Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Care Within a Community-Based Health Care System.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary lung cancer care is assumed to improve care delivery by increasing transparency, objectivity, and shared decision making; however, there is a lack of high-level evidence demonstrating its benefits, especially in community-based health care systems. We used implementation and team science principles to establish a colocated multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic in a large community-based health care system and evaluated patient experience and outcomes within and outside this clinic. METHODS: We conducted a prospective frequency-matched comparative effectiveness study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02123797) evaluating the thoroughness of lung cancer staging, receipt of stage-appropriate treatment, and survival between patients receiving care in the multidisciplinary clinic and those receiving usual serial care. Target enrollment was 150 patients on the multidisciplinary arm and 300 on the serial care arm. We frequency-matched patients by clinical stage, performance status, insurance type, race, and age. RESULTS: A total of 526 patients were enrolled: 178 on the multidisciplinary arm and 348 on the serial care arm. After adjusting for other factors, multidisciplinary patients had significantly higher odds (odds ratio [OR]: 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5 to 3.4]) of trimodality staging compared with serial care. Patients on the multidisciplinary arm also had higher odds of receiving invasive stage confirmation (OR: 2.0 [95% CI, 1.4 to 3.1]) and mediastinal stage confirmation (OR: 1.9 [95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8]). Additionally, patients receiving multidisciplinary care were significantly more likely to receive stage-appropriate treatment (OR: 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1 to 3.0]). We found no significant difference in overall or progression-free survival between study arms. CONCLUSION: The multidisciplinary clinic delivered significant improvements in evidence-based quality care on multiple levels. Even in the absence of a demonstrable survival benefit, these findings provide a strong rationale for recommending this model of care.

The Relative Survival Impact of Guideline-Concordant Clinical Staging and Stage-Appropriate Treatment of Potentially Curable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer management guidelines strive to improve outcomes. Theoretically, thorough staging promotes optimal treatment selection. We examined the association between guideline-concordant invasive mediastinal nodal staging, guideline-concordant treatment, and non-small cell lung cancer survival. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the current practice of invasive mediastinal nodal staging for patients with lung cancer in a structured multidisciplinary care environment? Is guideline-concordant staging associated with guideline-concordant treatment? How do they relate to survival? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated patients with nonmetastatic non-small cell lung cancer diagnosed from 2014 through 2019 in the Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program of the Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee. We examined patterns of mediastinal nodal staging and stage-stratified treatment, grouping patients into cohorts with guideline-concordant staging alone, guideline-concordant treatment alone, both, or neither. We evaluated overall survival with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 882 patients, 456 (52%) received any invasive mediastinal staging. Seventy-four percent received guideline-concordant staging; guideline-discordant staging decreased from 34% in 2014 to 18% in 2019 (P < .0001). Recipients of guideline-concordant staging were more likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment (83% vs 66%; P < .0001). Sixty-one percent received both guideline-concordant invasive mediastinal staging and guideline-concordant treatment; 13% received guideline-concordant staging alone; 17% received guideline-concordant treatment alone; and 9% received neither. Survival was greatest in patients who received both (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.63), followed by those who received guideline-concordant treatment alone (aHR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.99), and those who received guideline-concordant staging alone (aHR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.09) compared with neither (P < .0001, log-rank test). INTERPRETATION: Levels of guideline-concordant staging were high, were rising, and were associated with guideline-concordant treatment selection in this multidisciplinary care cohort. Guideline-concordant staging and guideline-concordant treatment were complementary in their association with improved survival, supporting the connection between these two processes and lung cancer outcomes.

Survival Impact of an Enhanced Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference in a Regional Community Health Care System.

