Multidisciplinary care for women with early breast cancer in the Australian context: what does it mean?

BRCA testing and management of BRCA-mutated early-stage breast cancer: a comprehensive statement by expert group from GCC region

BReast CAncer (BRCA)1 and BRCA2 gene pathogenic variants account for most hereditary breast cancers (BC). Identification of BRCA mutations can significantly influence both prognosis and treatment outcomes. Furthermore, it enables the identification of individuals who are at heightened risk of developing BC due to inherited genetic mutations. Many developing countries rely on western guidelines for BRCA testing and BC management; however, there exist wide disparities in the prevalence of risk factors, availability of medical resources, and practice patterns. Guidelines tailored to specific regions can help mitigate healthcare variations, promote consistency in treatment, and aid healthcare providers in identifying effective therapies for improving patient outcomes. Hence, oncologists from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) congregated virtually in March 2023 and reviewed existing data on the epidemiology of BC, BRCA mutations, practices and challenges associated with BRCA testing and management of BRCA mutated early-stage BC in the GCC region. They also provided insights on the real-world diagnostic and treatment practices and challenges in the GCC region in the BRCA-mutated early-stage BC domain and suggested some variations to international guidelines to aid their uptake in this region.

Facilitating High Quality Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study of Australian Chairpersons' Perspectives on Multidisciplinary Team Meetings

Aim

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) are a critical element of quality care for people diagnosed with cancer. The MDM Chairperson plays a significant role in facilitating these meetings, which are often time-poor environments for clinical decision making. This study examines the perceptions of MDM Chairpersons including their role and the factors that determine the quality of a Chair, as well as the Chairperson's perception of the value of personally attending meetings.

Methods

This qualitative study used telephone interviews to explore the experiences of MDM Chairpersons from metropolitan and regional New South Wales, Australia. Using a state-wide register, 43 clinicians who chaired lung, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and breast cancer meetings were approached to participate. Thematic data analysis was used to develop and organise themes.

Results

Themes from the 16 interviews identified the perceived need for an expert and efficient MDM Chairperson with emphasis on personal rather than technical skills. The remaining themes related to the benefits of meetings to ensure quality and consistency of care; improve inter-professional relationships; and provide communication with and reassurance for patients.

Conclusion

The role of the MDM Chairperson requires expert management and leadership skills to ensure meetings support quality patient-centred care. MDMs are perceived to provide multiple benefits to both clinicians and patients. Efforts to train Chairs and to maximise clinician and patient benefits may be warranted given the costly and time-consuming nature of MDMs.

Providing outpatient cancer care for CALD patients: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

There have been few descriptions of how outpatient cancer care is provided to patients from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. As populations who experience disparities in cancer care access and outcomes, deeper understanding is needed to help identify those factors which can shape the receipt of multidisciplinary care in ambulatory settings. This paper reports on data collected and analysed as part of a multicentre characterisation of care in Australian public hospital cancer outpatient clinics (OPCs).

RESULTS

Analysis of data from our ethnographic study of four OPCs identified three themes: "Identifying CALD patient language-related needs"; "Capacity and resources to meet CALD patient needs", and "Making it work for CALD communities." The care team comprises not only clinicians but also families and non-clinical staff; OPCs serve as "touchpoints" facilitating access to a range of therapeutic services. The findings highlight the potential challenges oncology professionals negotiate in providing care to CALD communities and the ways in which clinicians adapt their practices, formulate strategies and use available resources to support care delivery.

Effect of multidisciplinary team care on the risk of recurrence in breast cancer patients: A national matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cancer has been the leading cause of death in the past decade in Taiwan, with breast cancer being the most common type of cancer in females. Very few studies looked at the risk of recurrence in patients who received multidisciplinary team (MDT) care. We analyzed the influence of MDT on the risk of recurrence and death in breast cancer patients.

METHOD

In this retrospective study, we included newly diagnosed patients from 2004 to 2010. The study included 9,266 breast cancer patients who were enrolled in MDT care and 9,266 patients who were not. The study used log-rank test to analyze patients' characteristics, hospital characteristics, cancer staging, and treatment methods to compare the recurrence rates in MDT care and non-MDT care participants. We used Cox proportional hazards model to examine the effect of MDT and associated factors on the risk of recurrence and mortality of breast cancer patients.

