Survival Associated With Consolidated Multidisciplinary Care in Head and Neck Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare survival among patients with head and neck cancer before and after implementing a weekly multidisciplinary clinic and case conference. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study with chart review was conducted of 3081 patients (1431 preimplementation, 1650 postimplementation) diagnosed with stage I-IVB tumors in the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, nasopharynx, or larynx. Pre- and postimplementation differences in overall and disease-specific survival 1, 2, and 3 years after diagnosis were assessed with unadjusted Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models adjusted for demographic characteristics, comorbidity burden, smoking status, tumor site and stage, p16 status for oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer, and initial treatment modality. RESULTS: Patients less commonly presented with oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer and advanced tumors (III-IVB) and received primary treatment with surgery alone or with adjuvant therapy preimplementation than postimplementation. Overall survival at 3 years was 77.1% and 79.9% (P = .07) and disease-specific survival was 84.9% and 87.5% (P = .05) among pre- and postimplementation patients, respectively. At 3 years, preimplementation patients had slightly poorer overall (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40) and disease-specific (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54) adjusted survival than postimplementation patients. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, survival improvements were more pronounced among patients with advanced disease. DISCUSSION: A multidisciplinary clinic and case conference were associated with improved outcomes among patients with head and neck cancer, especially those with advanced tumors. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: All patients with head and neck cancer should receive multidisciplinary team management, especially those with advanced tumors.

Pan-cancer study detects genetic risk variants and shared genetic basis in two large cohorts.

Deciphering the shared genetic basis of distinct cancers has the potential to elucidate carcinogenic mechanisms and inform broadly applicable risk assessment efforts. Here, we undertake genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and comprehensive evaluations of heritability and pleiotropy across 18 cancer types in two large, population-based cohorts: the UK Biobank (408,786 European ancestry individuals; 48,961 cancer cases) and the Kaiser Permanente Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging cohorts (66,526 European ancestry individuals; 16,001 cancer cases). The GWAS detect 21 genome-wide significant associations independent of previously reported results. Investigations of pleiotropy identify 12 cancer pairs exhibiting either positive or negative genetic correlations; 25 pleiotropic loci; and 100 independent pleiotropic variants, many of which are regulatory elements and/or influence cross-tissue gene expression. Our findings demonstrate widespread pleiotropy and offer further insight into the complex genetic architecture of cross-cancer susceptibility.

Effectiveness of a Patient Education Class to Enhance Knowledge about Lung Cancer Screening: a Quality Improvement Evaluation.

Best practices to facilitate high-quality shared decision-making for lung cancer screening (LCS) are not well established. In our LCS program, patients are first referred to attend a free group education class on LCS, taught by designated clinician specialists, before a personal shared decision-making visit is scheduled. We conducted an evaluation on  the effectiveness of this class to enhance patient knowledge and shared decision-making about LCS. For quality improvement purposes, participants were asked to complete one-page surveys immediately before and after class to assess knowledge and decision-making capacity regarding LCS. To evaluate knowledge gained, we tabulated the distributions of correct, incorrect, unsure, and missing responses to eight true-false statements included on both pre- and post-class surveys and assessed pre-post differences in the number of correct responses. To evaluate decision-making capacity, we tabulated the distributions of post-class responses to items on decision uncertainty. From June 2017 to August 2018, 680 participants completed both pre- and post-class surveys. Participants had generally poor baseline knowledge about LCS. The proportion who responded correctly to each knowledge-related statement increased pre- to post-class, with a mean difference of 0.9 (paired t test, p < 0.0001) in the total number of correct responses between surveys. About 70% reported having all the information needed to make a screening decision. Our results suggest that a well-designed group education class is an effective system-level approach for initially educating and equipping patients with appropriate knowledge to make informed decisions about LCS.