INTRODUCTION: We compared NSCLC treatment and survival within and outside a multidisciplinary model of care from a large community health care system. METHODS: We implemented a rigorously benchmarked "enhanced" Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference (eMTOC) and used Tumor Registry data (2011-2017) to evaluate guideline-concordant care. Because eMTOC was located in metropolitan Memphis, we separated non-MTOC patient by metropolitan and regional location. We categorized National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment as "preferred," or "appropriate" (allowable under certain circumstances). We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across cohorts using chi-square tests and survival using Cox regression, adjusted for multiple testing. We also performed propensity-matched and adjusted survival analyses. RESULTS: Of 6259 patients, 14% were in eMTOC, 55% metropolitan non-MTOC, and 31% regional non-MTOC cohorts. eMTOC had the highest rates of African Americans (34% versus 28% versus 22%), stages I to IIIB (63 versus 40 versus 50), urban residents (81 versus 78 versus 20), stage-preferred treatment (66 versus 57 versus 48), guideline-concordant treatment (78 versus 70 versus 63), and lowest percentage of nontreatment (6 versus 21 versus 28); all p values were less than 0.001. Compared with eMTOC, hazard for death was higher in metropolitan (1.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-1.7) and regional (1.7, 1.5-1.9) non-MTOC; hazards were higher in regional non-MTOC versus metropolitan (1.1, 1.0-1.2); all p values were less than 0.05 after adjustment. Results were generally similar after propensity analysis with and without adjusting for guideline-concordant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary NSCLC care planning was associated with significantly higher rates of guideline-concordant care and survival, providing evidence for rigorous implementation of this model of care.

Outcomes After Use of a Lymph Node Collection Kit for Lung Cancer Surgery: A Pragmatic, Population-Based, Multi-Institutional, Staggered Implementation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal pathologic nodal staging prevails after curative-intent resection of lung cancer. We evaluated the impact of a lymph node specimen collection kit on lung cancer surgery outcomes in a prospective, population-based, staggered implementation study. METHODS: From January 1, 2014, to August 28, 2018, we implemented the kit in three homogeneous institutional cohorts involving 11 eligible hospitals from four contiguous hospital referral regions. Our primary outcome was pathologic nodal staging quality, defined by the following evidence-based measures: the number of lymph nodes or stations examined, proportions with poor-quality markers such as nonexamination of lymph nodes, and aggregate quality benchmarks including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Additional outcomes included perioperative complications, health care utilization, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 1492 participants, 56% had resection with the kit and 44% without. Pathologic nodal staging quality was significantly higher in the kit cases: 0.2% of kit cases versus 9.8% of nonkit cases had no lymph nodes examined; 3.2% versus 25.3% had no mediastinal lymph nodes; 75% versus 26% attained the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Kit cases revealed no difference in perioperative complications or health care utilization except for significantly shorter duration of surgery, lower proportions with atelectasis, and slightly higher use of blood transfusion. Resection with the kit was associated with a lower hazard of death (crude, 0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.99]; adjusted 0.85 [0.71-1.02]). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer surgery with a lymph node collection kit significantly improved pathologic nodal staging quality, with a trend toward survival improvement, without excessive perioperative morbidity or mortality.

Pragmatic trial of a multidisciplinary lung cancer care model in a community healthcare setting: study design, implementation evaluation, and baseline clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Responsible for 25% of all US cancer deaths, lung cancer presents complex care-delivery challenges. Adoption of the highly recommended multidisciplinary care model suffers from a dearth of good quality evidence. Leading up to a prospective comparative-effectiveness study of multidisciplinary vs. serial care, we studied the implementation of a rigorously benchmarked multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach to conduct a patient-centered, combined implementation and effectiveness study of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care. We established a co-located multidisciplinary clinic to study the implementation of this care-delivery model. We identified and engaged key stakeholders from the onset, used their input to develop the program structure, processes, performance benchmarks, and study endpoints (outcome-related process measures, patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes, survival). In this report, we describe the study design, process of implementation, comparative populations, and how they contrast with patients within the local and regional healthcare system. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02123797. RESULTS: Implementation: the multidisciplinary clinic obtained an overall treatment concordance rate of 90% (target >85%). Satisfaction scores were high, with >95% of patients and caregivers rating themselves as being "very satisfied" with all aspects of care from the multidisciplinary team (patient/caregiver response rate >90%). The Reach of the multidisciplinary clinic included a higher proportion of minority patients, more women, and younger patients than the regional population. Comparative effectiveness: The comparative effectiveness trial conducted in the last phase of the study met the planned enrollment per statistical design, with 178 patients in the multidisciplinary arm and 348 in the serial care arm. The multidisciplinary cohort had older age and a higher percentage of racial minorities, with a higher proportion of stage IV patients in the serial care arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a comprehensive implementation of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care, which will advance the science behind implementing this much-advocated clinical care model.

