Abstract

IntroductionNational guidelines support the discussion of cancer patients by multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB). We researched whether early pre-diagnosis multidisciplinary tumor board discussions are associated with shorter times to staging in lung cancer.MethodsWe reviewed our institution’s lung cancer and MTB registries to retrospectively study if an early discussion at pre-diagnostic MTB (pd-MTB) influenced the timeliness of diagnostic evaluation. Over 14 months, 161 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer were included. Fifty-five patients were presented at pd-MTB while 106 (controls) patients were not. The primary outcome was the difference in the time interval from suspicious imaging (Ix) to completion of staging (Sx). Outcomes were adjusted for key confounders with a multiple regression analysis.ResultsFor stages I, II, and III lung cancer, where time to therapy matters, early discussion of patients with nodules suspicious for malignancy at pd-MTB was associated with no time delays when compared to patients who were not discussed in pd-MTB. The mean time intervals for imaging to staging (with standard deviations) are 65 days in controls (sd = 42.67) and 75 days (sd = 58.27) in tumor board cases (p=0.39). Adjusting for confounders with a multiple regression analysis among all stages revealed a similar lack of difference in time intervals to diagnosis, staging, and therapy.ConclusionOur stage I-III lung cancer cases (pd-MTB) completed staging in a timely manner, similar to controls (no pd-MTB). The severity of illness at presentation and the availability of diagnostic services and others likely influence the results. Our manuscript shares important numerical data on timelines during cancer diagnosis and treatment. Using this data, prospective registries examining the process workflow may help standardize cancer quality goals and maximize referrals from primary-care/specialty providers. The key findings in our study create a paradigm for future studies to create and achieve “door-to-balloon” time targets for lung cancer care (akin to cardiac care) across different styles of tumor boards.

Highlights

  • National guidelines support the discussion of cancer patients by multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB)

  • We reviewed our institution’s lung cancer and MTB registries to retrospectively study if an early discussion at pre-diagnostic MTB influenced the timeliness of diagnostic evaluation

  • For stages I, II, and III lung cancer, where time to therapy matters, early discussion of patients with nodules suspicious for malignancy at pre-diagnostic MTB (pd-MTB) was associated with no time delays when compared to patients who were not discussed in pd-MTB

Read more

Summary

Methods

We reviewed our institution’s lung cancer and MTB registries to retrospectively study if an early discussion at pre-diagnostic MTB (pd-MTB) influenced the timeliness of diagnostic evaluation. The same group plus pathology and cardiothoracic surgery representatives conducted a separate tumor board to discuss previously diagnosed lung cancer for planning further steps on alternate weeks. The remaining 161 patients with confirmed lung cancer were divided into those who had early tumor board discussions (cases: pre-diagnostic MTB (pd-MTB)) and those who did not (controls: no pd-MTB). A multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between time from imaging and staging among controls and cases while adjusting for key confounding variables, including stage, cancer type, performance of EBUS, and type of clinical presentation. Cases (pd-MTB) were nearly four times as likely as controls to have had their cancer discovered by a screening CT (p=0.01) and about 20% more of the control patients presented with a symptomatic lung mass.

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call