Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative care (PC) is often misunderstood as exclusively pertaining to end-of-life care, which may be consequential for its delivery. There is little research on how PC is operationalized and delivered to cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials. Objective: We sought to understand the diverse perspectives of multidisciplinary oncology care providers caring for such patients in a teaching hospital. Methods: We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with 19 key informants, including clinical trial principal investigators, oncology fellows, research nurses, inpatient and outpatient nurses, spiritual care providers, and PC fellows. Questions elicited information about the meaning providers assigned to the term “palliative care,” as well as their experiences with the delivery of PC in the clinical trial context. Using grounded theory, a team-based coding method was employed to identify major themes. Results: Four main themes emerged regarding the meaning of PC: (1) the holistic nature of PC, (2) the importance of symptom care, (3) conflict between PC and curative care, and (4) conflation between PC and end-of-life care. Three key themes emerged with regard to the delivery of PC: (1) dynamics among providers, (2) discussing PC with patients and family, and (3) the timing of PC delivery.Conclusion: There was great variability in personal meanings of PC, conflation with hospice/end-of-life care, and appropriateness of PC delivery and timing, particularly within cancer clinical trials. A standard and acceptable model for integrating PC concurrently with treatment in clinical trials is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was -0.20 (-0.20) for 1-week recall, -0.36 (-0.31) for 2-week recall, -0.45 (-0.39) for 3-week recall, and -0.47 (-0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54-0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58-0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61-0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64-0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]