Aitua C Salami1, Gala M Barden1, Diana L Castillo1, Mina Hanna1, Nancy J Petersen1, Jessica A Davila1, Aanand D Naik1, Daniel A Anaya2. 1. Houston Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety; Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center; and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 2. Houston Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety; Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center; and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX danaya@bcm.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary evaluation (MDE) of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is the current standard, often provided through a tumor board (TB) forum; this standard is limited by oncology workforce shortages and lack of a TB at every institution. Virtual TBs (VTBs) may help overcome these limitations. Our study aim was to assess the impact of a regional VTB on the MDE process for patients with HCC. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including patients with HCC referred to a tertiary cancer center from regional facilities (2009 to 2013). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared based on the referral mechanism: VTB versus subspecialty consultation (non-VTB). The primary outcome was comprehensive MDE (all required specialists present and key topics discussed). Secondary outcomes included timeliness of MDE and travel burden to complete MDE. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to examine the association of a VTB with comprehensive MDE. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were included in the study; 48 (41.4%) were evaluated through the VTB. A higher proportion of VTB patients received comprehensive MDE (91.7% v 64.7%; P = .001); the VTB was independently associated with higher odds of accomplishing comprehensive MDE (odds ratio, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.2 to 29.9; P = .02). VTB patients completed MDE significantly faster (median, 23 v 39 days; P < .001), with lower travel burden (median, 0 v 683 miles traveled; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This VTB program positively affected the process of care for patients with HCC by improving the quality and timeliness of the MDE process, while avoiding the burden arising from travel needs. Future studies should focus on implementation of VTB programs on a wider scale.
PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary evaluation (MDE) of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is the current standard, often provided through a tumor board (TB) forum; this standard is limited by oncology workforce shortages and lack of a TB at every institution. Virtual TBs (VTBs) may help overcome these limitations. Our study aim was to assess the impact of a regional VTB on the MDE process for patients with HCC. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including patients with HCC referred to a tertiary cancer center from regional facilities (2009 to 2013). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared based on the referral mechanism: VTB versus subspecialty consultation (non-VTB). The primary outcome was comprehensive MDE (all required specialists present and key topics discussed). Secondary outcomes included timeliness of MDE and travel burden to complete MDE. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to examine the association of a VTB with comprehensive MDE. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were included in the study; 48 (41.4%) were evaluated through the VTB. A higher proportion of VTBpatients received comprehensive MDE (91.7% v 64.7%; P = .001); the VTB was independently associated with higher odds of accomplishing comprehensive MDE (odds ratio, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.2 to 29.9; P = .02). VTBpatients completed MDE significantly faster (median, 23 v 39 days; P < .001), with lower travel burden (median, 0 v 683 miles traveled; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This VTB program positively affected the process of care for patients with HCC by improving the quality and timeliness of the MDE process, while avoiding the burden arising from travel needs. Future studies should focus on implementation of VTB programs on a wider scale.
Authors: Robert G Gish; Riccardo Lencioni; Adrian M Di Bisceglie; Jean-Luc Raoul; Vincenzo Mazzaferro Journal: Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: Neena S Abraham; J Travis Gossey; Jessica A Davila; Sarah Al-Oudat; Jennifer K Kramer Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: C M Ashton; N J Petersen; J Souchek; T J Menke; H J Yu; K Pietz; M L Eigenbrodt; G Barbour; K W Kizer; N P Wray Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-01-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; Yong Cai; Eric H Larson; Sharon A Dobie; George E Wright; David C Goodman; Barbara Matthews; L Gary Hart Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Yolanda Rodriguez Villalvazo; Jennifer S McDanel; Lauren A Beste; Antonio J Sanchez; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin; David A Katz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Martina Chirra; Luca Marsili; Linsdey Wattley; Leonard L Sokol; Elizabeth Keeling; Simona Maule; Gabriele Sobrero; Carlo Alberto Artusi; Alberto Romagnolo; Maurizio Zibetti; Leonardo Lopiano; Alberto J Espay; Ahmed Z Obeidat; Aristide Merola Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Pedram Fadavi; Mohammad Houshyari; Amir Shahram Yousefi Kashi; Alireza Mosavi Jarrahi; Farnaz Roshanmehr; Mohammad Ali Broomand; Saleh Sandoughdaran; Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Date: 2021-01-01
Authors: A N Gobaud; C A Haley; J W Wilson; R Bhavaraju; A Lardizabal; B J Seaworth; N D Goswami Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 3.427