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

Recommendations to Improve Management of Incidental Pulmonary Nodules in Canada: Expert Panel Consensus

Introduction: Incidental pulmonary nodules (IPN) are common radiologic findings, yet management of IPNs is inconsistent across Canada. This study aims to improve IPN management based on multidisciplinary expert consensus and provides recommendations to overcome patient and system-level barriers. Methods: A modified Delphi consensus technique was conducted. Multidisciplinary experts with extensive experience in lung nodule management in Canada were recruited to participate in the panel. A survey was administered in 3 rounds, using a 5-point Likert scale to determine the level of agreement (1 = extremely agree, 5 = extremely disagree). Results: Eleven experts agreed to participate in the panel; 10 completed all 3 rounds. Consensus was achieved for 183/217 (84.3%) statements. Panellists agreed that radiology reports should include a standardized summary of findings and follow-up recommendations for all nodule sizes (ie, <6, 6-8, and >8 mm). There was strong consensus regarding the importance of an automated system for patient follow-up and that leadership support for organizational change at the administrative level is of utmost importance in improving IPN management. There was no consensus on the need for standardized national referral pathways, development of new guidelines, or establishing a uniform picture archiving and communication system. Conclusion: Canadian IPN experts agree that improved IPN management should include standardized radiology reporting of IPNs, standardized and automated follow-up of patients with IPNs, guideline adherence and implementation, and leadership support for organizational change. Future research should focus on the implementation and long-term effectiveness of these recommendations in clinical practice.

Multidisciplinary meeting review in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer diagnosis, staging and treatment may be enhanced by multidisciplinary participation and presentation in multidisciplinary meetings (MDM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore literature evidence of clinical impacts of MDM exposure.

METHODS

A study protocol was registered (PROSPERO identifier CRD42021258069). Randomised controlled trials and observational cohort studies including adults with nonsmall cell lung cancer and who underwent MDM review, compared to no MDM, were included. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 31 May 2021. Studies were screened and extracted by two reviewers. Outcomes included time to diagnosis and treatment, histological confirmation, receipt of treatments, clinical trial participation, survival and quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool.

RESULTS

2947 citations were identified, and 20 studies were included. MDM presentation significantly increased histological confirmation of diagnosis (OR 3.01, 95% CI 2.30-3.95; p<0.00001) and availability of clinical staging (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.43-4.56; p=0.002). MDM presentation significantly increased likelihood of receipt of surgery (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.29-3.12; p=0.002) and reduced the likelihood of receiving no active treatment (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50; p=0.01). MDM presentation was protective of both 1-year survival (OR 3.23, 95% CI 2.85-3.68; p<0.00001) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.55-0.72; p<0.00001).

DISCUSSION

MDM presentation was associated with increased likelihood of histological confirmation of diagnosis, documentation of clinical staging and receipt of surgery. Overall and 1-year survival was better in those presented to an MDM, although there was some clinical heterogeneity in participants and interventions delivered. Further research is required to determine the optimal method of MDM presentation, and address barriers to presentation.

Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working

International Guidelines as well as Cancer Associations recommend a multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer care. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) can significantly improve treatment decision-making and patient coordination by putting different physicians and other health professionals "in the same room", who collectively decide upon the best possible treatment. However, this is not a panacea for cancer treatment. The impact of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on patient outcomes is not univocal, while the effective functioning of the MDT depends on many factors. This review presents the available MDT literature with an emphasis on the key factors that characterize high-quality patient care in lung cancer. The study was conducted with a bibliographic search using different electronic databases (PubMed Central, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google) referring to multidisciplinary cancer care settings. Many key elements appear consolidated, while others emerge as prevalent and actual, especially those related to visible barriers which work across geographic, organizational, and disciplinary boundaries. MDTs must be sustained by strategic management, structured within the entity, and cannot be managed as a separate care process. Furthermore, they need to coordinate with other teams (within and outside the organization) and join with the broad range of services delivered by multiple providers at various points of the cancer journey or within the system, with the vision of integrated care.

Improving Access and Timeliness of Early Palliative Care Specialist Assessment for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer in a Rapid Assessment Clinic

Background: Integrating palliative care in the management of patients with lung cancer improves quality of life, patient satisfaction, and overall survival. However, few patients receive timely palliative care consultation. The Lung Diagnostic Assessment Program (LDAP) in Southeastern Ontario is a multidisciplinary rapid assessment clinic that expedites the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected lung cancer. Objectives: We sought to increase the percentage of LDAP patients with stage IV lung cancer receiving palliative care consultation within three months of diagnosis. Design: We integrated a palliative care specialist in LDAP to facilitate in-person, same-visit consultation for patients with a new lung cancer diagnosis. Setting/Subjects: Five hundred fifty patients in a Canadian academic center (154 initial baseline, 104 COVID baseline, 292 post-palliative care integration). Measurements: Baseline data were established using retrospective chart review (February-June 2020 and December 2020-March 2021 due to COVID-19 pandemic). Data were collected prospectively to assess improvement (March-August 2021). Statistical Process Control charts assessed for special cause variation; chi-square tests assessed for differences between groups. Results: The percentage of patients with stage IV lung cancer seen by palliative care within three months increased from 21.8% (12/55) during early-COVID baseline to 49.2% (32/65) after palliative care integration (p < 0.006). Palliative care integration in LDAP reduced mean time from referral to consultation from 24.8 to 12.3 days, including same-day consultation for 15/32 (46.8%) patients with stage IV disease. Conclusions: Integrating palliative care specialists into LDAP improved the timeliness of palliative care assessment for patients with stage IV lung cancer.