RESULTS

Relative risk of recurrence was lower for patients who received MDT care than for patients who did not (HR, 0.84; 95%CI: 0.70-0.99) after matching. The mortality risk for breast cancer patients with relapse was 8.48 times (95%CI: 7.53-9.54) than that for patients without relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

The relative risk of recurrence and death was significantly lower for breast cancer patients who received MDT care than for those who did not. We suggest that MDT care be implanted in the National Health Policy settings of breast cancer patients.

Psychological aspects of gestational cancer: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Gestational cancer is defined as any type of cancer diagnosed during pregnancy or within 12 months of delivery. To date, existing studies on the psychological aspects of this type of cancer have not been evaluated for methodological quality. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the psychological aspects of gestational cancer.

METHODS

Five journal databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed articles reporting upon the psychological aspects of women with gestational cancer. Studies published from journal inception to December 2019 were included, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The Mixed-Method Appraisal Bias Tool was used, to assess the methodological quality of the studies. A narrative description was developed for the psychological outcomes reported in quantitative studies. Qualitative data was synthesized using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Five papers were eligible for inclusion (two qualitative and three quantitative studies). Factors that contributed to women's psychological distress during gestational cancer included disease characteristics, sociodemographic factors, the baby's health, pregnancy-related factors and cognitive emotion regulation. Four main themes emerged from the qualitative studies; concerns about the baby's health, lost opportunities, "not fitting in," and healthcare decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that (a) women with gestational cancer experience psychological distress that is associated with concerns about their babies' health, and (b) their healthcare experiences are affected by communication within multidisciplinary care teams.

Breaking the general practice-hospital divide: Engaging primary care practitioners in multidisciplinary cancer care

AIMS

To integrate primary care into multidisciplinary cancer meetings and improve communication between hospital- and community-based care providers.

METHODS

A 12-week pilot study was conducted at Western Health, implementing a model of care, where two general practitioners (GPs) were recruited from the local community to attend weekly breast and lung multidisciplinary meetings in a liaison role as a primary care representative (PCR). Community GPs and hospital specialists were surveyed at the end of the study to assess the impact of this model of care.

RESULTS

All stakeholders agreed that two-way communication between hospital- and community-based care was improved. The role of the PCR enabled better engagement of GPs in cancer care, allowing them to manage their patients with more confidence. Patient information contributed by GPs provided a wider context for hospital specialist treatment planning and decision making.

CONCLUSION

This project has demonstrated an effective model to integrate primary care practitioners in multidisciplinary cancer care, as it enables timely and relevant two-way communication between the community and hospital care.

Understanding Patients' Attitudes Toward Cancer Multidisciplinary Meetings: A Mixed Methods Study

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary cancer meetings (MDMs) are an integral component of quality care; however, little research exists regarding patients' views on this model of care. We aimed to explore and understand the attitudes of patients toward MDMs.

METHODS

A mixed methods exploratory design was used. Qualitative data from patients with a current or previous diagnosis of cancer were collected and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results informed the development of a questionnaire survey that was administered to patients with a current or previous diagnosis of cancer. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Nine patients participated in 3 focus groups, and 152 patients (response rate, 90%) completed the questionnaire. Patients were strongly supportive of MDMs and thought that all patients with cancer should be routinely discussed. More than 90% of surveyed patients believed MDMs were reassuring, meant all treatment modalities were considered, and led to evidence-based treatment recommendations. Patients wanted MDMs to focus on medical treatment planning rather than psychosocial issues, and 87% regarded the meeting as confidential. Patients described a preference for doctor-led decision making, and most (84%) wanted MDM treatment decisions to be discussed with them in a subsequent consultation, with 73% of patients also wanting this in a written format.

CONCLUSION

Patients strongly endorse MDMs as a means to develop an evidence-based, medical treatment plan agreed to by consensus. They want to be purposely informed of the meeting and its outcomes. Results from this study can help inform future guidelines on the conduct of MDMs.