Prognostic Value of National Comprehensive Cancer Network Lung Cancer Resection Quality Criteria.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) surgical resection guidelines for non-small cell lung cancer recommend anatomic resection, negative margins, examination of hilar/intrapulmonary lymph nodes, and examination of three or more mediastinal nodal stations. We examined the survival impact of these criteria. METHODS: A population-based observational study was done using patient-level data from all curative-intent, non-small cell lung cancer resections from 2004 to 2013 at 11 institutions in four contiguous Dartmouth Hospital referral regions in three US states. We used an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model to assess the overall survival impact of attaining NCCN guidelines. RESULTS: Of 2,429 eligible resections, 91% were anatomic, 94% had negative margins, 51% sampled hilar nodes, and 26% examined three or more mediastinal nodal stations. Only 17% of resections met all four criteria; however, there was a significant increasing trend from 2% in 2004 to 39% in 2013 (p < 0.001). Compared with patients whose surgery missed one or more criteria, the hazard ratio for patients whose surgery met all four criteria was 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.86, p < 0.001). Margin status and the nodal staging criteria were most strongly linked with survival. CONCLUSIONS: Attainment of NCCN surgical quality guidelines was low, but improving, over the past decade in this cohort from a high lung cancer mortality region of the United States. The NCCN quality criteria, especially the nodal examination criteria, were strongly associated with survival. The quality of nodal examination should be a focus of quality improvement in non-small cell lung cancer care.

Preoperative Evaluation of Lung Cancer in a Community Health Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: We examined the presurgical evaluation of suspected lung cancer patients in a community-based health care system to establish current benchmarks of care that will lay the groundwork for an evidence-based quality improvement project. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical records of all recipients of lung resection at two institutions, and classified all lung cancer relevant procedures into five "nodal points": lesion detection, diagnostic biopsy, radiologic staging, invasive staging, and treatment. We analyzed the frequency of passage through each nodal point, the time intervals between nodal points, and the use of staging modalities. RESULTS: Of 614 eligible patients, 92% had lung cancer, 5% had a non-lung primary tumor, 3% had a benign lesion. Six percent received preoperative therapy; 39% of resections were minimally invasive. Ninety-eight percent of patients had a preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan, 27% had no preoperative diagnostic procedure, 22% had no preoperative positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans, and 88% had no invasive preoperative staging test. Only 10% had trimodality staging with CT, PET/CT, and invasive staging. Twenty-one percent of patients who had an invasive staging test had mediastinal nodal metastasis at resection. The median duration (interquartile range) from initial lesion identification to resection was 84 days (43 to 189) days; from lesion identification to diagnostic biopsy, 28 days (7 to 96); and from diagnostic biopsy to surgery, 40 days (26 to 69). CONCLUSIONS: There is opportunity for improvement in the thoroughness, accuracy, and timeliness of preoperative evaluation of suspected lung cancer patients in this community cohort. Better coordination of care may significantly improve these benchmarks.

Audit of lymphadenectomy in lung cancer resections using a specimen collection kit and checklist.

