Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately one in five cancer-related deaths, and management requires increasingly complex decision making by health care professionals. Many... Show moreNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately one in five cancer-related deaths, and management requires increasingly complex decision making by health care professionals. Many centers have therefore adopted a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, using the expertise of various specialists to provide the best evidence-based, personalized treatment. However, increasingly complex disease staging, as well as expanded biomarker testing and multimodality management algorithms with novel therapeutics, have driven the need for multifaceted, collaborative decision making to optimally guide the overall treatment process. To keep up with the rapidly evolving treatment landscape, national-level guidelines have been introduced to standardize patient pathways and ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment. Such strategies depend on efficient and effective communication between relevant multidisciplinary team members and have both improved adherence to treatment guidelines and extended patient survival. This article highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and staging, treatment decision making, and adverse event management in NSCLC.Implications for Practice This review highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to the diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and makes practical suggestions as to how multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be best deployed at individual stages of the disease to improve patient outcomes and effectively manage common adverse events. The authors discuss how a collaborative approach, appropriately leveraging the diverse expertise of NSCLC MDT members (including specialist radiation and medical oncologists, chest physicians, pathologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, and nursing staff) can continue to ensure optimal per-patient decision making as treatment options become ever more specialized in the era of biomarker-driven therapeutic strategies. Show less
Introduction: Improved outcome has been shown in patients with synchronous oligometastatic (sOM) NSCLC when treated with radical intent. As a uniform definition of sOM NSCLC is lacking, we... Show moreIntroduction: Improved outcome has been shown in patients with synchronous oligometastatic (sOM) NSCLC when treated with radical intent. As a uniform definition of sOM NSCLC is lacking, we developed a definition and diagnostic criteria by a consensus process.Methods: A pan-European multidisciplinary consensus group was established. Consensus questions were built on the basis of current controversies, and definitions were extracted from a survey, cases and a systematic review. This statement was formulated during a consensus meeting.Results: It was determined that definition of sOM NSCLC is relevant when a radical treatment that may modify the disease course (leading to long-term disease control) is technically feasible for all tumor sites with acceptable toxicity. On the basis of the review, a maximum of five metastases and three organs was proposed. Mediastinal lymph node involvement was not counted as a metastatic site. Fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography-computed tomography and brain imaging were considered mandatory. A dedicated liver magnetic resonance imaging scan was advised for a solitary liver metastasis, and thoracoscopy and biopsies of distant ipsilateral pleural sites were recommended for a solitary pleural metastasis. For mediastinal staging, fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography-computed tomography was deemed the minimum requirement, with pathological confirmation recommended if this influences the treatment strategy. Biopsy of a solitary metastatic location was mandated unless the multidisciplinary team is of the opinion that the risks outweigh the benefits.Conclusion: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on the definition and staging of sOM NSCLC has been formulated. This statement will help to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials. (C) 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Show less
Purpose A comprehensive quality management system called JACIE (Joint Accreditation Committee International Society for Cellular Therapy and the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation)... Show morePurpose A comprehensive quality management system called JACIE (Joint Accreditation Committee International Society for Cellular Therapy and the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation), was introduced to improve quality of care in hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). We therefore tested the hypothesis that the introduction of JACIE improved patient survival. Patients and Methods Data on 41,623 allogeneic (39%) and 66,281 autologous (61%) HSCTs for an acquired hematologic disorder performed between 1999 and 2007 by 421 teams in Europe were used to assess the outcomes of patients who received a transplantation at baseline (> 3 years before application or no application), during preparation (3 years before application), during application (time from application to accreditation), and after JACIE accreditation. The analysis was clustered by team and stratified for year of HSCT, donor type, disease, conditioning, and gross national income per capita of the respective country. Patient's risks were adjusted for by their European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation score. Results Patient outcome was systematically better when the transplantation center was at a more advanced phase of JACIE accreditation, independent of year of transplantation and other risk factors. Improvement was robust as quantified for relapse-free survival after allogeneic HSCT compared with baseline by a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.03; P = .22) for preparation, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.03; P = .20) for application, and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.95; P = .01) for the accreditation (test for trend P = .01). Improvement from baseline was similar after autologous HSCT (HR for accreditation, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.93; P < .01). Conclusion Even with all the limitations of an observational study, these findings support the hypothesis that introduction of a comprehensive clinical quality management system is associated with improved outcome of patients after HSCT. J Clin Oncol 29:1980-1986. (C) 2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology Show less
