Understanding practices and gaps in multidisciplinary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) care within the community oncology setting.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 390-390
Author(s):  
Lorna Lucas ◽  
Philip Agop Philip ◽  
Marianne Gandee ◽  
Amanda Kramar
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Community Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Delayed Diagnosis ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Psychosocial Services

390 Background: HCC incidence continues to rise and presents a myriad of complex challenges involving multi disciplines to screen, diagnose, and provide personalized therapy. Recent advances in diagnostics and therapies necessitate a well-coordinated multidisciplinary approach in managing HCC patients, signaling a need to understand care within community care. The study aimed to understand how multidisciplinary cancer programs were structured to manage HCC care and to identify challenges and practices for management of HCC, a cancer less commonly seen in community care settings. Methods: The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a survey to identify factors associated with delivery and coordination of care for HCC patients. The survey deployed electronically in July 2018 to multidisciplinary providers, representing 17 oncology professions. Of responses (n = 31), 69% identified their care setting as a “non-teaching community hospital, freestanding cancer center, private practice or other.” Results: 61% of respondents indicated their cancer programs do not have specialized hepatobiliary multidisciplinary team. Among those who have hepatobiliary multidisciplinary teams the composition and degree of specialization varied. 85% of respondents that do not have a specialized hepatobiliary team indicated that HCC patients are managed in consultation with a general tumor board. 52% indicated their program discussed participation in clinical trials with all HCC patients, and 55% of cancer programs conducted HCC clinical trials. 52% indicated their program had a formal pathway that outlines adherence to the NCCN guidelines for HCC management, 5% were in the process of developing and 43% were not in the process of developing such a pathway. Of respondents that reported barriers their program faces (n = 13) 31% indicated lack of psychosocial services, lack of screening and no/limited access to clinical trials. 23% responded delayed treatment and 15% responded delayed diagnosis as challenges. Conclusions: Review of multidisciplinary care delivery for HCC patients revealed unique protocols and challenges within primarily community-based settings.

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic diseases.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 319-319
Author(s):  
David G. Brauer ◽  
Matthew S. Strand ◽  
Dominic E. Sanford ◽  
Maria Majella Doyle ◽  
Faris Murad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Common Diagnosis ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Cancer Network ◽  
The Impact

319 Background: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MTBs) are a requirement for comprehensive cancer centers and are routinely used to coordinate multidisciplinary care in oncology. Despite their widespread use, the impact of MTBs is not well characterized. We studied the outcomes of all patients presented at our pancreas MTB, with the goal of evaluating our current practices and resource utilization. Methods: Data were prospectively collected for all patients presented at a weekly pancreas-specific MTB over the 12-month period at a single-institution NCI-designated cancer center. The conference is attended by surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists, interventional gastroenterologists, pathologists, and radiologists (diagnostic and interventional). Retrospective chart review was performed at the end of the 12-month period under an IRB-approved protocol. Results: A total of 470 patient presentations were made over a 12-month period. Average age at time of presentation was 61.5 years (range 17 – 89) with 51% males. 61.7% of cases were presented by surgical oncologists and 26% by medical oncologists. 174 cases were the result of new diagnoses or referrals. 78 patients were presented more than once (average of 2.3 times). Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common diagnosis (37%), followed by uncharacterized pancreatic mass (16%), and pancreatic cyst (7%). The treatment plan proposed by the presenting clinician was known or could be evaluated prior to conference in 402 cases. Presentation of a case at MTB changed the plan of management 25% (n = 100) of the time, including MTB recommendation against a planned resection in 46 cases. When the initial plan changed as a result of MTB discussion, the most common new plan was to obtain further diagnostic testing such as biopsy and/or endoscopy (n = 24). Conclusions: MTBs are required and resource-intensive but offer the opportunity to discuss a wide array of pathologies and influence management decisions in a sizable proportion of cases. Additional investigations evaluating adherence rates to MTB decisions and to published guidelines (i.e. National Comprehensive Cancer Network) will further enhance the assessment and utility of MTBs.

scholarly journals Individualized Molecular Profiling for Allocation to Clinical Trials Singapore Study—An Asian Tertiary Cancer Center Experience

