Making the Evidentiary Case for Universal Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncologic Care

The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the state of the evidence for, and challenges to, sustainable implementation of multidisciplinary thoracic oncology programs. Multidisciplinary care is much advocated by professional groups and makers of clinical guidelines, but little practiced. The gap between universal recommendation and scant evidence of practice suggests the existence of major barriers to program implementation. We examine 2 articles published in this issue of Clinical Lung Cancer to illustrate problems with the evidence base for multidisciplinary care. The inherent complexity of care delivery for the lung cancer patient drives near-universal advocacy for multidisciplinary care as a means of overcoming the heterogeneous quality and outcomes of patient care. However, the evidence to support this model of care delivery is poor. Challenges include the absence of a clear definition of "multidisciplinary care" in the literature, a consequent hodge-podge of poorly-defined examples of tested models, methodologically flawed studies, exemplified by the near-total absence of prospective studies examining this model of care delivery, and absence of scientifically sound dissemination and implementation studies, as well as cost-effectiveness studies. Against this background, we examined the results of a recent large single-institutional retrospective study suggesting the survival benefit of care within a colocated multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic, and an ambitious systematic review of existing literature on multidisciplinary cancer clinics. Better-quality evidence is still needed to establish the value of the multidisciplinary care concept. Such studies need to be prospective, use standardized definitions of multidisciplinary care, and provide clear information about program structure.