What is multidisciplinary cancer care like in practice? a protocol for a mixed-method study to characterise ambulatory oncology services in the Australian public sector

INTRODUCTION

An understanding of the real-world provision of oncology outpatient services can help maintain service quality in the face of escalating demand and tight budgets, by informing the design of interventions that improve the effectiveness or efficiency of provision. The aims of this study are threefold. First, to develop an understanding of cancer services in outpatient clinics by characterising the organisation and practice of multidisciplinary care (MDC). Second, to explore the key areas of: (a) clinical decision-making and (b) engagement with patients' supportive needs. Third, to identify barriers to, and facilitators of, the delivery of quality care in these settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A suite of mixed-methods studies will be implemented at six hospitals providing cancer outpatient clinics, with a staged roll-out. In Stage One, we will examine policies, use unstructured observations and undertake interviews with key health professionals to characterise the organisation and delivery of MDC. In Stage Two, observations of practice will continue, to deepen our understanding, and to inform two focused studies. The first will explore decision-making practices and the second will examine how staff engage with patients' needs; both studies involve interviews, to complement observation. As part of the study of supportive care, we will examine the implications of an introduction of patient-reported measures (PRMs) into care, adding surveys to interviews before and after PRMs roll-out. Data analysis will account for site-specific and cross-site issues using an adapted Qualitative Rapid Appraisal, Rigorous Analysis approach. Quantitative data from clinician surveys will be statistically analysed and triangulated with the related qualitative study findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was granted by South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (no. 18/207). Findings will be shared with participating hospitals and widely disseminated through publications and presentations.

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.

Designing and scheduling a multi-disciplinary integrated practice unit for patient-centred care

This paper presents the design and analysis of a newly proposed form of care delivery called an integrated practice unit (IPU) in which a multi-disciplinary team of providers and staff work together to cover the full care cycle for a given condition. In an IPU, the different providers circulate among the patients, according to the need for their expertise, while patients remain in a single location once they check-in. From the patient's perspective, the benefits of such an arrangement should be self-evident. For payers and providers there will also be benefits as the fee-for-service market gives way to structured payments for each episode of care. Before setting up an IPU, it is necessary to gain an understanding of how available resources will limit patient flow and system performance. Treating resources such as providers, imaging equipment, and rooms parametrically, the primary goal of our work is to determine the number of patients that can be seen per day in an IPU while trying to constrain overtime, length of stay, and waiting time to best practice targets. Discrete-event simulation serves as our analytic tool. While we are involved in the design of a comprehensive suite of musculoskeletal IPUs, we illustrate our approach with an extensive computational study of one: a Lower Extremity Joint Pain IPU. Using the simulation methodology, we are not only able to determine the number of patients that can be scheduled for an in-clinic visit each day, but also the daily number of follow-up patients that can be served virtually through telemedicine with no additional resources and minimal impact on IPU performance. These results assisted the Department of Surgery at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas in the optimal design of its first IPU, which opened in the fall of 2017.

Comparison of outcomes for cancer patients discussed and not discussed at a multidisciplinary meeting

OBJECTIVES

Comparison of outcomes for cancer patients discussed and not discussed at a multidisciplinary meeting (MDM).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of the association of MDM discussion with survival.

METHODS

All newly diagnosed cancer patients from 2009 to 2012, presenting to a large regional cancer service in South West Victoria, Australia (620 colorectal, 657 breast, 593 lung and 511 haematological) were recorded and followed up to 5 years after diagnosis. Treatment patterns and survival of patients whose treatment was discussed at an MDM compared to those who were not, were explored.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients presented to an MDM within 60 days after diagnosis was 56% (n = 366) for breast cancer, 59% (n = 363) for colorectal cancer, 27% (n = 137) for haematological malignancies and 60% (n = 355) for lung cancer. Seventy-three percent (n = 886) of patients discussed at an MDM had their tumour stage recorded in their medical records while only 52% (n = 604) of patients not discussed had their tumour stage recorded (P < 0.01). We found for haematological and lung cancer patients that those presented to an MDM prior to treatment had a significant reduction in mortality (lung cancer hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.76, P < 0.01) (haematological cancer HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.96, P = 0.03) compared to patients whose cases were not discussed at an MDM after adjusting for the potential cofounders of age, stage, comorbidities and treatment. This was not the case for colorectal and breast cancer patients where there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

MDM discussion has been recommended as best practice in the management of cancer patients, however, from a public health perspective this creates potential issues around access and resources. It is likely that MDM presentation patterns and outcomes across tumour streams are linked in complex ways. We believe that our data would demonstrate that these patterns differ across tumour streams and that more detailed work is required to better allocate relatively scarce and potentially costly MDM resources to tumour streams and patient groups that may get the most benefit.

