Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 968–975 | Cite as

Multidisciplinary Approach to HCC Management: How Can This Be Done?

  • Melissa M. Gadsden
  • David E. KaplanEmail author
Review
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

Multidisciplinary tumor boards have evolved to address the increasing complexity of cancer care management. Given that hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often arises in the setting of underlying cirrhosis, expert input from hepatologists alongside hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, radiation oncologists, interventional and body radiologists, and medical oncologists has become increasingly important in order to offer patients appropriate cancer treatments. The MDLTB structure has evolved since the early 2000s to bring these specialists together at regularly scheduled meetings to develop a therapeutic treatment plan for HCC management. MDLTBs have reduced the time to treatment and improved patient satisfaction. Standardized documentation with common data elements has been recommended to ensure adequate communication from MDLTB to referring healthcare providers. Retrospective studies consistently highlight the frequency of changes in treatment plans after MDLTB review to better adhere to guideline recommended care. Despite several decades of MDLTBs implementation, few studies describe clinical outcomes associated with MDLTBs such as patient survival and cost benefits. More research is needed in this area to further justify the heavy use of resources that are needed to maintain MDLTBs. Development and use of a centralized database to store such information may assist with future studies of clinical outcomes and inform quality improvement projects.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma Liver cell carcinoma Tumor board Multidisciplinary Liver cancer Management 