BACKGROUND: Audits of operative summaries and pathology reports reveal wide discordance in identifying the extent of lymphadenectomy performed (the communication gap). We tested the ability of a prelabeled lymph node specimen collection kit and checklist to narrow the communication gap between operating surgeons, pathologists, and auditors of surgeons' operation notes. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single cohort study of lung cancer resections performed with a lymph node collection kit from November 2010 to January 2013. We used the kappa statistic to compare surgeon claims on a checklist of lymph node stations harvested intraoperatively with pathology reports and an independent audit of surgeons' operative summaries. Lymph node collection procedures were classified into four groups based on the anatomic origin of resected lymph nodes: mediastinal lymph node dissection, systematic sampling, random sampling, and no sampling. RESULTS: From the pathology reports, 73% of 160 resections had a mediastinal lymph node dissection or systematic sampling procedure, 27% had random sampling. The concordance with surgeon claims was 80% (kappa statistic 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 0.79). Concordance between independent audits of the operation notes and either the pathology report (kappa 0.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.04 to 0.23) or surgeon claims (kappa 0.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.03 to 0.22) was poor. CONCLUSIONS: A prelabeled specimen collection kit and checklist significantly narrowed the communication gap between surgeons and pathologists in identifying the extent of lymphadenectomy. Audit of surgeons' operation notes did not accurately reflect the procedure performed, bringing its value for quality improvement work into question.

Dual intervention to improve pathologic staging of resectable lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Detection of lymph node metastasis is of immense prognostic value in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but routine pathologic nodal staging is suboptimal. To determine the impact on the rate of detection of nodal metastasis, we tested dual intervention with a prelabeled lymph node specimen collection kit to improve intraoperative node dissection and a fastidious gross dissection of the lung resection specimen for intrapulmonary lymph nodes. METHODS: We matched dual-intervention cases with controls staged using standard surgical specimen collection and pathologic examination protocols. Controls were hierarchically matched for extent of resection, laterality, surgeon, pathologist, and T stage. All statistical comparisons were made with exact conditional logistic regression, to account for the matched case-control design. RESULTS: One hundred dual-intervention cases were matched with 100 controls. The dual interventions resulted in approximately a 3-fold increase in the number of lymph nodes examined and the number of lymph nodes with metastasis detected; they also increased the proportion of patients with lymph node metastasis from 21% to 35% (p = 0.02). There were strong trends toward higher aggregate stage distribution, and eligibility for postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in the dual-intervention cases. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of interventions improved the thoroughness and accuracy of pathologic nodal staging. A prospective randomized trial to test the survival impact of the dual interventions is warranted.

Use of a surgical specimen-collection kit to improve mediastinal lymph-node examination of resectable lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Pathologic examination of mediastinal lymph nodes (MLNs) after resection of non-small-cell lung cancer is critical in the determination of prognosis and postoperative management. Although systematic nodal dissection is recommended, the quality of pathologic lymph-node staging often falls short of recommendations in practice. We tested the feasibility of improving pathologic lymph-node staging of resectable non-small-cell lung cancer by using a prelabeled specimen-collection kit. METHODS: Case-control study with comparison of 51 resections, using a special lymph-node collection kit, with 51 controls matched for surgeon, extent of resection, pathologist, and T category. Appropriate statistical methods were used for all comparisons. RESULTS: The median number of MLNs examined increased from one in the control group, to six in the case group (p < 0.001). The percentage of resections attaining the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended quality of MLN examination, and the proportion that would have been eligible for recent landmark postresection adjuvant therapy trials increased significantly (p < 0.001). The duration of surgery and postoperative complication rates were similar between cases and controls. Eighteen percent of kit cases had positive MLN, compared with 8% of controls. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a specialized specimen-collection kit for MLN examination was feasible, markedly improved MLN staging, and showed a trend toward increased detection of patients with MLN metastasis, with only a modest increase in duration of surgery, and no increase in perioperative morbidity, mortality, or hospital length of stay.