Benefits and limitations of a multidisciplinary approach to individualized management of Cornelia de Lange syndrome and related diagnoses

Given the clinical complexities of Cornelia de Lange Syndrome (CdLS), the Center for CdLS and Related Diagnoses at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and The Multidisciplinary Clinic for Adolescents and Adults at Greater Baltimore Medical Center (GBMC) were established to develop a comprehensive approach to clinical management and research issues relevant to CdLS. Little work has been done to evaluate the general utility of a multispecialty approach to patient care. Previous research demonstrates several advantages and disadvantages of multispecialty care. This research aims to better understand the benefits and limitations of a multidisciplinary clinic setting for individuals with CdLS and related diagnoses. Parents of children with CdLS and related diagnoses who have visited a multidisciplinary clinic (N = 52) and who have not visited a multidisciplinary clinic (N = 69) were surveyed to investigate their attitudes. About 90.0% of multispecialty clinic attendees indicated a preference for multidisciplinary care. However, some respondents cited a need for additional clinic services including more opportunity to meet with other specialists (N = 20), such as behavioral health, and increased information about research studies (N = 15). Travel distance and expenses often prevented families' multidisciplinary clinic attendance (N = 41 and N = 35, respectively). Despite identified limitations, these findings contribute to the evidence demonstrating the utility of a multispecialty approach to patient care. This approach ultimately has the potential to not just improve healthcare for individuals with CdLS but for those with medically complex diagnoses in general. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

'The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual': a qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology

Background

Challenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently.

Results

Twenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a ‘study team’, bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals’ willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner.

Conclusions

This study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791.

Beneficial impact of multidisciplinary team management on the survival in different stages of oral cavity cancer patients: results of a nationwide cohort study in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between multidisciplinary team (MDT) management and survival of oral cavity cancer patients using a nationwide database in Taiwan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A nationwide cohort study was conducted between 2005 and 2008. The follow-up end point was 2010. Claims data of oral cavity cancer patients were retrieved from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database. Secondary data were obtained from the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. Among 19,766 newly diagnosed oral cavity cancer patients, we identified 16,991 patients who underwent treatment between 2004 and 2008 for further analyses.

RESULTS

Overall survival was compared between patients who received MDT management (n=3324) and those who did not (n=13,367). Hazard ratios (HR) of death in patients with MDT management were also analyzed. Patients with MDT management had a lower risk of death when compared with that of patients without MDT management (HR: 0.94, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.89-1.00; P=0.032). The effect of MDT management on survival was stronger for male patients than for female patients (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-1.00; P=0.040 versus HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.75-1.27; P=0.866). In addition, the effect of MDT management was strong among patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index between 4 and 6, in those without coexisting catastrophic illness/injury, and in patients with stage IV diseases.

CONCLUSION

Survival rates in oral cavity cancer patients with MDT management appeared to be marginally better than those of patients without MDT management.

Evaluating the role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in multi-disciplinary team recommendations for oesophago-gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

National guidelines recommend that fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in all patients being considered for radical treatment of oesophageal or oesophago-gastric cancer without computerised tomography scan (CTS) evidence of metastasis. Guidance also mandates that all patients with cancer have treatment decisions made within the context of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting. Little is known, however, about the influence of PET-CT on decision making within MDTs. The aim of this study was to assess the role of PET-CT in oesophago-gastric cancer on MDT decision making.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively held database of all patients with biopsy-proven oesophageal or oesophago-gastric cancer discussed by a specialist MDT was interrogated. Patients selected for radical treatment without CTS evidence of M1 disease were identified. The influence of PET-CT on MDT decision making was examined by establishing whether the PET-CT confirmed CTS findings of M0 disease (and did not change the patient staging pathway) or whether the PET-CT changed the pathway by showing unsuspected M1 disease, refuting CTS suspicious metastases, or identifying another lesion (needing further investigation).