2021 ◽  
pp. 859-875
Author(s):  
Amanda O. L. Seet ◽  
Aaron C. Tan ◽  
Tira J. Tan ◽  
Matthew C. H. Ng ◽  
David W. M. Tai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tumor Tissue ◽  
Molecular Profiling ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board ◽  
Tumor Types ◽  
Tertiary Cancer Center

PURPOSE Precision oncology has transformed the management of advanced cancers through implementation of advanced molecular profiling technologies to identify increasingly defined subsets of patients and match them to appropriate therapy. We report outcomes of a prospective molecular profiling study in a high-volume Asian tertiary cancer center. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced cancer were enrolled onto a prospective protocol for genomic profiling, the Individualized Molecular Profiling for Allocation to Clinical Trials Singapore study, at the National Cancer Center Singapore. Primary objective was to identify molecular biomarkers in patient's tumors for allocation to clinical trials. The study commenced in February 2012 and is ongoing, with the results of all patients who underwent multiplex next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing until December 2018 presented here. The results were discussed at a molecular tumor board where recommendations for allocation to biomarker-directed trials or targeted therapies were made. RESULTS One thousand fifteen patients were enrolled with a median age of 58 years (range 20-83 years). Most common tumor types were lung adenocarcinoma (26%), colorectal cancer (15%), and breast cancer (12%). A total of 1,064 NGS assays were performed, on fresh tumor tissue for 369 (35%) and archival tumor tissue for 687 (65%) assays. TP53 (39%) alterations were most common, followed by EGFR (21%), KRAS (14%), and PIK3CA (10%). Of 405 NGS assays with potentially actionable alterations, 111 (27%) were allocated to a clinical trial after molecular tumor board and 20 (4.9%) were enrolled on a molecularly matched clinical trial. Gene fusions were detected in 23 of 311 (7%) patients tested, including rare fusions in new tumor types and known fusions in rare tumors. CONCLUSION Individualized Molecular Profiling for Allocation to Clinical Trials Singapore demonstrates the feasibility of a prospective broad molecular profiling program in an Asian tertiary cancer center, with the ability to develop and adapt to a dynamic landscape of precision oncology.

scholarly journals Enhancing Cancer care of rural dwellers through telehealth and engagement (ENCORE): protocol to evaluate effectiveness of a multi-level telehealth-based intervention to improve rural cancer care delivery

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuya Pal ◽  
Pamela C. Hull ◽  
Tatsuki Koyama ◽  
Phillip Lammers ◽  
Denise Martinez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board ◽  
Facilitators And Barriers

Abstract Background Despite lower cancer incidence rates, cancer mortality is higher among rural compared to urban dwellers. Patient, provider, and institutional level factors contribute to these disparities. The overarching objective of this study is to leverage the multidisciplinary, multispecialty oncology team from an academic cancer center in order to provide comprehensive cancer care at both the patient and provider levels in rural healthcare centers. Our specific aims are to: 1) evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a multi-level telehealth-based intervention consisting of provider access to molecular tumor board expertise along with patient access to a supportive care intervention to improve cancer care delivery; and 2) identify the facilitators and barriers to future larger scale dissemination and implementation of the multi-level intervention. Methods Coordinated by a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, this study will include providers and patients across several clinics in two large healthcare systems serving rural communities. Using a telehealth-based molecular tumor board, sequencing results are reviewed, predictive and prognostic markers are discussed, and treatment plans are formulated between expert oncologists and rural providers. Simultaneously, the rural patients will be randomized to receive an evidence-based 6-week self-management supportive care program, Cancer Thriving and Surviving, versus an education attention control. Primary outcomes will be provider uptake of the molecular tumor board recommendation and patient treatment adherence. A mixed methods approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research that combines qualitative key informant interviews and quantitative surveys will be collected from both the patient and provider in order to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing the multi-level intervention. Discussion The proposed study will leverage information technology-enabled, team-based care delivery models in order to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and high-quality cancer care to rural and/or underserved populations. Simultaneous attention to institutional, provider, and patient level barriers to quality care will afford the opportunity for us to broadly share oncology expertise and develop dissemination and implementation strategies that will enhance the cancer care delivered to patients residing within underserved rural communities. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04758338. Registered 17 February 2021 – Retrospectively registered, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/

