Thoracic Oncology Multidisciplinary Clinic Reduces Unnecessary Health Care Expenditure Used in the Workup of Patients With Non-small-cell Lung Cancer

Does Multidisciplinary Team Management Improve Clinical Outcomes in NSCLC? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The implementation of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) has been found to be effective for improving outcomes in oncology. Nevertheless, there is still a dearth of robust literature on patients with NSCLC. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review regarding the impact of MDTs on patient with NSCLC outcomes.

Methods

Databases were systematically searched up to February 2023. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa and certainty of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Overall survival was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of survival, progression-free survival, time from diagnosis to treatment, complete staging, treatment received, and adherence to guidelines. A meta-analysis with a random-effect model was performed. Statistical analysis was performed with the R 3.6.2 package.

Results

A total of 22 studies were included in the systematic review. Ten outcomes were identified, favoring the MDT group over the non-MDT group. Pooled analysis revealed that patients managed by MDTs had better overall survival (three studies; 38,037 participants; hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.75, I2 = 78%), shorter treatment time compared with patients in the non-MDT group (six studies; 15,235 participants; mean difference = 12.20 d, 95% CI: 10.76-13.63, I2 = 63%), and higher proportion of complete staging (four studies; 14,925 participants; risk ratio = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.17-1.57, I2 = 89%).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis revealed that MDT-based patient care was associated with longer overall survival and better quality-of-care-related outcomes.

Systematic Literature Review to Identify Cost and Resource Use Data in Patients with Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

Approximately 2 million new cases and 1.76 million deaths occur annually due to lung cancer, with the main histological subtype being non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The costs and resource use associated with NSCLC are important considerations to understand the economic impact imposed by the disease on patients, caregivers and healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) is to provide a comprehensive overview of the available direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, indirect costs, cost drivers and resource use data available for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted via the Ovid platform in March 2021 and June 2022 and were supplemented by grey literature searches. Eligible patients had early-stage (stage I-III) resectable NSCLC and received treatment in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting. There was no restriction on intervention or comparators. Publication date was restricted to 2011 onwards, and English language publications or non-English language publications with an English abstract were of primary interest. Due to the anticipation of many studies meeting the inclusion criteria, analyses were restricted to full publications from countries of primary interest (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, UK and the US) and those with > 200 patients. The Molinier checklist was applied to conduct quality assessment.

RESULTS

Forty-two full publications met the eligibility criteria and were included in this SLR. Early-stage NSCLC was associated with significant direct medical costs and healthcare utilisation, and the economic burden of the disease increased with its progression. Surgery was the primary cost driver in stage I patients, but as patients progressed to stage II and III, treatments such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and inpatient care became the main cost drivers. There was no significant difference in resource use between patients with early-stage disease. However, these data were heavily US-centric and there was a paucity of data relating to direct non-medical and indirect costs associated with early-stage NSCLC.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventing disease progression for patients with NSCLC could reduce the economic burden of NSCLC on patients, caregivers and healthcare systems. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the available cost and resource use data in this indication, which is important in guiding the decisions of policy makers regarding the allocation of resources. However, it also indicates a need for more studies comparing the economic impact of NSCLC in markets in addition to the US.

Integrating supportive care into the multidisciplinary management of lung cancer: we can't wait any longer

INTRODUCTION

Due to important achievements in terms of diagnostic and therapeutic tools and the complexity of the disease itself, lung cancer management needs a multidisciplinary approach. To date, the classical multidisciplinary team involves different healthcare providers mainly dedicated to lung cancer diagnosis and treatments. Nevertheless, the underlying disease and related treatments significantly impact on patient function and psychological well-being. In this sense, supportive care may offer the best approach to relieve and manage patient symptoms and treatment-related adverse events.

AREAS COVERED

Evidence report that exercise, nutrition, smoking cessation and psychological well-being bring many benefits in patients with lung cancer, from both a physical and socio-psychological points of view, and potentially improving their survival. Nevertheless, supportive care is rarely offered to patients, and even less frequently these needs are discussed within the multidisciplinary meeting.