RESULTS

In 102 MDT meetings, 418 patients were discussed, of whom 240 were initially considered for radical treatment and 238 undergoing PET-CT. The PET-CT confirmed CTS findings for 147 (61.8%) and changed MDT recommendations in 91 patients (38.2%) by (i) identifying M1 disease (n=43), (ii) refuting CTS suspicions of M1 disease (n=25), and (iii) identifying new lesions required for investigations (n=23).

CONCLUSION

The addition of PET-CT to standard staging for oesophageal cancer led to changes in MDT recommendations in 93 (38.2%) patients, improving patient selection for radical treatment. The validity of the proposed methods for evaluating PET-CT on MDT decision making requires more work in other centres and teams.

Multidisciplinary decisions in breast cancer: does the patient receive what the team has recommended?

BACKGROUND

A multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to breast cancer management is the gold standard. The aim is to evaluate MDT decision making in a modern breast unit.

METHODS

All referrals to the breast MDT where breast cancer was diagnosed from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011 were included. Multidisciplinary team decisions were compared with subsequent patient management and classified as concordant or discordant.

RESULTS

Over the study period, there were 3230 MDT decisions relating to 705 patients. Overall, 91.5% (2956 out of 3230) of decisions were concordant, 4.5% (146 out of 3230), were discordant and 4% (128 out of 3230) had no MDT decision. Of 146 discordant decisions, 26 (17.8%) were considered 'unjustifiable' as there was no additional information available after the MDT to account for the change in management. The remaining 120 discordant MDT decisions were considered 'justifiable', as management was altered due to patient choice (n=61), additional information available after MDT (n=54) or MDT error (n=5).

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of MDT decisions are implemented. Management alteration was most often due to patient choice or additional information available after the MDT. A minority of management alterations were 'unjustifiable' and the authors recommend that any patient whose treatment is subsequently changed should have MDT rediscussion prior to treatment.

Are multidisciplinary teams in secondary care cost-effective? A systematic review of the literature

Objective

To investigate the cost effectiveness of management of patients within the context of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting in cancer and non-cancer teams in secondary care.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS EED, CINAHL, EconLit, Cochrane Library, and NHS HMIC.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort, case–control, before and after and cross-sectional study designs including an economic evaluation of management decisions made in any disease in secondary care within the context of an MDT meeting.

Data extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC-list). MDTs were defined by evidence of two characteristics: decision making requiring a minimum of two disciplines; and regular meetings to discuss diagnosis, treatment and/or patient management, occurring at a physical location or by teleconferencing. Studies that reported on the costs of administering, preparing for, and attending MDT meetings and/or the subsequent direct medical costs of care, non-medical costs, or indirect costs, and any health outcomes that were relevant to the disease being investigated were included and classified as cancer or non-cancer MDTs.

Results

Fifteen studies (11 RCTs in non-cancer care, 2 cohort studies in cancer and non-cancer care, and 2 before and after studies in cancer and non cancer care) were identified, all with a high risk of bias. Twelve papers reported the frequency of meetings which varied from daily to three monthly and all reported the number of disciplines included (mean 5, range 2 to 9). The results from all studies showed mixed effects; a high degree of heterogeneity prevented a meta-analysis of findings; and none of the studies reported how the potential savings of MDT working may offset the costs of administering, preparing for, and attending MDT meetings.

Conclusions

Current evidence is insufficient to determine whether MDT working is cost-effective or not in secondary care. Further studies aimed at understanding the key aspects of MDT working that lead to cost-effective cancer and non-cancer care are required.

Integration of clinical and patient-reported outcomes in surgical oncology

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide information about the patient perspective and experience of undergoing surgery for cancer, but evidence suggests that they are not used widely to influence practice. This review considers key challenges and opportunities for using PROs effectively in gastrointestinal surgical oncology, drawing on principles learnt from surgical oncology in general.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgical oncology reporting PROs as primary or secondary outcomes, and studies examining methods to communicate PRO information, were identified. Common themes are summarized and the future of PRO studies considered.

