTS

AD revealed non-SLNs metastases in 96 patients (30 %). Fifty-two patients (16 %) had their initial indication changed at round 2 (p < 0.001). Most of the changes were toward ACT (83 %), and all except two occurred in patients with immunohistochemically defined luminal A and luminal B/HER2-negative tumors. In these two subgroups, a Ki67 above the median value (21 %) was the only independent predictor of no change in the indication to ACT at round 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Omission of AD in patients with one or two positive SLNs may change the indication to ACT in a significant proportion of patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative tumors. All implications should be taken into account before abandoning AD, including a possible biologically tailored surgical approach.

Axillary lymph node dissection in early-stage invasive breast cancer: is it still standard today?

Evaluation of axillary lymph node status by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) are an inherent part of breast cancer treatment. Increased understanding of tumor biology has changed the prognostic and therapeutic impact of lymph node status. Non-invasive imaging techniques like axillary ultrasound, FDG-PET, or MRI revealed moderate sensitivity and high specificity in evaluation of lymph node status. Therefore, they are not sufficient for lymph node staging. Otherwise, the impact of remaining micrometastases and even macrometastases for prognosis and treatment decisions is overestimated. Considering tumor biology, the distinction of axillary metastases in isolated tumor cells (ITC, pN0(i+)); micrometastases (pN1mi), and macrometastases (pN1a) is not comprehensible. Increasing data support the thesis that remaining axillary metastases neither increase the axillary recurrence rate nor decrease overall survival. It is doubtful that axillary tumor cells are capable to complete the complex multistep metastatic process. If applied, axillary metastases are sensitive to systemic treatment and are targeted by postoperative tangential breast irradiation. Therefore, the controversy about the clinical relevance of tumor cell clusters or micrometastases in SLN is a sophisticated but not contemporary discussion. Currently, there is no indication for axillary surgery in elderly patients with favorable tumors and clinically tumor-free lymph nodes. Nonetheless, a rational and evidence-based approach to the management of clinically and sonographically N0 patients with planned breast-conserving surgery and limited tumor size is needed now.

Examining the potential relationship between multidisciplinary cancer care and patient survival: an international literature review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to examine the relationship between multidisciplinary cancer care and patient survival.

METHODS

A literature review was undertaken between January 1950 and September 2009. Included studies described multidisciplinary cancer care and its relation to patient survival. Multidisciplinary care was defined as involvement of a team of clinical and allied specialists whose intent is individualized patient management. Studies were critically appraised for internal and external validity. All study designs were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies met eligibility criteria for this review, including two systematic reviews, one abstract, and 18 original studies. Pooling of results was not possible due to heterogeneity of patient populations, disease sites, measured outcomes, and follow-up periods. Twelve studies (one prospective and six retrospective cohort studies, five before-after series) reported statistically significant association between multidisciplinary care and patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to methodological limitations, this review is unable to assert a causal relationship between multidisciplinary care and patient survival. In order to better evaluate this relationship, the oncology community must first accept a common definition of multidisciplinary care. Future efforts can then elucidate which aspects of multidisciplinary care impact survival, with consideration of confounding patient and tumour factors.