Improving care for patients with stage III/IV NSCLC: Learnings for multidisciplinary teams from the ACCC National Quality Survey.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 228-228
Author(s):  
Ravi Salgia ◽  
Leigh Boehmer ◽  
Catherine Celestin ◽  
Judy Yu ◽  
David R. Spigel
Keyword(s):  
Care Delivery ◽  
Significant Negative Correlation ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
National Quality

228 Background: Refinement of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach continues to offer significant potential for improving the quality of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) care and adherence to guideline-recommended protocols. This opportunity arises, in part, from insufficient characterization of MDT practice patterns and barriers to optimal care provision within U.S. cancer programs. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC), therefore, conducted a national survey to improve understanding on how patients with stage III/IV NSCLC were diagnosed and managed across different practice settings, with the aim of informing the design and execution of process-improvement plans to address identified barriers. Methods: ACCC convened an expert steering committee of multidisciplinary specialists, including oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, pulmonologists, and representation from patient advocacy, for a comprehensive, double-blind, web-based survey (January–April 2019) to obtain insights on cancer care delivery for patients with NSCLC in a diverse set of U.S. community cancer programs. Results: Of 1211 questionnaires, 639 responses affiliated to 160 unique cancer programs across 44 U.S. states were suitable for analysis. In total, 41% (n = 261) of respondents indicated that their cancer program did not have a thoracic multidisciplinary clinic. Nurse navigators (P = 0.03) and radiation oncologists (P = 0.04) were significantly more likely to engage in shared decision-making practices than other disciplines. The average time to first therapeutic intervention in newly diagnosed patients was 4 weeks (range = 1–10 weeks; n = 298). A significant negative correlation between frequency of tumor board meetings and time to complete disease staging (P = 0.03) was observed. The most challenging barriers to delivering high-quality NSCLC care are listed (Table). Conclusions: Multiple opportunities exist to improve the delivery and quality of care for patients with stage III/IV NSCLC, including reducing barriers to effective care coordination and patient education, screening, diagnosis and biomarker testing, and adherence to evolving standards of care. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Implementation and Outcomes of a Molecular Tumor Board at Herbert-Herman Cancer Center, Sparrow Hospital

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
Harsha Trivedi ◽  
Devansh Acharya ◽  
Ushasree Chamarthy ◽  
Joseph Meunier ◽  
Hussein Ali-Ahmad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Physician Education ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Molecular Pathways ◽  
Clinical Team ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Targeted Agent ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

<p><strong>Objective. </strong>This paper describes our experience and outcomes from 54 cases presented to the (Molecular tumor board) MTB.</p><p><strong>Methods. </strong>54 Cases presented between July 2017 and April 2018 were included in this analysis. These patients had different types of cancers that had either failed standard therapy or were expected to fail and physicians were looking for future options for anticipated progression. Patients who had obvious mutations and were candidates for Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry or Molecular Analysis for Treatment Choice clinical trials were not included. Oncologists presented the cases virtually and Foundation Medicine scientific and clinical team discussed the molecular pathways to find targeted options or trials. Tumor board attendees included oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, mid-level providers, residents and staff of the Cancer Center.</p><p><strong>Results. </strong>Amongst the 54 cases presented 81% had one or more potentially actionable alteration. 12 (22%) patients received genomically matched therapy as per MTB recommendations. Additional 13 (24%) patients have options available when they progress. Out of 12 patients who got treatment six are alive at the time of this analysis<strong>. </strong>Genomically matched therapy or Clinical Trials option were offered to the 46% of patients based on the MTB discussion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion. </strong>More widespread use of molecular diagnostics, better physician education and multidisciplinary collaboration between the staff involved in diagnosis and treatment, as well as third party payers are necessary for consensus on treatment and care of oncology patients.</p>

Prescreening to Increase Therapeutic Oncology Trial Enrollment at the Largest Public Hospital in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Wu ◽  
Amin Yakubov ◽  
Maher Abdul-Hay ◽  
Erica Love ◽  
Gianna Kroening ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Health Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Therapeutic Trial ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Number Of Patients