RESULTS

Reviews highlighted the need for improved design, conduct and reporting of PROs in RCTs in surgical oncology. Main issues related to the multiplicity of PRO measures hindering data synthesis and clinical understanding, problems with missing data risking bias, and limited integration of clinical and PRO data undermining the role of PRO data in practice. Reviews indicated that patients want PRO data to meet information needs and early work shows that graphically displayed PROs are understood by patients.

CONCLUSION

PROs have a role in the evaluation of surgical oncology, but increased consensus and collaboration between surgeons and methodologists is needed to improve the design, conduct and reporting of PROs with clinical outcomes in trials. Possible solutions include investing more effort and systematic thought into the PRO rationale in RCTs, the development and use of 'core outcome sets' with PROs, and implementation of the extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting PROs in RCTs.

The role of multi-disciplinary teams in decision-making for patients with recurrent malignant disease

BACKGROUND

It is mandatory in many countries for decisions for all new patients with cancer to be made within multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs). Whether patients with disease recurrence should also routinely be discussed by the MDT is unknown.

AIM

This study investigated the role of an upper gastro intestinal (UGI) MDT in decision-making for patients with disease recurrence.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of prospectively kept MDT records (2010 to 2011) was performed identifying patients discussed with recurrence of oesophagogastric cancer. Information was recorded about: i) why an MDT referral was made, ii) who made the referral and iii) the final MDT recommendation. Implementation of the MDT recommendation was also examined.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients discussed with recurrence of cancer at a central UGI cancer MDT were included.

RESULTS

During the study 54 MDT meetings included discussions regarding 304 new patients and 29 with disease recurrence. Referrals to the MDT for patients with recurrence came from outpatient clinics (n=19, 65.5%) or following emergency admission (n=10). Most referrals were made by the surgical team (n=25, 86.2%). MDT recommendations were best supportive care (n=11, 37.9%), palliative chemotherapy (n=9, 31.0%), stent (n=5, 17.2%), palliative radiotherapy (n=3, 10.3%) and further surgery (n=1, 3.4%), with 25 (86.2%) of these implemented.

CONCLUSION

UGI MDTs focus on new referrals and only a small proportion of patients with recurrent disease are re-discussed. Many patients go on to receive further treatments. Whether such patients are optimally managed within the standard MDT is uncertain, however, and warrants further consideration.

Oncology team members' perceptions of a virtual navigation tool for cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

The Internet has become an important source of health information for patients and health care providers (HCPs) alike. Whereas studies have begun to document the effects of the internet on health behaviors and outcomes, surprisingly few studies have explored HCPs' perceptions of the internet as a key resource accessed by patients. However, as HCPs are seen as pivotal in guiding patients toward these resources, it is timely to study their perceptions. Therefore, the present inquiry explores HCPs' views of a recently developed high quality virtual navigation tool called the Oncology Interactive Navigator™ (OIN).

DESIGN

Using a qualitative approach, in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 members of a multidisciplinary colorectal oncology team and volunteers at a large Cancer Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

RESULTS

Content analysis revealed emerging themes centering on key benefits including: perceptions of a highly accessible, comprehensive high quality repository of cancer information; a means to further enhance HCP-patient communication and trust; and a significant catalyst to patient-family communication and support. Perceived drawbacks included patient (e.g., socio-demographic profile) and system's (e.g., professional roles and time constraints) characteristics that may limit OIN™ full implementation and uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings underscore the relevance of virtual navigation tools to ensure optimal person-centred care in cancer. Findings also suggest how virtual tools such as the OIN™ can best be used in practice as well as they guide strategies to adopt to optimize implementation of similar innovations in health care.

Information sharing and case conference among the multidisciplinary team improve patients' perceptions of care

Background:

As the advent of genomic technology accelerates personalized medicine and complex care, multidisciplinary care is essential for management of breast cancer.

Objectives:

To assess whether healthcare delivery systems are related to patients’ perceptions of care in breast cancer treatment institutions.