Abbreviations

MTB

Multidisciplinary tumor board

MDLTB

Multidisciplinary liver tumor board

HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1374–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guy J, Kelley RK, Roberts J, Kerlan R, Yao F, Terrault N. Multidisciplinary management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, et al. Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ. 2010;340:c951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pillay B, Wootten AC, Crowe H, et al. The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;42:56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El Saghir NS, Keating NL, Carlson RW, Khoury KE, Fallowfield L. Tumor boards: optimizing the structure and improving efficiency of multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer worldwide. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2014;34:e461–e466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Newman EA, Guest AB, Helvie MA, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer. 2006;107:2346–2351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kesson EM, Allardice GM, George WD, Burns HJ, Morrison DS. Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13,722 women. BMJ. 2012;344:e2718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H, et al. The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer. 2001;91:1231–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garcia D, Spruill LS, Irshad A, Wood J, Kepecs D, Klauber-DeMore N. The value of a second opinion for breast cancer patients referred to a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center with a multidisciplinary breast tumor board. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2953–2957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scarberry K, Ponsky L, Cherullo E, et al. Evaluating the impact of the genitourinary multidisciplinary tumour board: should every cancer patient be discussed as standard of care? Can Urol Assoc J. 2018;12:e403–e408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wheless SA, McKinney KA, Zanation AM. A prospective study of the clinical impact of a multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143:650–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greer HO, Frederick PJ, Falls NM, et al. Impact of a weekly multidisciplinary tumor board conference on the management of women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:1321–1325.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurpad R, Kim W, Rathmell WK, et al. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of urologic malignancies: does it influence diagnostic and treatment decisions? Urol Oncol. 2011;29:378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Hagen P, Spaander MC, van der Gaast A, et al. Impact of a multidisciplinary tumour board meeting for upper-GI malignancies on clinical decision making: a prospective cohort study. Int J Clin Oncol/Jpn Soc Clin Oncol. 2013;18:214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Snelgrove RC, Subendran J, Jhaveri K, et al. Effect of multidisciplinary cancer conference on treatment plan for patients with primary rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:653–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oxenberg J, Papenfuss W, Esemuede I, et al. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences for gastrointestinal malignancies result in measureable treatment changes: a prospective study of 149 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1533–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmidt HM, Roberts JM, Bodnar AM, et al. Thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board routinely impacts therapeutic plans in patients with lung and esophageal cancer: a prospective cohort study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:1719–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thenappan A, Halaweish I, Mody RJ, et al. Review at a multidisciplinary tumor board impacts critical management decisions of pediatric patients with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64:254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee B, Kim K, Choi JY, et al. Efficacy of the multidisciplinary tumor board conference in gynecologic oncology: a prospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e8089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blay JY, Soibinet P, Penel N, et al. Improved survival using specialized multidisciplinary board in sarcoma patients. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:2852–2859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    El Saghir NS, Charara RN, Kreidieh FY, et al. Global practice and efficiency of multidisciplinary tumor boards: results of an American Society of Clinical Oncology international survey. J Glob Oncol. 2015;1:57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Soares KC, Cosgrove DC, Herman JM, Pawlik TM. Multidisciplinary clinic in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1059–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Cleave J, Devine P, Odom-Ball P. Multidisciplinary care of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Pract. 1999;7:302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sharma P, Balan V, Hernandez JL, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: the MELD impact. Liver Transpl. 2004;10:36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cohen GS, Black M. Multidisciplinary management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a model for therapy. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013;6:189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yao FY, Kinkhabwala M, LaBerge JM, et al. The impact of pre-operative loco-regional therapy on outcome after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Transpl. 2005;5:795–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lau K, Salami A, Barden G, et al. The effect of a regional hepatopancreaticobiliary surgical program on clinical volume, quality of cancer care, and outcomes in the Veterans Affairs system. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:1153–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:378–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park HC, Seong J, Tanaka M, et al. Multidisciplinary management of nonresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncology. 2011;81:134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dixon E, Abdalla E, Schwarz RE, Vauthey JN. AHPBA/SSO/SSAT sponsored consensus conference on multidisciplinary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12:287–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS, et al. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2018;67:358–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, et al. Diagnosis, staging, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;68:723–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chang TT, Sawhney R, Monto A, et al. Implementation of a multidisciplinary treatment team for hepatocellular cancer at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center improves survival. HPB (Oxford). 2008;10:405–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yopp AC, Mansour JC, Beg MS, et al. Establishment of a multidisciplinary hepatocellular carcinoma clinic is associated with improved clinical outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1287–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Serper M, Taddei TH, Mehta R, et al. Association of provider specialty and multi-disciplinary care with hepatocellular carcinoma treatment and mortality. Gastroenterology. 2017;152:1954–1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaplan DE, Chapko MK, Mehta R, et al. Healthcare costs related to treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma among veterans with cirrhosis in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Salami AC, Barden GM, Castillo DL, et al. Establishment of a regional virtual tumor board program to improve the process of care for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11:e66–e74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Englesbe MJ, Kubus J, Muhammad W, et al. Portal vein thrombosis and survival in patients with cirrhosis. Liver Transpl. 2010;16:83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gashin L, Tapper E, Babalola A, et al. Determinants and outcomes of adherence to recommendations from a multidisciplinary tumour conference for hepatocellular carcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16:1009–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Charriere B, Muscari F, Maulat C, et al. Outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are determined in multidisciplinary team meetings. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:330–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barone C, Koeberle D, Metselaar H, Parisi G, Sansonno D, Spinzi G. Multidisciplinary approach for HCC patients: hepatology for the oncologists. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:ii15–ii23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Naugler WE, Alsina AE, Frenette CT, Rossaro L, Sellers MT. Building the multidisciplinary team for management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:827–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Llovet JM, Bru C, Bruix J. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification. Semin Liver Dis. 1999;19:329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30:52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mazzaferro V, Majno P. Principles for the best multidisciplinary meetings. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:323–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Naugler WE, Schwartz JM. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Dis Mon. 2008;54:432–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Soleimani A, Berntsen A, Svane IM, Pedersen AE. Immune responses in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with dendritic cells pulsed with tumor lysate. Scand J Immunol. 2009;70:481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Burak KW, Kneteman NM. An evidence-based multidisciplinary approach to the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): the Alberta HCC algorithm. Can J Gastroenterol. 2010;24:643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Aytaman Aea. VA Collaborative Consensus on a Pathway for the Development of a Multidisciplinary Team to Manage Hepatocellular Carcinoma. 2017; https://www.hepatitis.va.gov/pdf/HCC-multidisciplinary-management-best-practices.pdf.
  51. 51.
    Somashekhar SP, Sepulveda MJ, Puglielli S, et al. Watson for Oncology and breast cancer treatment recommendations: agreement with an expert multidisciplinary tumor board. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:418–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    McGowan ML, Ponsaran RS, Silverman P, Harris LN, Marshall PA. A rising tide lifts all boats”: establishing a multidisciplinary genomic tumor board for breast cancer patients with advanced disease. BMC Med Geno. 2016;9:71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rolfo C, Manca P, Salgado R, et al. Multidisciplinary molecular tumour board: a tool to improve clinical practice and selection accrual for clinical trials in patients with cancer. ESMO Open. 2018;3:e000398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Egert E, Johnson R, Watts M, et al. A regional multidisciplinary liver tumor board improves access to hepatocellular carcinoma treatment for patients geographically distant from tertiary medical center. Abstract #521 Hepatology. 2015;62:469A.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Perelman School of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Gastroenterology SectionCorporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical CenterPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations