RESUMO
PURPOSE: Medical practices in oncology are expected to be multidisciplinary, yet few articles studied how this may be concretely applied. In the present study, we evaluated the organization of two multidisciplinary committees, one for breast cancer and one for sarcoma, in a French Comprehensive Cancer Centre. METHODS: Both tumours were specifically chosen so as to emphasise substantial differences in relation with incidence, histological subtypes, management strategy, and scientific evidence. Between 2003 and 2004, 404 decision processes were observed, 210 for sarcoma (26 meetings) and 194 for breast cancer (10 meetings). The number of physicians who took part in the discussions and their medical specialties were systematically noted as well as the number of contradictory discussions, medical specialties represented in these contradictory discussions and the topics of contradiction. The last measured data was whether the final committee's decision was in conformity with the referent preferences or not. All these measures were related to the referent's medical speciality and working place, to the stage of the disease and to the disease management stage. RESULTS: Committees' specificities concerned their organization, referent's medical specialties, the number of participants in discussions and their medical specialties. Discussions in the sarcoma committee tended to be more multidisciplinary, involving more specialties. Initial strategy proposal for one patient was modified during the discussions for 86 patients out of 210 (41%) and for 62 out of 194 (32%) respectively for sarcoma and breast cancer. However, there was no significant difference in the rate of contradictory discussions between breast cancer and sarcoma committees (32% versus 41% respectively; P = 0.08). The rates of contradictory discussions were similar for localized cancers, local relapse and metastasis disease (37%, 41% and 34% respectively; P = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The present study reports more than 30% of changes concerning strategy for patient with cancer due to multidisciplinary discussions. This indicates that, providing tumour committees are adapted to the pathologies' characteristics, they can promote a collective and multidisciplinary approach to oncology.
Assuntos
Comitês Consultivos/organização & administração , Neoplasias da Mama/terapia , Tomada de Decisões , Medicina , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/organização & administração , Sarcoma/terapia , Comitês Consultivos/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias da Mama/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Institutos de Câncer , Consenso , Feminino , França , Cirurgia Geral/estatística & dados numéricos , Estrutura de Grupo , Humanos , Comunicação Interdisciplinar , Masculino , Oncologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Patologia Clínica/estatística & dados numéricos , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Radioterapia (Especialidade)/estatística & dados numéricos , Radiologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Sarcoma/epidemiologia , Sarcoma/patologiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The feasibility and accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the treatment of breast cancer is widely acknowledged today. The aim of our study was to compare the hospital-related costs of this strategy with those of conventional axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out to determine the total direct medical costs for each of the two medical strategies. Two patient samples (n = 43 for ALND; n = 48 for SLNB) were selected at random among breast cancer patients at the Centre Leon Bérard, a comprehensive cancer treatment center in Lyon, France. Costs related to ALND carried out after SLNB (either immediately or at a later date) were included in SLNB costs (n = 18 of 48 patients). RESULTS: Total direct medical costs were significantly different in the two groups (median 1965.86 Euro versus 1429.93 Euro, p = 0.0076, Mann-Whitney U-test). The total cost for SLNB decreased even further for patients who underwent SLNB alone (median, 1,301Euro). Despite the high cost of anatomic pathology examinations and nuclear medicine (both favorable to ALND), the difference in direct medical costs for the two strategies was primarily due to the length of hospitalization, which differs significantly depending on the technique used (9-day median for ALND versus 3 days for SLNB, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A lower morbidity rate is favorable to the generalization of SLNB, when the patient's clinical state allows for it. From an economic point of view, SLNB also seems to be preferred, particularly because our results confirm those found in two published studies concerning the cost of SLNB.