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.

Interest in Cessation Treatment Among People Who Smoke in a Community-Based Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the need for tobacco cessation services within a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC), we surveyed patients on their smoking status, interest in quitting, and willingness to participate in a clinic-based cessation program. We further evaluated the association between interest in cessation or willingness to participate in a cessation program and overall survival (OS). METHODS: From 2014 to 2019, all new patients with lung cancer in the MDC at Baptist Cancer Center (Memphis, TN) were administered a social history questionnaire to evaluate their demographic characteristics, smoking status, tobacco dependence, interest in quitting, and willingness to participate in a cessation program. We used chi-square tests and logistic regression to compare characteristics of those who would participate to those who would not or were unsure and Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression to evaluate the association between cessation interest or willingness to quit and OS. RESULTS: Of 641 total respondents, the average age was 69 years (range: 32-95), 47% were men, 64% white, 34% black, and 17% college graduates. A total of 90% had ever smoked: 34% currently and 25% quit within the past year. Among the current smokers, 60% were very interested in quitting and 37% would participate in a cessation program. Willingness to participate in a cessation program was associated with greater interest in quitting (p < 0.0001), better OS (p = 0.02), and reduced hazard of death (hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.88), but no other characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lung cancer in an MDC expressed considerable interest in tobacco cessation services; patients willing to participate in a clinic-based cessation program had improved survival.

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.