Tumor Board: Is There Value in Multidisciplinary Case Consideration?

Tags

digital health, evidence based medicine, health, innovation, oncology, participatory medicine, tumor board

By Gregg A. Masters, MPH

When the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer picked up the accreditation football and in the spirit of the then Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals ‘Joint Commission‘ began the promulgation of specific standards for the accreditation of aspiring ‘cancer programs’, at the center of this consideration was the multidisciplinary cancer conference also known as ‘tumor board.’

Via these standards there were both structural and certain process considerations to meet, but the underlying assumption or zeitgeist of the value proposition – better cancer care – was that ‘multidisciplinary’ engagement of cancer specialists in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients would produce superior outcomes.

Then in October of 2012 Keating et al published a study titled: ‘Tumor Boards and the Quality of Cancer Care’. While somewhat dated (interval 2001-2004), and not generally representative of community oncology practices per se (the sample was sourced in the Veteran’s Health System), the conclusions are none-the-less a compelling call to objectively demonstrate long held assumptions of the benefits of tumor board ‘collaboration’.

The background context for the study was noted as follows:

Despite the widespread use of tumor boards, few data on their effects on cancer care exist. We assessed whether the presence of a tumor board, either general or cancer specific, was associated with recommended cancer care, outcomes, or use in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system.

While Keating et al concluded as follows:

We observed little association of multidisciplinary tumor boards with measures of use, quality, or survival. This may reflect no effect or an effect that varies by structural and functional components and participants’ expertise.

Following publication a series of pieces appeared in the professional press with eye catching headlines such as:

‘Tumor Boards May Not Really Impact Cancer Care‘, and ‘Little association of multidisciplinary tumor boards with effects on cancer care‘, but the title that grabbed our attention was an opinion piece in response to the Keating study offered by Douglas W. Blayney, MD, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford School of Medicine, titled: ‘Tumor Boards (team Huddles) Aren’t Enough to Reach the Goal‘.

Blayney details his reasoning and observation while cautioning against the potential ‘knee jerk’ over reaction by some to the Keating conclusions and ‘market aftermath’ as follows:

Tumor boards have too long a history for them to be easily
abandoned. Much like the “hurry-up” offense changed the conduct of huddles in football, tumor boards should also adapt to the changing times and technology. In the system studied by Keating et al. (1), there are only huddles and no feedback loop. Their measurement work provides a reason to change tumor board conduct.

On ‘This Week in Oncology‘, May 22nd, 2013 at 2PM Pacific/5PM Eastern Dr. Blayney is our very special guest. We’ll dive deeper into his thought process, rationale and recommendations to tweak the tumor board formula via technology and other process adds, to perhaps better align this important multi-disciplinary experience with improved patient outcomes.

Advertisements

@IBMwatson and the Future of Oncology Care

Tags

cancer, digital health, FutureMed, genomics, health, IBM Watson, Marty Kohn MD, oncology, wellness

By Gregg A. Masters, MPH

Another of the highlights of FutureMed 2013 was the track on ‘the future of oncology’. In addition to the promise of favorably impacting both the early diagnosis and thus treatment outcomes for pancreatic cancer via the discovery of Jack Andraka, Ronald Levy, MD of Stanford wove a beautiful narrative of hope and promise that might best be represented by the following quote:

My dream is to get rid of chemotherapy and do it with the immune system..

Dr. Levy’s concluding slide outlined the visioned future for oncology:

Meanwhile one could not be but immensely inspired by the clinical decision support and powerful AI platform demonstration detailed by Marty Cohn, MD. Witness ‘IBM Watson Demo: Oncology Diagnosis and Treatment’ developed in conjunction with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center:

Biometric Monitoring Systems: A Role for Monitoring & Managing Cancer?

Tags

bimetric scoring systems, ces 2013, digital health, health, michaeal singer, Quantified Self, vitality analyzer, wellness

By Gregg A. Masters, MPH

There is considerable (and growing) attention focused on the emerging role of ‘quantified self’ tools to improve our overall health status, enhance access, improve outcomes while also lowering the total cost of health care. At the recently concluded CES 2013 Conference and Exposition a Forbes article posed the following question:

CES 2013: The Year of The Quantified Self?

If you’ve not heard of the ‘Quantified Self‘ movement you will. Their website is chock full of information and health apps for the curious and motivated. The recent blog post: Future Normal: Quantified Self Tools at the Apple Store hints at the new normal now in sight. Or as overheard several times on the Silicon Valley circuit for at least the last three years and oft credited to William Gibson:

The future is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed yet

So in this entrepreneurial frenzy and resultant sea of digital health apps all chasing the holy grail to define and manifest a healthier America, much attention has rightfully focused on the capture, reporting and sharing of meaningful biometric data to maintain health, improve health literacy, better inform doctor/patient communications and ultimately support improved health outcomes.

Against this background, now ponder the following xPrize-esque(?) question:

Imagine if you could have a conversation with your body on a cellular level. What if you asked your cells, how am I really doing? Am I healthy? Is my treatment working? Is there anything I could be doing better?