Methods:

We conducted a cross-sectional nationwide study of breast cancer treatment institutions approved by the Japanese Breast Cancer Society in Japan. From 128 of the 457 institutions, 1,206 patients were included in the analysis. Each patient completed a questionnaire regarding perceptions of care that consisted of a multidisciplinary care subscale and a patient-centered care subscale.

Results:

Multiple regression analysis revealed that the multidisciplinary care subscale was significantly related to implementation of patient-based medical record system that was paper-based (p<0.05). The results of the secondary analysis showed a significant relationship between the interdepartmental medical record system and the patient’s perception of multidisciplinary care (p<0.05) and patient-centered care (p<0.05). When a multidisciplinary case conference took place regularly or multidisciplinary viewpoints were incorporated into the conference records, the conference had a significantly higher correlation with both subscales (p<0.001).

Conclusions:

Integrated patient-based information and regular multidisciplinary case conferences that include records of viewpoints from different professionals improve patients’ perceptions of comprehensive breast cancer care.

Evaluation and treatment of high-risk patients with early-stage lung cancer

Standard therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer is lobectomy for patients who are able to tolerate such surgery. However, the risk of postoperative morbidity is not trivial, with a 30% to 40% incidence of postoperative complications and a 1% to 5% incidence of operative mortality. Some patients, though technically resectable, refuse surgery or are considered medically inoperable because of insufficient respiratory reserve, cardiovascular disease, or general frailty. This group is considered either "high risk" or "medically inoperable."

Multidisciplinary reference centers: the care of neuroendocrine tumors

The purpose of this study was to review the need for and benefits of multidisciplinary care in patients with cancer, to describe our experience setting up a multidisciplinary reference center (MRC) dedicated to the treatment of the uncommon cancer neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), and to present the perspective of a patient seeking treatment at our center.The literature was searched to review the outcomes of patients with cancer treated by a multidisciplinary team.Multidisciplinary care for patients with more common cancers has been associated with improvements in diagnosis, treatment planning, survival, patient satisfaction, and clinician satisfaction. Similar benefits have been seen in patients with NETs receiving treatment at a specialty center. The establishment of our NETs MRC allows us to offer integrated care, providing surgical oncology and medical oncology disciplines; nurses well experienced in the treatment of NETs; and the expertise of endocrinology, diagnostic radiology, and interventional radiology specialists. Since our clinic was established, we have increased our availability to see patients and have received positive feedback from those attending.MRCs have been associated with improved patient outcomes. As providers at a dedicated NETs MRC, we feel that these centers have a positive effect on both patient and provider experience. The creation of specialty centers with a focus on improving outcomes and quality of care should be a goal of health care systems and are especially important for patients with NETs and other rare cancers.

Evaluation of the impact of interdisciplinarity in cancer care

BACKGROUND

Teamwork is a key component of the health care renewal strategy emphasized in Quebec, elsewhere in Canada and in other countries to enhance the quality of oncology services. While this innovation would appear beneficial in theory, empirical evidences of its impact are limited. Current efforts in Quebec to encourage the development of local interdisciplinary teams in all hospitals offer a unique opportunity to assess the anticipated benefits. These teams working in hospital outpatient clinics are responsible for treatment, follow-up and patient support. The study objective is to assess the impact of interdisciplinarity on cancer patients and health professionals.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a quasi-experimental study with three comparison groups distinguished by intensity of interdisciplinarity: strong, moderate and weak. The study will use a random sample of 12 local teams in Quebec, stratified by intensity of interdisciplinarity. The instrument to measure the intensity of the interdisciplinarity, developed in collaboration with experts, encompasses five dimensions referring to aspects of team structure and process. Self-administered questionnaires will be used to measure the impact of interdisciplinarity on patients (health care utilization, continuity of care and cancer services responsiveness) and on professionals (professional well-being, assessment of teamwork and perception of teamwork climate). Approximately 100 health professionals working on the selected teams and 2000 patients will be recruited. Statistical analyses will include descriptive statistics and comparative analysis of the impact observed according to the strata of interdisciplinarity. Fixed and random multivariate statistical models (multilevel analyses) will also be used.

DISCUSSION

This study will pinpoint to what extent interdisciplinarity is linked to quality of care and meets the complex and varied needs of cancer patients. It will ascertain to what extent interdisciplinary teamwork facilitated the work of professionals. Such findings are important given the growing prevalence of cancer and the importance of attracting and retaining health professionals to work with cancer patients.

