Literature DB >> 26464497

ReCAP: Impact of Multidisciplinary Care on Processes of Cancer Care: A Multi-Institutional Study.

Eberechukwu Onukwugha3, Nicholas J Petrelli4, Kathleen M Castro4, James F Gardner4, Jinani Jayasekera4, Olga Goloubeva4, Ming T Tan4, Erica J McNamara4, Howard A Zaren4, Thomas Asfeldt4, James D Bearden4, Andrew L Salner4, Mark J Krasna4, Irene Prabhu Das4, Steve B Clauser4, Eberechukwu Onukwugha3, Nicholas J Petrelli4, Kathleen M Castro4, James F Gardner4, Jinani Jayasekera4, Olga Goloubeva4, Ming T Tan4, Erica J McNamara4, Howard A Zaren4, Thomas Asfeldt4, James D Bearden4, Andrew L Salner4, Mark J Krasna4, Irene Prabhu Das4, Steve B Clauser4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The role of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on cancer care processes is not fully understood. We investigated the impact of MDC on the processes of care at cancer centers within the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP).
METHODS: The study used data from patients diagnosed with stage IIB to III rectal cancer, stage III colon cancer, and stage III non–small-cell lung cancer at 14 NCCCP cancer centers from 2007 to 2012. We used an MDC development assessment tool—with levels ranging from evolving MDC (low) to achieving excellence (high)—to measure the level of MDC implementation in seven MDC areas, such as case planning and physician engagement. Descriptive statistics and cluster-adjusted regression models quantified the association between MDC implementation and processes of care, including time from diagnosis to treatment receipt.
RESULTS: A total of 1,079 patients were examined. Compared with patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting low MDC scores, time to treatment receipt was shorter for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high or moderate MDC scores for physician engagement (hazard ratio [HR] for high physician engagement, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.70 to 4.17; HR for moderate physician engagement, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.89) and longer for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high 2MDC scores for case planning (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85). Results for patients with rectal cancer were qualitatively similar, and there was no statistically significant difference among patients with lung cancer.
CONCLUSION: MDC implementation level was associated with processes of care, and direction of association varied across MDC assessment areas.
Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26464497      PMCID: PMC4960465          DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2015.004200

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oncol Pract        ISSN: 1554-7477            Impact factor:   3.840


  33 in total

1.  Regional differences in breast cancer survival despite common guidelines.

Authors:  Sonja Eaker; Paul W Dickman; Vivan Hellström; Matthew M Zack; Johan Ahlgren; Lars Holmberg
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Teamwork and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer teams: development and evaluation of an observational assessment tool.

Authors:  Benjamin W Lamb; Helen W L Wong; Charles Vincent; James S A Green; Nick Sevdalis
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 7.035

3.  Developing and testing TEAM (Team Evaluation and Assessment Measure), a self-assessment tool to improve cancer multidisciplinary teamwork.

Authors:  C Taylor; K Brown; B Lamb; J Harris; N Sevdalis; J S A Green
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Enhancing prostate cancer care through the multidisciplinary clinic approach: a 15-year experience.

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

5.  Team dynamics, decision making, and attitudes toward multidisciplinary cancer meetings: health professionals' perspectives.

Authors:  Bianca Devitt; Jennifer Philip; Sue-Anne McLachlan
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  The effect of a multidisciplinary thoracic malignancy conference on the treatment of patients with lung cancer.

Authors:  Richard K Freeman; Jaclyn M Van Woerkom; Amy Vyverberg; Anthony J Ascioti
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 4.191

7.  Causes and consequences of deviation from multidisciplinary care in thoracic oncology.

Authors:  Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Gregory Phelps; Joshua McFarlane; Olufunsho Bankole
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 15.609

8.  Beyond doughnuts: tumor board recommendations influence patient care.

Authors:  John K Petty; John T Vetto
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.037

9.  Improving decision making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: prospective longitudinal evaluation of a multicomponent intervention for 1,421 patients.

Authors:  Benjamin W Lamb; James S A Green; Jonathan Benn; Katrina F Brown; Charles A Vincent; Nick Sevdalis
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 6.113

10.  An evaluation of the impact of a multidisciplinary team, in a single centre, on treatment and survival in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  L M Forrest; D C McMillan; C S McArdle; D J Dunlop
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-10-31       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  7 in total

1.  Role of Molecular Profiling of Pancreatic Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy: Does it Change Practice?

Authors:  Ashley N Krepline; Lindsay Bliss; Jennifer Geurts; Idayat Akinola; Kathleen K Christians; Ben George; Paul S Ritch; William A Hall; Beth A Erickson; Douglas B Evans; Susan Tsai
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 2.  Impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on patients with rectal cancer.

Authors:  Argyrios Ioannidis; Michael Konstantinidis; Sotirios Apostolakis; Christos Koutserimpas; Nikolaos Machairas; Konstantinos M Konstantinidis
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-06-15

3.  American Society of Clinical Oncology Multidisciplinary Cancer Management Course: Connecting Lives, Cancer Care, Education, and Compassion in Zimbabwe-A Pilot for Efforts of Sustainable Benefit?

Authors:  Sandra Ndarukwa; Anna Mary Nyakabau; Anees B Chagpar; David Raben; Ntokozo Ndlovu; Webster Kadzatsa; Vanessa J Eaton; Paida Mafunda; Evangelia Razis
Journal:  J Glob Oncol       Date:  2016-09-14

Review 4.  Development, acceptability, appropriateness and appeal of a cancer clinical trials implementation intervention for rural- and minority-serving urology practices.

Authors:  Shellie Ellis; Mugur Geana; Tomas Griebling; Charles McWilliams; Jessie Gills; Kelly Stratton; Christine Mackay; Ariel Shifter; Andrew Zganjar; Brantley Thrasher
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Cancer care in Brazil: structure and geographical distribution.

Authors:  Mario Jorge Sobreira da Silva; Gisele O'Dwyer; Claudia Garcia Serpa Osorio-de-Castro
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 6.  Achieving a multilevel evidence-based approach to improve cancer care in the U.S. post-COVID era: What is the role of management?

Authors:  Donna M O'Brien; Arnold D Kaluzny
Journal:  J Cancer Policy       Date:  2021-09-29

7.  Pre-diagnosis Multidisciplinary Tumor Board and Time to Staging in Lung Cancer: The Case Western MetroHealth Experience.

Authors:  Prashanth Thalanayar Muthukrishnan; Maya Ratnam; Minh-Tri Nguyen; Michael Le; Douglas Gunzler; Debora Bruno; Michael Infeld
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-01-08
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.