EXPERT OPINION

Integrating supportive care as part of the standard multidisciplinary approach for lung cancer involves a series of challenges, the first one represented by the daily necessity of specialists, such as kinesiologists, dietitians, psycho-oncologists, able to deliver a personalized approach. In the era of precision medicine this is an essential step forward to guarantee comprehensive and patient-centered care for all patients with lung cancer.

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.

Improving Care for Patients With Stage III or IV NSCLC: Learnings for Multidisciplinary Teams From the ACCC National Quality Survey

PURPOSE

Insufficient characterization of the optimal multidisciplinary team and lack of understanding of barriers to quality care are unmet needs in the management of stage III or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A national survey was conducted to inform the design and execution of process improvement plans and address identified barriers.

METHODS

A steering committee of multidisciplinary specialists and representation from patient advocacy collaborated for a comprehensive, double-blind, web-based survey (January-April 2019) to obtain insights on care delivery for patients with advanced NSCLC in a diverse set of US community cancer programs.

RESULTS

Overall, 639 responses (160 unique cancer programs across 44 US states) were included; 41% (n = 261) of respondents indicated an absence of a thoracic multidisciplinary clinic in their cancer program. Engagement in shared decision making was significantly associated with the presence of navigation and radiation oncology disciplines (P ≤ .04); 19.2% and 33.3% of respondents belonged to cancer programs with no lung cancer screening and no protocol for biomarker testing, respectively. The frequency of tumor board meetings negatively correlated with time to complete disease staging (P = .03); the average time to first therapeutic intervention in newly diagnosed patients was 4 weeks. The most challenging barriers to quality care included insufficient quantity of biopsy material for biomarker testing, lack of primary care provider referrals, and diagnostic costs.

CONCLUSION

Improving the quality of advanced NSCLC care, including optimization of a multidisciplinary team framework, may surmount barriers to care coordination, diagnosis and staging, and treatment planning, consequently improving adherence to evolving standards of care.

A review on the impact of lung cancer multidisciplinary care on patient outcomes

International guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary approach to the management of lung cancer due to the complexity of both patients and their disease and the multiple treatment options available. This care can be provided through patient discussion at multidisciplinary meetings where relevant medical and allied health staff formulate a consensus management plan taking all factors into consideration. This model can be extended further to include multidisciplinary clinics where the patient is present for assessment and discussion. However, conducting regular multidisciplinary meetings or clinics has significant time, resource and financial costs and therefore, it is important to assess the impact of multidisciplinary care. We aimed to review published evidence, from 2000 to 2019, to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary care on lung cancer outcomes. There were 29 studies found, 11 evaluating multidisciplinary clinics, 14 studying multidisciplinary meetings and four where the model of care was not defined. There was only one randomised trial and three prospective studies, the remainder being retrospective studies. Despite limitations in trial design and confounding factors, overall, multidisciplinary care in lung cancer was associated with improvements in patient outcomes, in particular improved survival for all stages of lung cancer. Lung cancer patients managed in a multidisciplinary setting were more likely to receive active treatment and had improved utilisation of all treatment modalities: surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. In addition, the treatment recommendations were more likely to be consistent with lung cancer management guidelines. These improved outcomes support the recommendations for a multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer care.

Implementation of lung cancer multidisciplinary teams: a review of evidence-practice gaps

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) is considered best practice in lung cancer care. Health care services have made significant investments in MDC through the establishment of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. This investment is likely to be sustained in future. It is imperative that MDT meetings are efficient, effective, and sufficiently nimble to introduce new innovations to enable best practice. In this article, we consider the ‘evidence-practice gaps’ in the implementation of lung cancer MDC. These gaps were derived from the recurrent limitations outlined in existing studies and reviews. We address the contributions that implementation science and quality improvement can make to bridge these gaps by increasing translation and improving the uptake of innovations by teams.