And consider the following reply:

‘The Vitality Analyzer, an FDA approved Class II over-the-counter medical device that electrically measures your health, is a simple tool that helps you answer those questions. Based on well established technology, the Vitality Analyzer measures your health collecting information about your body’s cells and then translates it to a numeric score; your Vitality Index a global health indicator.’

Sound interesting, if not a bit of an over the top claim to make? it did to me. So on the Wednesday, January 30th 2013 broadcast of ‘This Week in Oncology‘ we’ll chat with the inventor Michaeal Singer and dive deeper into the peer reviewed science supporting the ‘well established technology’ cited above.

To state the obvious, at least from the point of view of cancer patients wondering what is happening at the cellular level minimally in between those routine or non-routine follow-up visits to the oncologist, if this metric can reliability report on the underlying state of health or to the contrary tumor pathogenesis, this is the kind of ‘biomarker’ information most cancer patients would want to have.

One More Monitor

Tags

digital health, doctors, George Sledge MD, medicine, Oncology Times, Per Chance to Dream, Quantified Self, science of sleep

By Richard Just, MD

At about 3:30 PM, I sat down in my family room, raised my feet onto an ottoman, and conked out until 5:00 PM with a copy of a medical journal in my lap.  My wife nudged me on her way out to meet a friend for dinner. When I’m sleepy, my first reflex is to check my continuous glucose monitor (CGM) for a high blood sugar level.  Nope.  95 and steady.  As they say on the beer commercial:  “It don’t get any better than this.”  I also wear (as in attached to my body, not my clothing) an insulin pump and a heart monitor. Neither of those could offer help in this situation. So I turned to my newest monitoring system: LARK (Editors Note: see Wired’s ‘How Lark Went From Idea to Apple Store in One Year‘).  According to the accompanying app on my iPhone, my “time asleep needs work”, meaning I should be averaging 8 hours of sleep per night, but I’m only getting 6.  LARK suggested I go to sleep earlier and at the same time each night.

My wife and I often drive up to L.A. for the day, a 300 mile round trip.  Lately, especially on our return trips to Escondido, I’ve been almost nodding off at the wheel.  A lot more serious than falling asleep in my family room!!  On these occasions, my wife is not so gentle in rousing me.  In June, she’d had enough and marched me down to the local Apple store to purchase a specialty device called LARK.  Because she is hearing impaired and doesn’t pick up many audible wake-up alarms, Dee Dee bought LARK primarily for the wristband which pulsates at a scheduled time.  While I also use this new silent alarm system, I am more interested in the objective data the accompanying app provides about my sleep patterns. Using this data, I’m alerted to possible corrective actions I can take to improve performance throughout the day.  I can also share this data wirelessly via Facebook or Twitter.

Coincidentally, in June, when I bought the device, Dr. George Sledge authored an article on sleep (“Perchance to Dream”, Oncology Times, June 25, 2012, pg 28), and a second article entitled “Decoding the Science of Sleep” appeared in the Wall Street Journal, August 4-5, 2012, pp 1-2.  Both document how common sleep disorders are. To illustrate, the annual number of prescriptions written for sleeping meds last year was about 60 million.  And studies have demonstrated that these pills don’t work.  Unfortunately, they can impair short-term memory so that people believe they slept better than they actually did.  So poor sleep habits “can also be a data problem” in that the medicated individual can’t really remember how well or poorly they slept.  Devices like LARK can collect this information for us, and supply analysis for possible solutions.

Before you can designate something as abnormal, it has to deviate from what is considered normal. A. Roger Ekirch, a Virginia Tech history professor, spent 20 years researching sleep and provides the seminal work defining “normal sleep”.  He found that, until about 200 years ago, our normal sleep pattern was divided into 2 phases:  the “first sleep” started just after sunset and lasted until just after midnight, when the person would wake up for about an hour, then fall back into the “second sleep” ending with the rising sun.  The time between the two episodes of sleep was spent reading, praying, contemplating dreams or having sex.  This normal sleep pattern was totally altered by Thomas Edison and the electric light.  The result is that about 20% of our general population has some type of sleep disorder.  We’ve become a “wired and tired” society.

Dr. Sledge estimates that 45% of cancer patients have insomnia.  Some are afraid to fall asleep as they might not wake up (“somniphobia”).  Sleep disorders tend to be intertwined with other problems, especially fatigue, depression, and pain, “making it hard to tease out cause and effect.”  For example, I saw a patient today with multiple myeloma who said his main complaint was fatigue.  On further questioning, he was taking longer naps during the day because he didn’t sleep well at night, sometimes taking an Ambien.  When this didn’t help, his primary care physician tried Lunesta, which didn’t work at all.  Turns out he wasn’t sleeping because his Velcade-induced neuropathy only bothered him at night.  Fortunately, this patient has a good memory and an attentive wife, who happens to be a nurse.  So we were able to figure out the problem without a device like LARK. But most situations are not this straight-forward, and data-driven solutions can be quite beneficial.