Effectiveness of a thoracic multidisciplinary clinic in the treatment of stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The Institute of Medicine, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the European Society of Medical Oncology promote a multidisciplinary approach for the treatment of cancer. Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents a heterogeneous group of diseases necessitating coordination of care among medical, radiation, and surgical oncology. The optimal care of stage III NSCLC underscores the need for a multidisciplinary approach. METHODS: From tumor registry data, we identified all cases of stage III NSCLC seen at Lehigh Valley Health Network between March 2010 and March 2013. The care received by patients when seen in the thoracic multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) was compared with the care received when not seen in the thoracic MDC. RESULTS: All patients seen in the MDC, compared to <50% of patients seen outside the MDC, were evaluated by more than one physician prior to beginning the treatment. Time to initiate treatment was shorter in MDC patients than in non-MDC patients. Patients seen in the MDC had a greater concordance with clinical pathways. A greater percentage of patients seen in the thoracic MDC had pathologic staging of their mediastinum. Patients seen in the MDC were more likely to receive all of their care at Lehigh Valley Health Network. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary care is essential in the treatment of patients with stage III NSCLC. Greater utilization of MDCs for this complex group of patients will result in more efficient coordination of care, pretreatment evaluation, and therapy, which in turn should translate to improve patients' outcomes.

The development and acceptability of symptom management quality improvement reports based on patient-reported data: an overview of methods used in PROSSES.

PURPOSE: Patient experiences with symptom care need to be assessed and documented to ensure successful management of cancer-related symptoms. This paper details one method for creating symptom management quality improvement (SMQI) reports, including case-mix adjustment of patient-reported measures. Qualitative data regarding the acceptability of these reports at participating cancer centers (CCs) are also provided. METHODS: Data were collected from 2226 patients treated at 16 CCs via mailed/Web questionnaires. Twelve items assessing patient perceptions of symptom management-pain, fatigue, emotional distress-served as key quality indicators. Medico-demographic variables suitable for case-mix adjustment were selected using an index score combining predictive power and heterogeneity across CCs. SMQI reports were designed with staff feedback and produced for each CC, providing crude and adjusted CC-specific rates, along with study-wide rates for comparison purposes. RESULTS: Cancer type and participant educational level were selected for case-mix adjustment based upon high index scores. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient showed that case-mix adjustments changed the ranking of CCs on the key quality indicators (% Δ rank range: 5-22 %). The key quality indicators varied across CCs (all p < 0.02). SMQI reports were well received by CC staff, who described plans to share them with key personnel (e.g., cancer committee, navigator). CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides one method for creating hospital-level SMQI reports, including case-mix adjustment. Variation between CCs on key quality indicators, even after adjustment, suggested room for improvement. SMQI reports based on patient-reported data can inform and motivate efforts to improve care through professional/patient education and applying standards of care.

Assessing the Development of Multidisciplinary Care: Experience of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) began in 2007 with a goal of expanding cancer research and delivering quality care in communities. The NCCCP Quality of Care (QoC) Subcommittee was charged with developing and improving the quality of multidisciplinary care. An assessment tool with nine key elements relevant to MDC structure and operations was developed. METHODS: Fourteen NCCCP sites reported multidisciplinary care assessments for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in June 2010, June 2011, and June 2012 using an online reporting tool. Each site evaluated their level of maturity (level 1 = no multidisciplinary care, level 5 = highly integrated multidisciplinary care) in nine elements integral to multidisciplinary care. Thematic analysis of open-ended qualitative responses was also conducted. RESULTS: The proportion of sites that reported level 3 or greater on the assessment tool was tabulated at each time point. For all tumor types, sites that reached this level increased in six elements: case planning, clinical trials, integration of care coordination, physician engagement, quality improvement, and treatment team integration. Factors that enabled improvement included increasing organizational support, ensuring appropriate physician participation, increasing patient navigation, increasing participation in national quality initiatives, targeting genetics referrals, engaging primary care providers, and integrating clinical trial staff. CONCLUSIONS: Maturation of multidisciplinary care reflected focused work of the NCCCP QoC Subcommittee. Working group efforts in patient navigation, genetics, and physician conditions of participation were evident in improved multidisciplinary care performance for three common malignancies. This work provides a blueprint for health systems that wish to incorporate prospective multidisciplinary care into their cancer programs.

Exploring therapeutic decisions in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer: results and conclusions from North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0222.

How do oncologists choose therapy for the elderly? Oncologists assigned patients aged 65 years or older with incurable non-small cell lung cancer to: (a) carboplatin (AUC = 2) + paclitaxel 50 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15 (28-day cycle × 4) followed by gefitinib; or (b) gefitinib 250 mg/day. With (a), 12 of 34 were progression-free at 6 months; median time to cancer progression was 3.9 months. With (b), the same occurred in 11 of 28 patients with the latter being 4.9 months. The most common reason for conventional chemotherapy was oncologists' opinion that the cancer was aggressive, and for gefitinib alone, patients' reluctance to receive chemotherapy. Interestingly, age had no influence.