PURPOSE: The recruitment of underserved patients into therapeutic oncology trials is imperative. The National Institutes of Health mandates the inclusion of minorities in clinical research, although their participation remains under-represented. Institutions have used data mining to match patients to clinical trials. In a public health care system, such expensive tools are unavailable. METHODS: The NYU Clinical Trials Office implemented a quality improvement program at Bellevue Hospital Cancer Center to increase therapeutic trial enrollment. Patients are screened through the electronic medical record, tumor board conferences, and the cancer registry. Our analysis evaluated two variables: number of patients identified and those enrolled into clinical trials. RESULTS: Two years before the program, there were 31 patients enrolled. For a period of 24 months (July 2017 to July 2019), we identified 255 patients, of whom 143 (56.1%) were enrolled. Of those enrolled, 121 (84.6%) received treatment, and 22 (15%) were screen failures. Fifty-five (38.5%) were referred to NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center for therapy. Of the total enrollees, 64% were female, 56% were non-White, and overall median age was 55 years (range: 33-88 years). Our participants spoke 16 different languages, and 57% were non–English-speaking. We enrolled patients into eight different disease categories, with 38% recruited to breast cancer trials. Eighty-three percent of our patients reside in low-income areas, with 62% in both low-income and Health Professional Shortage Areas. CONCLUSION: Prescreening at Bellevue has led to a 4.6-fold increase in patient enrollment to clinical trials. Future research into using prescreening programs at public institutions may improve access to clinical trials for underserved populations.

A population-based analysis of urban-rural disparities in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) management and outcomes.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 254-254
Author(s):  
Thomas Canale ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Rural And Urban

254 Background: Given the significant morbidity burden associated with APC, its management is complex and frequently requires multidisciplinary care. Because of potential geographical barriers to healthcare access, we aimed to determine the effect of rurality on management and outcomes of APC patients. Methods: Patients diagnosed with APC (locally advanced or metastatic disease) from 2008 to 2015 and received gemcitabine (gem), gem plus nab-paclitaxel (gem/nab), or FOLFIRINOX at any 1 of 6 British Columbia cancer centers across the province were reviewed. Using postal codes, the Google Maps Distance Matrix determined the distance from each patient’s residence to the closest cancer center. Rural and urban status were defined as patients living >= 100 km and < 100 km from the closest treatment site, respectively. Univariate and Cox regression analyses were applied to examine whether rurality resulted in variations in management and outcomes. Results: In total, we identified 667 patients: median age 68 years, 54.3% men, and 45.7% metastatic disease. Among them, 19.5% lived rurally and 80.5% resided in urban areas. For treatment, 67.8%, 9.4%, and 22.8% received gem, gem/nab, and FOLFIRINOX, respectively. However, there were no differences in baseline clinical characteristics between rural and urban patients (all p > 0.05). Also, there were no significant variations in treatment patterns. For example, time from diagnosis to oncology appointment and time from appointment to treatment were 31.6 and 29.5 days for rural patients and 28.7 and 39.9 days for urban patients, respectively (all p > 0.05). Use of gem/nab (9.8 vs 9.4%) and FOLFIRINOX (20.5 vs 23.3%) were similar regardless of rurality. In multivariate Cox regression, risk of death was similar between rural and urban groups (HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.95-1.87, p = 0.09). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there is no correlation between rurality and outcomes in APC. The strategic and geographic allocation of cancer care delivery across the province of British Columbia may serve as a model for other jurisdictions that experience disparities in the outcomes of cancers that often require complex multidisciplinary care.

scholarly journals Quality indicators and excellence requirements for a multidisciplinary lung cancer tumor board by the Spanish Lung Cancer Group

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Guirado ◽  
A. Sanchez-Hernandez ◽  
L. Pijuan ◽  
C. Teixido ◽  
A. Gómez-Caamaño ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Optimal Strategies ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
Cancer Group ◽  
Cancer Tumor

AbstractMultidisciplinary care is needed to decide the best therapeutic approach and to provide optimal care to patients with lung cancer (LC). Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are optimal strategies for the management of patients with LC and have been associated with better outcomes, such as an increase in quality of life and survival. The Spanish Lung Cancer Group has promoted this review about the current situation of the existing national LC-MDTs, which also offers a set of excellence requirements and quality indicators to achieve the best care in any patient with LC. Time and sufficient resources; leadership; administrative and institutional support; and recording of activity are key factors for the success of LC-MDTs. A set of excellence requirements in terms of staff, resources and organization of the LC-MDT have been proposed. At last, a list of quality indicators has been agreed to achieve and measure the performance of current LC-MDTs.

