Prospective comparative effectiveness trial of multidisciplinary lung cancer (LC) care.

Authors

Raymond Osarogiagbon

Raymond U. Osarogiagbon

Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, TN

Raymond U. Osarogiagbon , Nicholas Ryan Faris , Matthew Smeltzer , Meredith Ray , Kenneth Daniel Ward , Fedoria Rugless , Bianca Michelle Jackson , Meghan Brooke Meadows , Courtney Berryman , Carrie Fehnel , Cheryl Houston-Harris , Laura McHugh , Lisa Klesges , Edward T Robbins

Organizations

Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, TN, University of Memphis, School of Public Health, Memphis, TN, Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, University of Memphis, School of Health Studies, Memphis, TN, Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation, Memphis, TN, University of Memphis School of Public Health, Memphis, TN

Research Funding

Other

Background: LC is common and lethal; care-delivery is complex, varies in quality and outcomes, stimulating calls for multidisciplinary treatment planning (MTP) involving key specialists. This much-advocated model lacks rigorous evaluation. We conducted a prospective cohort study of MTP v Serial Care (SC) in a community healthcare system. Methods: Newly-diagnosed LC patients with performance status (PS) 0-2, and their caregivers, were enrolled from a LC multispecialty group clinic (MGC) or single-specialty general oncology clinics. A subset of general oncology clinic patients were discussed in a Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference (MTOC), others were not (Serial Care [SC]). In this analysis, we compare MGC and MTOC patients (MTP recipients) to SC patients. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were measures of quality: staging practices, guideline-concordant treatment, timeliness of care, patient and caregiver satisfaction. We adjusted proportional hazards and logistic models for age, sex, histology, stage, PS, insurance, and race. Results: 254 patients received MTP v 272 SC. After a median 30 months’ follow up, there was no difference in OS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.10 [CI 0.87-1.40], p = .43). Stage-confirmatory biopsy was done in 61% MTP v 45% SC patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.59, CI 1.74-3.86, p < .0001); 81% MTP v 68% SC patients received guideline-concordant treatment (aOR 2.04, CI 1.31-3.19, p < .002). Although the time from lesion detection to diagnostic biopsy (25 v 15 days, p = .004) or staging biopsy (29 v 20 days, p = .007) was higher with MTP, there was no difference in time to definitive treatment (60 v 57 days, p = .06). MTP patients and their caregivers reported greater satisfaction with the combined quality of care received from all team members (p < .0001) at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Conclusions: MTP for LC significantly improved the quality of care including the thoroughness of staging, use of guideline-concordant care, and patient satisfaction. Contrary to reports from retrospective analyses, timeliness of care was worse with MTP. Patient and caregiver satisfaction was superior with MTP. Despite improved quality, MTP was not associated with improved LC survival. Clinical trial information: NCT02123797

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2019 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Health Services Research, Clinical Informatics, and Quality of Care

Track

Quality Care/Health Services Research

Sub Track

Care Delivery/Models of Care

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02123797

Citation

J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 6549)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.6549

Abstract #

6549

Poster Bd #

240

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Huibo Shao

Abstract

2023 ASCO Annual Meeting

Real-world program-based lung cancer care.

First Author: Wei Liao

Abstract

2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Quality of care of Asian and White patients with lung cancer: Single-institution study.

First Author: Xiao Hu

First Author: Jamie S. Ostroff