Madhur Nayan1, Bimal Bhindi1, Julie L Yu2, Muhammad Mamdani3, Neil E Fleshner1, Thomas Hermanns1, Peter Chung4, Michael Milosevic4, Robert Bristow4, Padraig Warde4, Robert J Hamilton1, Antonio Finelli1, Michael A S Jewett1, Alexandre R Zlotta5, Srikala S Sridhar6, Girish S Kulkarni1. 1. Division of Urology, Departments of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2. Department of Anesthesia, Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada; 3. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; 5. Division of Urology, Departments of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada;; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 6. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada;
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While level 1 evidence supports the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), its uptake has been underwhelming, even in academic centres. Our aim was to determine if the initiation of a multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic (MDBCC) in 2008 at our institution, where patients are assessed simultaneously by bladder cancer-focused urologists and radiation oncologists with easy access to a medical oncologist, was associated with an increased use of NAC. METHODS: Patients with MIBC initiating treatment between July 2000 and June 2013 were identified and classified by academic year (July 1 to June 30). Time-series analyses using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models with ramp intervention functions were then conducted. A sensitivity analysis was performed on clinical N0 patients. RESULTS: The cohort included 278 patients: 168 from 2000-2007 and 110 from 2008-2012 (academic years). Forty-two (15.1%) patients received NAC and 74 (26.6%) received adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Overall the proportion of patients receiving NAC increased from 7.7% before the MDBCC to 47.6% in 2012 (Interventional ARIMA p=0.036). The results were similar when restricting to cN0 patients (p<0.001). NAC use gradually increased over time regardless of MDBCC attendance, although the proportion of patients receiving NAC appears to have risen more sharply among MDBCC attendees. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, the initiation of the MDBCC was temporally associated with increased use of NAC. In addition to multidisciplinary collaboration, having a critical mass of NAC physician advocates and support from institutional leaders are essential to the uptake of NAC.
INTRODUCTION: While level 1 evidence supports the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), its uptake has been underwhelming, even in academic centres. Our aim was to determine if the initiation of a multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic (MDBCC) in 2008 at our institution, where patients are assessed simultaneously by bladder cancer-focused urologists and radiation oncologists with easy access to a medical oncologist, was associated with an increased use of NAC. METHODS:Patients with MIBC initiating treatment between July 2000 and June 2013 were identified and classified by academic year (July 1 to June 30). Time-series analyses using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models with ramp intervention functions were then conducted. A sensitivity analysis was performed on clinical N0 patients. RESULTS: The cohort included 278 patients: 168 from 2000-2007 and 110 from 2008-2012 (academic years). Forty-two (15.1%) patients received NAC and 74 (26.6%) received adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Overall the proportion of patients receiving NAC increased from 7.7% before the MDBCC to 47.6% in 2012 (Interventional ARIMA p=0.036). The results were similar when restricting to cN0 patients (p<0.001). NAC use gradually increased over time regardless of MDBCC attendance, although the proportion of patients receiving NAC appears to have risen more sharply among MDBCC attendees. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, the initiation of the MDBCC was temporally associated with increased use of NAC. In addition to multidisciplinary collaboration, having a critical mass of NAC physician advocates and support from institutional leaders are essential to the uptake of NAC.
Authors: Atreya Dash; Matthew D Galsky; Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Serio; Theresa M Koppie; Guido Dalbagni; Bernard H Bochner Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bimal Bhindi; Muhammad Mamdani; Girish S Kulkarni; Antonio Finelli; Robert J Hamilton; John Trachtenberg; Alexandre R Zlotta; Andrew Evans; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Ants Toi; Neil E Fleshner Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Peter E Clark; Neeraj Agarwal; Matthew C Biagioli; Mario A Eisenberger; Richard E Greenberg; Harry W Herr; Brant A Inman; Deborah A Kuban; Timothy M Kuzel; Subodh M Lele; Jeff Michalski; Lance C Pagliaro; Sumanta K Pal; Anthony Patterson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Kamal S Pohar; Michael P Porter; Jerome P Richie; Wade J Sexton; William U Shipley; Eric J Small; Philippe E Spiess; Donald L Trump; Geoffrey Wile; Timothy G Wilson; Mary Dwyer; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: David N Juurlink; Muhammad M Mamdani; Douglas S Lee; Alexander Kopp; Peter C Austin; Andreas Laupacis; Donald A Redelmeier Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-08-05 Impact factor: 91.245
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: H Barton Grossman; Ronald B Natale; Catherine M Tangen; V O Speights; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ralph W deVere White; Michael F Sarosdy; David P Wood; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Girish S Kulkarni; Peter C Black; Srikala S Sridhar; Anil Kapoor; Alexandre R Zlotta; Bobby Shayegan; Ricardo A Rendon; Peter Chung; Theodorus van der Kwast; Nimira Alimohamed; Yves Fradet; Wassim Kassouf Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Lauren C Harshman; Abhishek Tripathi; Matthew Kaag; Jason A Efstathiou; Andrea B Apolo; Jean H Hoffman-Censits; Walter M Stadler; Evan Y Yu; Bernard H Bochner; Eila C Skinner; Tracy Downs; Anne E Kiltie; Dean F Bajorin; Khurshid Guru; William U Shipley; Gary D Steinberg; Noah M Hahn; Srikala S Sridhar Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Melanie Walker; R Christopher Doiron; Simon D French; Deb Feldman-Stewart; D Robert Siemens; William J Mackillop; Christopher M Booth Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Marian S Wettstein; Karen S Palmer; Girish S Kulkarni; J Michael Paterson; Vicki Ling; Lauren Lapointe-Shaw; Alvin H Li; Adalsteinn Brown; Monica Taljaard; Noah Ivers Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-08-02
Authors: Kelly R Pekala; Jonathan G Yabes; Jathin Bandari; Michelle Yu; Benjamin J Davies; Lindsay M Sabik; Jeremy M Kahn; Bruce L Jacobs Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 3.498