Benefit of a Second Opinion: Intrapulmonary Metastases or Multiple Primary Tumors?

Avest, Marleen J. ter; Schook, Romane M.; Postmus, Pieter E.; Grünberg, Katrien; Ylstra, Bauke; Paul, Marinus A.

doi:10.1097/jto.0b013e31828c28c6

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11 It is likely that early interaction with a pulmonologist or thoracic surgeon would have raised questions about the discrepancy between the patient's performance status and the radiologic severity of her disease. [11][12][13] The patient's care suffered from serial failure to activate the appropriate expertise of interdisciplinary lung cancer team members, underdeveloped coordinating mechanisms, and limited mutual performance monitoring 14,15 of specialists involved in her care. Practice leaders must create the conditions for workgroups to be effective, including fostering real teams that are interdependent in their work 16 ; providing an appropriate team structure, reward structure, and supportive organizational context; and equipping teams with expert coaching and facilitation, when needed.…”

Section: Real Lung Cancer Care Teams Coordinating Mechanisms and Mutu...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, successful teams engage patients and caregivers in the decision-making process and help facilitate second opinions when desired. [11][12][13]28 Health care delivery is a service profession, and providers, rightly, expect to be paid for their services. The volume-based health care reimbursement model, which prevails in the United States, incentivizes providers to give more services, sometimes without sufficient linkage to patient benefit.…”

Section: Specific Coordinating Mechanisms For Lung Cancer Care Teams ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deploying Team Science Principles to Optimize Interdisciplinary Lung Cancer Care Delivery: Avoiding the Long and Winding Road to Optimal Care

Osarogiagbon

Rodríguez

Hicks

et al. 2016

JOP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complexity of lung cancer care mandates interaction between clinicians with different skill sets and practice cultures in the routine delivery of care. Using team science principles and a case-based approach, we exemplify the need for the development of real care teams for patients with lung cancer to foster coordination among the multiple specialists and staff engaged in routine care delivery. Achieving coordinated lung cancer care is a high-priority public health challenge because of the volume of patients, lethality of disease, and well-described disparities in quality and outcomes of care. Coordinating mechanisms need to be cultivated among different types of specialist physicians and care teams, with differing technical expertise and practice cultures, who have traditionally functioned more as coactively working groups than as real teams. Coordinating mechanisms, including shared mental models, high-quality communication, mutual trust, and mutual performance monitoring, highlight the challenge of achieving well-coordinated care and illustrate how team science principles can be used to improve quality and outcomes of lung cancer care. To develop the evidence base to support coordinated lung cancer care, research comparing the effectiveness of a diverse range of multidisciplinary care team approaches and interorganizational coordinating mechanisms should be promoted.

show abstract

Section: Real Lung Cancer Care Teams Coordinating Mechanisms and Mutu...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Specific Coordinating Mechanisms For Lung Cancer Care Teams ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deploying Team Science Principles to Optimize Interdisciplinary Lung Cancer Care Delivery: Avoiding the Long and Winding Road to Optimal Care

Osarogiagbon

Rodríguez

Hicks

et al. 2016

JOP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CNV analysis has also been applied in several studies 81–85 . However, it still lacks concrete evidence, especially the comparison analysis between known metastatic lesions and independent tumors in different patients as a basis.…”

Section: Diagnoses Of Mplc and Distinguishing From Ipmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CNV analysis has also been applied in several studies. [81][82][83][84][85] However, it still lacks concrete evidence, especially the comparison analysis between known metastatic lesions and independent tumors in different patients as a basis. The discordance rate of CNV scores was reported as high as 34% compared to breakpoints analysis from genomic rearrangements.…”

Section: Diagnoses Of Mplc and Distinguishing From Ipmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple primary lung cancer: Updates and perspectives

Wang,

Zhang,

Wang

et al. 2024

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management of multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC) remains challenging, partly due to its increasing incidence, especially with the significant rise in cases of multiple lung nodules caused by low‐dose computed tomography screening. Moreover, the indefinite pathogenesis, diagnostic criteria, and treatment selection add to the complexity. In recent years, there have been continuous efforts to dissect the molecular characteristics of MPLC and explore new diagnostic approaches as well as treatment modalities, which will be reviewed here, with a focus on newly emerging evidence and future perspectives, hope to provide new insights into the management of MPLC and serve as inspiration for future research related to MPLC.

show abstract