BACKGROUND: The use of multidisciplinary clinics (MDCs) for outpatient cancer evaluation is increasing. MDCs may vary in format, and data on whether MDCs change prostate cancer (PCa) care are limited. Here we report on the setup and design of a relatively new PCa MDC clinic. Because MDC evaluation was associated with a comprehensive re-evaluation of all patients' staging and risk stratification data, we studied the frequency of changes in PCa grade and stage upon MDC evaluation, which provides a unique estimate of the magnitude of pathology, radiology, and exam-based risk stratification in a modern tertiary setting. METHODS: In 2008-2012, 887 patients underwent consultation for newly diagnosed PCa at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) weekly MDC. In a same-day process, patients are interviewed and examined in a morning clinic. Examination findings, radiology studies, and biopsy slides are then reviewed during a noon conference that involves real-time collaboration among JHH attending specialty physicians: urologists, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists. During afternoon consultations, attending physicians appropriate to each patient's eligible treatment options individually meet with patients to discuss management strategies and/or clinical trials. Retrospective chart review identified presenting tumor characteristics based on outside assessment, which was compared with stage and grade as determined at MDC evaluation. RESULTS: Overall, 186/647 (28.7%) had a change in their risk category or stage. For example, 2.9% of men were down-classified as very-low-risk, rendering them eligible for active surveillance. 5.7% of men thought to have localized cancer were up-classified as metastatic, thus prompting systemic management approaches. Using NCCN guidelines as a benchmark, many men were found to have undergone non-indicated imaging (bone scan 23.9%, CT/MRI 47.4%). The three most chosen treatments after MDC evaluation were external beam radiotherapy ± androgen deprivation (39.3%), radical prostatectomy (32.0%), and active surveillance/expectant management (12.9%). CONCLUSIONS: A once-weekly same-day evaluation that involves simultaneous data evaluation, management discussion, and patient consultations from a multidisciplinary team of PCa specialists is feasible. Comprehensive evaluation at a tertiary referral center, as demonstrated in a modern MDC setting, is associated with critical changes in presenting disease classification in over one in four men.
BACKGROUND: The use of multidisciplinary clinics (MDCs) for outpatientcancer evaluation is increasing. MDCs may vary in format, and data on whether MDCs change prostate cancer (PCa) care are limited. Here we report on the setup and design of a relatively new PCa MDC clinic. Because MDC evaluation was associated with a comprehensive re-evaluation of all patients' staging and risk stratification data, we studied the frequency of changes in PCa grade and stage upon MDC evaluation, which provides a unique estimate of the magnitude of pathology, radiology, and exam-based risk stratification in a modern tertiary setting. METHODS: In 2008-2012, 887 patients underwent consultation for newly diagnosed PCa at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) weekly MDC. In a same-day process, patients are interviewed and examined in a morning clinic. Examination findings, radiology studies, and biopsy slides are then reviewed during a noon conference that involves real-time collaboration among JHH attending specialty physicians: urologists, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists. During afternoon consultations, attending physicians appropriate to each patient's eligible treatment options individually meet with patients to discuss management strategies and/or clinical trials. Retrospective chart review identified presenting tumor characteristics based on outside assessment, which was compared with stage and grade as determined at MDC evaluation. RESULTS: Overall, 186/647 (28.7%) had a change in their risk category or stage. For example, 2.9% of men were down-classified as very-low-risk, rendering them eligible for active surveillance. 5.7% of men thought to have localized cancer were up-classified as metastatic, thus prompting systemic management approaches. Using NCCN guidelines as a benchmark, many men were found to have undergone non-indicated imaging (bone scan 23.9%, CT/MRI 47.4%). The three most chosen treatments after MDC evaluation were external beam radiotherapy ± androgen deprivation (39.3%), radical prostatectomy (32.0%), and active surveillance/expectant management (12.9%). CONCLUSIONS: A once-weekly same-day evaluation that involves simultaneous data evaluation, management discussion, and patient consultations from a multidisciplinary team of PCa specialists is feasible. Comprehensive evaluation at a tertiary referral center, as demonstrated in a modern MDC setting, is associated with critical changes in presenting disease classification in over one in four men.
Authors: Andrew A Renshaw; Delray Schultz; Kerri Cote; Marian Loffredo; David E Ziemba; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Erika A Newman; Amy B Guest; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Alfred E Chang; Celina G Kleer; Kathleen M Diehl; Vincent M Cimmino; Lori Pierce; Daniel Hayes; Lisa A Newman; Michael S Sabel Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Leonard G Gomella; Jianqing Lin; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Patricia Dugan; Fran Guiles; Costas D Lallas; Jaspreet Singh; Peter McCue; Timothy Showalter; Richard K Valicenti; Adam Dicker; Edouard J Trabulsi Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Danil V Makarov; Rani A Desai; James B Yu; Richa Sharma; Nitya Abraham; Peter C Albertsen; David F Penson; Cary P Gross Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Raj Kurpad; William Kim; W Kim Rathmell; Paul Godley; Young Whang; Julia Fielding; LuAnn Smith; Ava Pettiford; Heather Schultz; Matthew Nielsen; Eric M Wallen; Raj S Pruthi Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Timothy M Pawlik; Daniel Laheru; Ralph H Hruban; Joann Coleman; Christopher L Wolfgang; Kurt Campbell; Syed Ali; Elliot K Fishman; Richard D Schulick; Joseph M Herman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-05-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Andrea K Miyahira; Joshua M Lang; Robert B Den; Isla P Garraway; Tamara L Lotan; Ashley E Ross; Tanya Stoyanova; Steve Y Cho; Jonathan W Simons; Kenneth J Pienta; Howard R Soule Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Antonella Colasante; Antonietta Augurio; Raffaella Basilico; Antonio Raffaele Cotroneo; Maria B Di Sciascio; Giuseppe Gaspari; Domenico Genovesi; Jamara Giampietro; Romina Iantorno; Antonio Marchetti; Clara Natoli; Antonello Nuzzo; Floriana Ottaviani; Paolo Pompa; Pietro Castellan; Raffaele Tenaglia; Annamaria Vinciguerra Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Michael A Gorin; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Phuoc T Tran; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Joceline V Vu; Arden M Morris; Lillias H Maguire; Ana C De Roo; Anudeep Mukkamala; John C Krauss; Scott E Regenbogen; Samantha Hendren; Karin M Hardiman Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Thomas M Habermann; Arushi Khurana; Ruth Lentz; John J Schmitz; Alexander G von Bormann; Jason R Young; Christopher H Hunt; Sara N Christofferson; Grzegorz S Nowakowski; Kristen B McCullough; Pedro Horna; Adam J Wood; William R Macon; Paul J Kurtin; Scott C Lester; Scott L Stafford; Ushrasree Chamarthy; Faraz Khan; Stephen M Ansell; Rebecca L King Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2020-09-23
Authors: Yara L Basta; Onno L Baur; Susan van Dieren; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Paul Fockens; Kristien M A J Tytgat Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 5.344