Models of multidisciplinary cancer care: physician and patient perceptions in a comprehensive cancer center

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary clinics (MDCs) play a prominent role in coordinating complex cancer care delivered by multiple providers from different disciplines. The structure of such clinics and clinicians' perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of practicing in MDCs have not been well characterized.

METHODS

We surveyed and interviewed medical providers who participate in cancer MDCs at our comprehensive cancer center about the structure of the MDCs in which they work, their satisfaction working in these clinics, and the perceived benefits and disadvantages. Press-Ganey patient satisfaction scores were also examined.

RESULTS

WE IDENTIFIED TWO CARE MODELS: one in which patients are seen sequentially by physicians from each discipline, and a second model in which patients are seen concurrently by physicians from each discipline. Of the 141 survey respondents from surgical oncology, medical oncology and radiation oncology, more than 90% of providers enjoyed working in an MDC and more than 75% preferred to see new patients in an MDC. Additionally, 90% believed that patients perceived the clinics to be valuable for comprehensive, coordinated, and appropriate care. However, one third of the phsyicians thought the clinics were not an efficient use of their time. Participants who practice in the concurrent model of care and surgical oncologists were more likely to express frustration with the inefficiency of MDCs. Patients seen in each clinic model uniformly expressed high satisfaction with the coordination of care.

CONCLUSION

MDCs are valued by oncology patients and providers. Although they are personally and professionally satisfying for physicians, the use of this care model is perceived as inefficient by some caregivers.

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.

The organization of multidisciplinary care teams: modeling internal and external influences on cancer care quality

Quality cancer treatment depends upon careful coordination between multiple treatments and treatment providers, the exchange of technical information, and regular communication between all providers and physician disciplines involved in treatment. This article will examine a particular type of organizational structure purported to regularize and streamline the communication between multiple specialists and support services involved in cancer treatment: the multidisciplinary treatment care (MDC) team. We present a targeted review of what is known about various types of MDC team structures and their impact on the quality of treatment care, and we outline a conceptual model of the connections between team context, structure, process, and performance and their subsequent effects on cancer treatment care processes and patient outcomes. Finally, we will discuss future research directions to understand how MDC teams improve patient outcomes and how characteristics of team structure, culture, leadership, and context (organizational setting and local environment) contribute to optimal multidisciplinary cancer care.

A national cancer control program: the 'Down Under' experience with breast cancer

The use of national, coordinated and comprehensive strategies supported by evidence and focused on a specific cancer is one model for improving cancer control. The National Breast Cancer Centre (NBCC) was established in Australia in 1995 to coordinate breast cancer control initiatives across the country and has successfully achieved a number of world-firsts in this thirteen year period. Crucial elements of the initiative have included broad consultation with key stakeholders, evidence-based focus, addressing recognized gaps in care, multidisciplinary input including consumer involvement, innovative approaches, and independent operation notwithstanding government funding. The NBCC's experience has been extended to ovarian cancer control and may be useful for others intending to establish national programs in cancer control.

National Breast Cancer Audit: the use of multidisciplinary care teams by breast surgeons in Australia and New Zealand

OBJECTIVE

To explore the involvement of members of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) Section of Breast Surgery in Australia and New Zealand in multidisciplinary care (MDC) teams.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Questionnaire sent to all full members of the RACS Section of Breast Surgery in December 2006.

PARTICIPANTS

239 of 262 active full members of the RACS Section of Breast Surgery (response rate, 91.2%).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgeons' use of, and the composition and functioning of, MDC teams in public and private practice, and in metropolitan, regional and rural settings.

RESULTS

85% of responding surgeons reported participating in at least one fully established MDC team. Public-sector teams were operationally more consistent and functional than private teams, and rural teams were less well developed than those in metropolitan and regional centres. The six core disciplines recommended by the National Breast Cancer Centre appear to be well represented in most teams. Patients and their general practitioners were not considered to be part of the treatment team by surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

MDC is supported by most breast surgeons, but there are deficits in rural areas, and in the private sector relative to the public sector.