Integrating a Disease-Focused Tumor Board as a Delivery-of-Care Model to Expedite Treatment Initiation for Patients With Liver Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hepatobiliary malignancies are especially vulnerable to treatment delays. This study sought to evaluate the impact of implementing a new delivery-of-care model centered around a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary tumor board (HB-MTB) and integrated with an optimized patient workflow process to expedite treatment initiation. METHODS: A hybrid type 2 study (effectiveness-implementation) was performed. Implementation measures were examined prospectively using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) approach during 5 years after the HB-MTB program deployment (2015-2020). The primary outcome was effectiveness, measured as time to treatment initiation (TTI) using a before and after design (1 year each). The patients were grouped into before (BP) and after (AP) categories based on date of HB-MTB program implementation. Multivariable Cox and linear regression analyses were performed to examine and compare time to treatment initiation between groups. RESULTS: The HB-MTB program enrolled 2457 patients (reach). The RE-AIM measures were favorable and improved over time (P < 0.01 for all). The median TTI was lower for the AP group than for the BP group (17 vs 24 days; P < 0.01). In the multivariable Cox and linear regressions, treatment in the AP group was associated with a faster TTI (hazard ratio, 1.75; 95 % confidence interval, 1.31-2.35; p < 0.01), and a mean of 13 days faster treatment initiation than the BP group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an HB-MTB program integrated with an optimized patient workflow was successful and led to faster treatment initiation. This delivery-of-care model can serve as a blueprint to expedite treatment of patients with cancer.

Parenchyma-Sparing Central Hepatectomy Versus Extended Resections for Liver Tumors: a Value-Based Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Parenchyma-sparing (PS) liver resection is recommended for liver tumors. The value of PS-approaches as compared to more extended resections is unknown. We sought to examine value-based differences (quality/cost) of central hepatectomy (CH) versus more extended resections. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients having CH or right/extended hepatectomies (R/EH) at a high-volume cancer center was performed (2015-2019). The primary outcome was the value ratio, calculated as quality/cost. Quality was defined as the proportion of patients achieving a textbook outcome. Perioperative actual direct costs ($USD) for each patient were abstracted from institutional financial records spanning throughout the perioperative period. Value ratios were calculated and compared for each approach; sensitivity analysis was performed by modelling TO and cost thresholds. RESULTS: Among 651 hepatobiliary operations (426 liver resections), 90 patients met inclusion criteria: 19 CH and 71 R/EH. TO occurred in 68% and 69% of CH and R/EH, respectively (P = 0.96). Mean direct costs were $21,826 for CH and $28,599 for R/EH (P = 0.008). CH provided a greater value (value ratio CH = 0.33 vs. R/EH = 0.26; P = 0.004) with a shift favoring R/EH only when the TO threshold for CH was below 51% (CH = 0.23 vs. R/EH = 0.24) or that of R/EH was over 90% (CH = 0.31 vs. R/EH = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support a PS approach for central liver tumors (central hepatectomy) as it offers higher value than more extended resections. In the context of high-volume centers with outcomes within established national benchmarks, patients with central tumors should be considered for CH over more extended non-PS approaches.

A Mathematical Model to Estimate Chemotherapy Concentration at the Tumor-Site and Predict Therapy Response in Colorectal Cancer Patients with Liver Metastases.

Chemotherapy remains a primary treatment for metastatic cancer, with tumor response being the benchmark outcome marker. However, therapeutic response in cancer is unpredictable due to heterogeneity in drug delivery from systemic circulation to solid tumors. In this proof-of-concept study, we evaluated chemotherapy concentration at the tumor-site and its association with therapy response by applying a mathematical model. By using pre-treatment imaging, clinical and biologic variables, and chemotherapy regimen to inform the model, we estimated tumor-site chemotherapy concentration in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases, who received treatment prior to surgical hepatic resection with curative-intent. The differential response to therapy in resected specimens, measured with the gold-standard Tumor Regression Grade (TRG; from 1, complete response to 5, no response) was examined, relative to the model predicted systemic and tumor-site chemotherapy concentrations. We found that the average calculated plasma concentration of the cytotoxic drug was essentially equivalent across patients exhibiting different TRGs, while the estimated tumor-site chemotherapeutic concentration (eTSCC) showed a quadratic decline from TRG = 1 to TRG = 5 (p < 0.001). The eTSCC was significantly lower than the observed plasma concentration and dropped by a factor of ~5 between patients with complete response (TRG = 1) and those with no response (TRG = 5), while the plasma concentration remained stable across TRG groups. TRG variations were driven and predicted by differences in tumor perfusion and eTSCC. If confirmed in carefully planned prospective studies, these findings will form the basis of a paradigm shift in the care of patients with potentially curable colorectal cancer and liver metastases.