Gilbert Schreiber

Impact of a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology clinic on the timeliness of care.

Background: Multidisciplinary clinics have been recommended for the evaluation of patients with lung cancer. Evidence to support this recommendation, however, is limited. A single-center, retrospective review of lung cancer patients at a Veterans Affairs hospital was performed comparing timeliness of diagnostic and treatment decisions during the operation of a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology clinic (MTOC) with a period after it closed (non-MTOC), during which only a weekly multidisciplinary conference was held. Methods: Patients were identified from a tumor registry. Manual chart reviews were performed on all patients. Outcome measures included time from initial presentation to diagnosis (TTD) and time from diagnosis to treatment initiation (TTT). Results: Three hundred forty-five patients (244 in MTOC, 101 in non-MTOC) diagnosed with lung cancer between 1999 and 2003 were included in the study. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Median TTD was 48 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 37–61) and 47 days (95% CI: 39–55) in the MTOC (n = 164) and non-MTOC cohorts (n = 89), respectively (p = 0.09). Median TTT was 22 days (95% CI: 20–27) and 23 days (95% CI: 20–34) in the MTOC (n = 165) and non-MTOC cohorts (n = 89), respectively (p = 0.71). There was no difference in overall survival. Conclusion: Retrospective comparison of sequential cohorts failed to reveal benefit in the timeliness of care measures during the time period of MTOC operation. Potential confounders include the absence of a surgeon in the MTOC setting, an ongoing weekly multidisciplinary conference in the non-MTOC cohort, and existing infrastructures based on previous MTOC experiences and past provider experience. Confirmation of these findings in other health care settings is warranted, preferably in a prospective fashion.

Abnormalities on cardiopulmonary exercise test in a dyspneic patient: A case report of unsuspected pulmonary embolism

The cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) is frequently used for the quantitative evaluation of exercise tolerance and for the qualitative assessment of the origin of dyspnea. Although reasonably safe, CPET is contraindicated in acute clinical situations and relatively contraindicated in severe pulmonary hypertension. Pulmonary emboli are usually present during the acute onset of pulmonary hypertension; however, in situations where pulmonary vascular disease is more unsuspected, CPET may help with the diagnosis. We present a report of a 47-year-old Caucasian female with a 2-month history of exertional dyspnea. She had a normal pulmonary function test, arterial blood gas analysis and CT scan of the chest. On CPET she was found to have a higher than normal physiological dead space to tidal volume ratio, increased ventilatory equivalent for the elimination of CO2 (VE/VCO2), persistently positive arterial-end-tidal PCO2 difference at peak exercise, and a low anaerobic threshold suggestive of pulmonary vascular disease. She was subsequently diagnosed with pulmonary embolic disease by her ventilation/perfusion scan and pulmonary arteriogram. This report highlights the importance of recognizing the hallmarks of unsuspected pulmonary vascular disease on CPET.