Author of

• 15301

  +

  P3.02 - Poster Session/ Treatment of Localized Disease – NSCLC (ID 211)

  • Event: WCLC 2015
  • Type: Poster
  • Track: Treatment of Localized Disease - NSCLC
  • Presentations: 1
  • Moderators:
  • Coordinates: 9/09/2015, 09:30 - 17:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B+C)

  • 15316

    +

    P3.02-015 - Impact of a Lung Multidisciplinary Team Meeting (ID 2340)

    09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): P. Balakrishnan
    • Abstract

    Background:
    Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDM) have become the standard of practice across a variety of medical disciplines. In particular, MDMs have found utility in the management of complex diseases requiring multi-modal treatment such as cancer. Advancements in information sharing technology have extended the reach of MDMs to improve care in previously remote and underserved areas. Lung cancer management is now largely directed through MDMs. However, MDMs are, by their very nature, resource intensive. In a world of increasing accountability for the distribution of limited resources, a review of the evidence for benefit of MDMs, as well as the different strategies employed in running a successful MDM, is necessary to ensure efficient provision of this care.
    
    Methods:
    A review of the existing peer-reviewed literature on MDM was conducted on Pubmed, using the broad search term of “multidisciplinary team meeting.” Existing reviews and original research were included, while non-English studies and letters were excluded.
    
    Results:
    Introduction of MDMs have been attributed to a variety of positive outcomes in the management of multiple oncological diseases. While there are a handful of studies questioning the cost-benefit of MDM without adequate patient selection in colorectal cancers, the evidence for improving management in most cancers (including lung cancer) is strong. An additional benefit is the increased reach of clinical trials, with MDMs being demonstrated to improve subscription rates. However, while lung MDMs have been demonstrated to make significant improvements to the overall care of a lung cancer patient, the evidence for improved survival remains limited. The limited impact of lung MDM to overall survival may be at least partially attributable to the late-presenting nature of the disease. This may be exacerbated by geographical limitations of some healthcare networks. However, with improvements in health informatics and telemedicine, standardising early care across a vast region has been shown to be possible and improve outcomes in other cancers.
    
    Conclusion:
    While it is clear that disease management is improved with the introduction of lung MDM, further study is needed to optimise its efficacy and define its impact on survival.