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.

The Relative Survival Impact of Guideline-Concordant Clinical Staging and Stage-Appropriate Treatment of Potentially Curable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer management guidelines strive to improve outcomes. Theoretically, thorough staging promotes optimal treatment selection. We examined the association between guideline-concordant invasive mediastinal nodal staging, guideline-concordant treatment, and non-small cell lung cancer survival. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the current practice of invasive mediastinal nodal staging for patients with lung cancer in a structured multidisciplinary care environment? Is guideline-concordant staging associated with guideline-concordant treatment? How do they relate to survival? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated patients with nonmetastatic non-small cell lung cancer diagnosed from 2014 through 2019 in the Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program of the Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee. We examined patterns of mediastinal nodal staging and stage-stratified treatment, grouping patients into cohorts with guideline-concordant staging alone, guideline-concordant treatment alone, both, or neither. We evaluated overall survival with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 882 patients, 456 (52%) received any invasive mediastinal staging. Seventy-four percent received guideline-concordant staging; guideline-discordant staging decreased from 34% in 2014 to 18% in 2019 (P < .0001). Recipients of guideline-concordant staging were more likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment (83% vs 66%; P < .0001). Sixty-one percent received both guideline-concordant invasive mediastinal staging and guideline-concordant treatment; 13% received guideline-concordant staging alone; 17% received guideline-concordant treatment alone; and 9% received neither. Survival was greatest in patients who received both (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.63), followed by those who received guideline-concordant treatment alone (aHR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.99), and those who received guideline-concordant staging alone (aHR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.09) compared with neither (P < .0001, log-rank test). INTERPRETATION: Levels of guideline-concordant staging were high, were rising, and were associated with guideline-concordant treatment selection in this multidisciplinary care cohort. Guideline-concordant staging and guideline-concordant treatment were complementary in their association with improved survival, supporting the connection between these two processes and lung cancer outcomes.

Survival Impact of an Enhanced Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference in a Regional Community Health Care System.

INTRODUCTION: We compared NSCLC treatment and survival within and outside a multidisciplinary model of care from a large community health care system. METHODS: We implemented a rigorously benchmarked "enhanced" Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference (eMTOC) and used Tumor Registry data (2011-2017) to evaluate guideline-concordant care. Because eMTOC was located in metropolitan Memphis, we separated non-MTOC patient by metropolitan and regional location. We categorized National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment as "preferred," or "appropriate" (allowable under certain circumstances). We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across cohorts using chi-square tests and survival using Cox regression, adjusted for multiple testing. We also performed propensity-matched and adjusted survival analyses. RESULTS: Of 6259 patients, 14% were in eMTOC, 55% metropolitan non-MTOC, and 31% regional non-MTOC cohorts. eMTOC had the highest rates of African Americans (34% versus 28% versus 22%), stages I to IIIB (63 versus 40 versus 50), urban residents (81 versus 78 versus 20), stage-preferred treatment (66 versus 57 versus 48), guideline-concordant treatment (78 versus 70 versus 63), and lowest percentage of nontreatment (6 versus 21 versus 28); all p values were less than 0.001. Compared with eMTOC, hazard for death was higher in metropolitan (1.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-1.7) and regional (1.7, 1.5-1.9) non-MTOC; hazards were higher in regional non-MTOC versus metropolitan (1.1, 1.0-1.2); all p values were less than 0.05 after adjustment. Results were generally similar after propensity analysis with and without adjusting for guideline-concordant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary NSCLC care planning was associated with significantly higher rates of guideline-concordant care and survival, providing evidence for rigorous implementation of this model of care.