Clinical oncology practice 2015: preparing for the future.

The clinical practice of oncology has become increasingly complex. An explosion of medical knowledge, increased demands on provider time, and involved patients have changed the way many oncologists practice. What was an acceptable practice model in the past may now be relatively inefficient. This review covers three areas that address these changes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Oncology Census defines who the U.S. oncology community is, and their perceptions of how practice patterns may be changing. The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-ASCO Teams in Cancer Care Project explores how best to employ team science to improve the efficiency and quality of cancer care in the United States. Finally, how physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) might be best integrated into team-based care in oncology and the barriers to integration are reviewed.

Reviewing cancer care team effectiveness.

PURPOSE: The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality). RESULTS: Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success. CONCLUSION: Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality.

The use of canines in the detection of human cancers.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether canines could be trained to identify patients with cancer by sniffing the urine obtained from a patient with breast or prostate cancer from among samples obtained from healthy volunteers. DESIGN: Dogs of different breeds were trained by their owners to detect the urine sample from a patient with cancer from among 6 other age- and sex-matched healthy volunteers. After the training was completed, using new samples, 2 test runs were used for each patient with breast cancer and three runs for the patients with prostate cancer against the same matched samples. The configuration of the samples was different for each run. A total of 18 and 33 runs were carried out, respectively. RESULTS: For each cohort, specificity and sensitivity were measured. In the breast cancer tests, of 6 dogs, only 2 performed better than chance in specificity and none were more sensitive than chance. For the prostate sample testing, 4 dogs were used. Two performed significantly better than chance in specificity and none in sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study did not produce the outcomes desired, the literature supports a potential to use canines for human cancer detection. Better management of urine samples and a more stringent training protocol during our study may have provided new evidence as to the feasibility of using canines for cancer detection. A comparison of the 3 dog cancer scenting studies is also presented.