Single Setting Robotic Lung Nodule Diagnosis and Resection

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Early tissue diagnosis followed by timely therapeutic procedures can have a significant impact on overall survival. While robotic-assisted lung resection is an established therapeutic procedure, robotic-assisted bronchoscopy is a more recent diagnostic procedure that improves reach, stability, and precision in the field of bronchoscopic lung nodule biopsy. The ability to combine lung cancer diagnostics with therapeutic surgical resection into a single-setting anesthesia procedure has the potential to decrease costs, improve patient experiences, and most importantly, reduce delays in cancer care.

Understanding the lived experience of lung cancer: a European social media listening study

Background

Social media platforms are increasingly being used by stakeholders to generate, access, and share health-related information and experiences. Lung cancer is the most common cancer, impacting > 2 million patients globally. This observational study utilized a social listening approach to analyze social media trends and gain insights into stakeholder perceptions of lung cancer.

Methods

This social media study retrospectively collated data from open access blogs, forums, and social networking sites. Social media posts were collected between June 2019–May 2020 from 14 European countries. Using social media aggregator tools, posts comprising lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer-specific terms were extracted. Manual and automated relevancy algorithms filtered the extracted information to provide the relevant dataset. This contextualized dataset was further mined to generate the final data for analysis.

Results

Of 1360 conversations analyzed, 42% were generated by patients/caregivers and 14% by healthcare professionals (HCPs). A majority of patients were 51–70 years old (approximately 50%) and 91% (n = 500/550) had late-stage cancer. Treatment (35%) and disease awareness (30%) were among the most discussed topic of the patient journey. Although the overall treatment sentiment was neutral, chemotherapy was the treatment type with the highest associated negative sentiment (28%); fewer negative sentiments were associated with immunotherapy (9%) and targeted therapy (2%), due to perceptions of longer survival outcomes and fewer side effects. In conversations that discussed clinical endpoints, “survivability” and “overall survival” (47 and 30%, respectively; n = 539) were most frequently mentioned by stakeholders. HCPs mostly used technical terms, whereas patients and caregivers used colloquial terms such as “getting rid of cancer”. Emotional wellness was identified to have a huge impact on quality of life in lung cancer. Delay or treatment cancellations due to COVID-19, lack of effective treatments and funding, and lack of empathy by physicians emerged as the key unmet needs among patients/caregivers.

Conclusions

Social listening proved to be an effective tool to explore stakeholders’ perceptions and their key unmet needs, typically not available in published literature or databases, and provides HCPs with valuable insights into the distress, doubts, and needs of lung cancer patients and caregivers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09505-4.

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's treatment burden related to care coordination in the field of respiratory diseases

The management of respiratory diseases requires various levels of care: multidisciplinary teams, educational and behavioural interventions, self-management and home-based technical support are vital to ensure adequate care management. However, it is often difficult to access these networks due to fragmentation of patient care and treatment burden. Care coordination aims to ensure patients have a central role and that there is continuity of care among various levels and professionals involved. Moreover, the coronavirus disease pandemic has caused strain on the global healthcare system, with care coordination becoming increasingly important in increasing the resilience of health systems, supporting healthcare professionals and ensuring the right treatment and adequate level of care for these patients.

Head and neck sarcomas: treatment outcomes in a tertiary referral center in Argentina

PURPOSE

To analyze the clinical findings, management, and results of oncological treatments and to identify prognostic factors in patients diagnosed with head and neck sarcoma.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis including 48 adult patients with primary head and neck sarcomas, treated between 2006 and 2018 in a referral center of Argentina.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 44 months (range: 4-146 months). Five-year overall survival was 68%. On univariate analysis, radiation-induced sarcomas (p=0.038) had worse survival. Five-year disease-free survival was 58% and local recurrence at 2 years was 22.7%. On multivariate analysis, positive/close resection margins (p=0.031), radiation-induced sarcomas (p=0.037), and mandibular and oral cavity location (p=0.002) were independent prognostic factors associated to local recurrence and shorter disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Head and neck sarcomas are a rare entity. Surgery is feasible in more than 80% of patients, with an acceptable overall and disease-free survival. Radiation-induced sarcomas, location in the mandible and oral cavity, and close margins were significant prognostic factors in our population.