The Effect of a Multidisciplinary Thoracic Malignancy Conference on the Treatment of Patients With Esophageal Cancer

Freeman, Richard K.; Woerkom, Jaclyn M. Van; Vyverberg, Amy; Ascioti, Anthony J.

doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.05.057

Cited by 60 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mention should likewise be made of the contribution made by MDTs in changing clinical diagnostic and treatment decision-making with respect to urological [14], pancreatic [16], gastro-oesophageal [19,35], breast [20], melanoma [25], bladder [27], colorectal [22], prostate [42], head and neck [33] and gynaecological [35] cancer patients. The paper from Kesson et al merits a specific mention since it used an interrupted time series analysis in order to assess the impact of MDTs in one intervention area, demonstrating a significant improvement in survival [39].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence of improved survival was found for colorectal [15,17,28,36], head and neck [29,41], breast [39], oesophageal [21] and lung [30] cancer. MDTs contributed to changing clinical diagnostic and treatment decisionmaking with respect to urological [14], pancreatic [16], gastro-oesophageal [19,35], breast [20], melanoma [25], bladder [27], colorectal [22], prostate [42], head and neck [33] and gynaecological [35] cancer patients. The other 22 studies focused on the structure and functions related to MDT organisation by identifying how the format, data management and professional roles of MDTs impacted positively on care coordination for professionals and patients (Table 2).…”

Section: Impact On Patient Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies concluded that a multidisciplinary setting resulted in improved patient outcomes in terms of diagnosis and/or treatment planning [14][15][16][18][19][20][21][22][25][26][27][28][29][31][32][33][35][36][37]40,42], improvements in survival [15,17,21,23,[28][29][30]36,39,41], patient satisfaction [24,31,38] and clinician satisfaction as a consequence of teamwork communication and cooperation [15,34]. Evidence of improved survival was found for colorectal [15,17,28,36], head and neck [29,41], breast [39], oesophageal [21] and lung [30] cancer.…”

Section: Impact On Patient Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other clinical-based goals included improving patients' quality of life [24,32,42,[53][54][55] and setting up a structured followup care plan [53,[59][60][61]. Concerning team performance, the main goals cited were improving coordination and continuity of care by reducing time from diagnosis to treatment (or access to MDTs) [30,35,38,58] Table 1 Studies which demonstrated improved outcomes with multidisciplinary patient management.…”

Section: Mdt Goals and Scope Of Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies documented two motivating principles: firstly, MDTs ensure more appropriate treatment through a preoperative review of imaging and pathology results [19,20,22,25,26,40,42]; and secondly, a multidisciplinary approach guarantees the most up-todate treatment for all cancer patients seen at the facility or discussed online [16,18,21,23,32,33,35,[38][39][40][41]53]. Other clinical-based goals included improving patients' quality of life [24,32,42,[53][54][55] and setting up a structured followup care plan [53,[59][60][61].…”

Section: Mdt Goals and Scope Of Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tMultidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are considered the gold standard of cancer care in many healthcare systems, but a clear definition of their format, scope of practice and operational criteria is still lacking. The aims of this review were to assess the impact of MDTs on patient outcomes in cancer care and identify their objectives, organisation and ability to engage patients in their care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature in the Medline database. Fifty-one peer-reviewed papers were selected from November 2005 to June 2012. MDTs resulted in better clinical and process outcomes for cancer patients, with evidence of improved survival among colorectal, head and neck, breast, oesophageal and lung cancer patients in the study period. Also, it was observed that MDTs have been associated with changes in clinical diagnostic and treatment decision-making with respect to urological, pancreatic, gastro-oesophageal, breast, melanoma, bladder, colorectal, prostate, head and neck and gynaecological cancer. Evidence is consistent in showing positive consequences for patients' management in multiple dimensions, which should encourage the development of structured multidisciplinary care, minimum standards and exchange of best practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact On Patient Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact On Patient Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mdt Goals and Scope Of Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mdt Goals and Scope Of Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Influence of a patient navigation program on timeliness of care in patients with esophageal cancer

Arora

Hanna

et al. 2023

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient navigation (P.N.) is designed to eliminate barriers to care.The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a novel P.N. program on timeliness of care in patients with esophageal cancer. Methods: This retrospective study compared the timeliness of care for esophageal cancer patients before (January 2014-March 2018) and after the implementation of a novel P.N. program (April 2018-March 2020), called EDAP, at a tertiary care center. The primary outcome was time from biopsy to first treatment; secondary outcomes included time from biopsy to complete staging, biopsy to complete preoperative workup, and referral to the first point of contact. The outcomes were evaluated in the entire cohort and then in a subgroup of patients undergoing curative multimodality therapy.Results: There were 96 patients in the pre-EDAP group and 98 patients in the post-EDAP group. There was no significant difference between pre-and post-EDAP in the time from biopsy to first treatment and time from biopsy to staging in the overall cohort. In the subgroup of patients undergoing curative multimodality therapy, there was a significant decrease in time from biopsy to first treatment postnavigation (60-51 days, p = 0.02), in addition to a significant decrease in time from biopsy to preoperative workup and time from biopsy to staging.Conclusions: This is the first study demonstrating that a novel P.N. program for patients with esophageal cancer improved timeliness of care. The group of patients who benefited most were those undergoing curative multimodality therapy, likely given the extensive coordination of services required by this group.

show abstract

Outcomes of multidisciplinary treatment planning in US cancer care settings

Das

Baker

Altice

et al. 2018

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multidisciplinary treatment planning (MTP) is a process of engaging multiple disciplines to develop or refine the disease management plan. It is widely implemented in US cancer treatment settings and is considered to have favorable effects on both care quality and other outcomes. However, evidence reviews to date regarding MTP effectiveness have based their conclusions on studies conducted predominantly outside the United States. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based studies to synthesize and critically appraise evidence of the effects of MTP on cancer care quality, health services outcomes, and survival. Database searches identified studies of MTP outcomes conducted in US cancer care settings from 2000 to 2017. Forty-five studies met criteria for inclusion. MTP was associated with favorable effects on several indicators of cancer care quality, including delivery of guideline-concordant treatment and improvements in diagnostic accuracy, staging completeness, surgical technique, and timeliness. Effects on survival and clinical trials enrollment were mixed. Delivery formats for MTP were generally not well described, and study designs were nonrandomized, limiting the ability to identify mediators of intervention effects. Continued study is warranted to clarify effective components of MTP interventions, and to understand the mechanism(s) through which MTP produces favorable effects on outcomes.

show abstract

The Effect of a Multidisciplinary Thoracic Malignancy Conference on the Treatment of Patients With Esophageal Cancer

Cited by 60 publications

References 8 publications

Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes

Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes

Influence of a patient navigation program on timeliness of care in patients with esophageal cancer

Outcomes of multidisciplinary treatment planning in US cancer care settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About