Impact of a Thoracic Multidisciplinary Conference on Lung Cancer Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: With the complexity of cancer treatment rising, the role of multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs) in making diagnostic and treatment decisions has become critical. This study evaluated the impact of a thoracic MDC (T-MDC) on lung cancer care quality and survival. METHODS: Lung cancer cases over 7 years were identified from the Roswell Park cancer registry system. The survival rates and treatment plans of 300 patients presented at the MDC were compared with 300 matched patients. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines were used to define the standard of care. The compliance of care plans with NCCN guidelines was summarized using counts and percentages, with comparisons made using the Fisher exact test. Survival outcomes were summarized using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: There was improvement in median overall survival (36.9 vs 19.3 months; P < .001) and cancer-specific survival (48 vs 28.1 months; P < .001) for lung cancer patients discussed at the T-MDC compared with controls. These differences were statistically significant in patients with stages III/IV disease but not in patients with stages I/II disease. The NCCN guidelines compliance rate of treatment plans improved from 80% to 94% (P < .001) after MDC discussion. MDC recommendations resulted in treatment plan changes in 123 of 300 patients (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that lung cancer patients have a survival benefit from MDC discussion compared with controls. Patients with advanced disease (stages III and IV) benefited the most. Further research is necessary to understand the precise mechanisms that drive these results.

Thoracoscopic maneuvers for chest wall resection and reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report is to describe technical maneuvers used to complete minimally invasive resections of the chest wall successfully. METHODS: Case videos of advanced thoracoscopic chest wall resections performed at a comprehensive cancer center were reviewed, as were published reports. These were analyzed for similarities and also categorized to summarize alternative approaches. RESULTS: Limited chest wall resections en bloc with lobectomy can be accomplished with port placement similar to that used for typical thoracoscopic anatomic resections, particularly when the utility incision is close to the region of excision. Generally, chest wall resection precedes lobectomy. Ribs can be transected with Gigli saws, endoscopic shears, or high-speed drills. Division of bone and overlying soft tissue can be planned precisely using thoracoscopic guidance. Isolated primary chest wall masses may require different port position and selective reconstruction using synthetic materials. Patch anchoring can be accomplished by devices that facilitate laparoscopic port site fascial closure. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracoscopic chest wall resections have been accomplished safely using tools and maneuvers summarized here. Further outcomes research is necessary to identify the benefits of thoracoscopic chest wall resection over an open approach.