Cancer center clinic and clinical research team perceptions of identity and interactions.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18215-e18215
Author(s):  
David E. Gerber ◽  
Torsten Reimer ◽  
Sandra Garcia ◽  
Mary Gill ◽  
Tobi Duncan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Information Sharing ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Staff ◽  
Clinic Staff

e18215 Background: As evidenced by the NCI-ASCO Teams in Cancer Care Delivery initiative, there is growing interest in applying an emerging science of teams to oncology clinical care. Treatment of patients on cancer clinical trials requires coordination and cooperation among research and clinic teams. However, little empirical research has examined issues of goal alignment, diffusion of responsibility, and perceived rivalries in this setting. Methods: We developed a survey incorporating modified components of the Adapted Team Climate Inventory, the Measure of Team Identification, and the Measure of In-group Bias. Surveys were administered to research staff and clinic staff. Survey responses were analyzed using t tests and ANOVAs. Results: Responses were received from 104 staff (54 clinic, 50 research). Median duration of professional experience was 8.3 years, and median time in current position was 2.0 years. Research staff identified more strongly with their own group ( P< 0.01) but less strongly with the Cancer Center ( P= 0.02) compared to clinic staff. Both clinic and research staff viewed their own group’s goals as clearer than those of the other group ( P< 0.01). Both clinic staff and research staff felt that members of their groups shared information among themselves more than the other group ( P< 0.01). Research staff felt information sharing occurred to a greater extent in both groups than did clinic staff ( P< 0.01). Similar results were noted regarding information sharing with the other group ( Ps< 0.01). Staff indicated that members of their own groups interacted more often with each other than did members of the other group ( P< 0.01), with research staff perceiving higher interaction rates in both teams than clinic staff ( P< 0.01). Research staff perceived daily outcomes to be more important than did clinic staff ( P =0.05), in particular research-related outcomes ( P =0.07). Conclusions: Clinical research staff and clinic staff identify more strongly with their own groups and feel that their own group’s goals are clearer than those of the other group. Further study of interactions, perceptions, and attitudes between research staff and clinic staff is essential to provision of quality care to patients on cancer clinical trials.

scholarly journals Development of a virtual multidisciplinary lung cancer tumor board in a community setting.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 325-325
Author(s):  
Marvaretta Miesha Stevenson ◽  
Tonia Irwin ◽  
Terry Lowry ◽  
Maleka Zafreen Ahmed ◽  
Thomas L. Walden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Web Conferencing ◽  
Virtual Conference

325 Background: Creating an effective platform for multidisciplinary tumor conferences can be challenging in the rural community setting. The Duke Oncology Network, which is affiliated with hospitals in rural locations throughout North Carolina, created an internet-based platform for a multidisciplinary conference to enhance the care of lung cancer patients in the community. This conference incorporates providers from different physical locations within the community and affiliated providers from a university-based cancer center two hours away. An electronic approach connects providers through space and time vocally and visually. Methods: Development of the virtual conference began in February 2009. Biweekly conferences were set up using the Adobe Connect web conferencing platform. This provides a secure website and phone line to ensure patient confidentiality. Case information is de-identified and incorporated into a slideshow uploaded to the platform. Multiple disciplines are invited to participate, including radiology, radiation oncology, thoracic surgery, pathology, pulmonology, and medical oncology. Participants only need telephone access and internet connection to participate. Results: The first virtual tumor board occurred December 14, 2009. Patient histories and physicals are presented, and the web conferencing platform allows radiologic and histologic images to be reviewed. Treatment plans for patients are discussed, allowing providers to coordinate care among the different subspecialties. Patients are identified that need referral to the affiliated university-based cancer center for specialized services. Pertinent treatment guidelines and journal articles are reviewed. In 2011, there were 9-10 participants per session, with 2-3 cases presented, on average. Conclusions: The use of a web conferencing platform allows subspecialty providers throughout the community and hours away to participate in discussing lung cancer patient cases. This platform increases convenience for providers, eliminating travel time to a central location. Coordination of care for patients requiring multidisciplinary care is facilitated, shortening evaluation time prior to definitive treatment plan.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document