To the Editor: A recent article by Zorbas et al1 highlights some of the many difficulties experienced by Australian women in accessing multidisciplinary care after they have been diagnosed with breast cancer. A multidisciplinary approach to women with gynaecological cancer has been the cornerstone of care since the establishment of gynaecologic oncology units in Australia in the early 1980s. Over 20 years’ experience has reinforced the value of this approach.

By and large, however, the success of this model has very much depended not only on the skills of the multidisciplinary team but also on the readiness of referring doctors — in this case, specialist gynaecologists — to refer patients for management that is often surgical and could easily be done by themselves. Reinforcing the concept that care of the patient is holistic and that surgery plays an important (but not definitive) role in overall care has led to increased referrals, but there are still many to convince. For instance, a survey published in the Journal in 20022 showed that in the late 1990s more than half the women with ovarian cancer in Victoria were still being operated on outside established gynaecologic oncology units or by a non-gynaecological oncologist.

It is to be hoped that new National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines on the management of ovarian cancer (soon to be released) will reduce this deficit and thereby improve outcomes for women with ovarian cancer. Much of the development of this benchmark care has come from patients, who, thankfully, are becoming increasingly articulate in their expectations of optimal clinical outcomes.

The question of rural patients is an extremely important one. In Victoria, over a period of more than 10 years, the three major metropolitan gynaecologic oncology centres have established satellite clinics in country towns to facilitate patient follow-up, often involving local specialists and family doctors. This system seems to have worked well and is worthy of assessment as a model that might be transferable to other specialties.

In conclusion, it is all very well setting up multidisciplinary teams, but the key to their success has to be the recognition of professional equality. If teams are based on a hierarchical setup they are likely to fail in their major aim, which is to provide the best care available based on input from a broad range of professionals and from patients themselves.

To the Editor: Zorbas et al1 have highlighted both the complexities and resource intensiveness of multidisciplinary care for women with early-stage breast cancer. The same arguments exist in advanced disease, where input from many disciplines is the norm. However, there is no evidence that such a process improves outcomes in the Australian setting. The references the authors draw upon relate to regions in which breast cancer outcomes have historically been poor. Evidence from Australian studies suggests higher standards of care and appropriate changes over time. 2,3,4

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Clinical practice guidelines for the management of early breast cancer5 provide an evidence-based strategy for managing the disease. Enshrined within them is the concept that many different treatment approaches are equivalent and that patient preferences are important. Patient input into multidisciplinary case conferences is frequently minimal. Case conferences can be confusing for patients, and it may not be clear to them who is their doctor. Many clinics include a breast nurse, who commonly acts as a patient advocate. Zorbas and colleagues note the different models of multidisciplinary care, but the minimum approach required to achieve good outcomes has not been established.

It is not surprising that 34% of rural surgeons find it difficult to implement a service in which all women have access to a full range of treatment options in a multidisciplinary setting. There is no evidence, however, that their patients are more unhappy or that management outcomes are inferior. Similarly, the guidelines correctly promote the importance of psychosocial support for patients, but the suggestion that this can be better achieved by a psychologist via teleconferencing rather than by the patient’s general practitioner is purely speculative.

None of the multidisciplinary models suggested by Zorbas et al addresses the management of patients at relapse, and yet data and clinical experience indicate this is the time of greatest stress for patients, 6 a time when input from a number of specialties — medical care, radiation oncology, palliative care — is the norm.

Multidisciplinary care appears to be beneficial regardless of the stage of disease. However, the execution of some of the models is resource-intensive. We need to evaluate not only whether the objectives of the NHMRC guidelines are met, but whether patient satisfaction and participation are enhanced, survival outcomes are improved and care through all stages of the disease is optimal. Currently, by such measures, multidisciplinary care has not been shown to be superior to a small number of well-directed, evidence-based selective consultations.

In reply: We agree with the comments by Pendlebury et al that knowledge about outcomes for patients receiving multidisciplinary care in Australia is limited. Hence, the National Breast Cancer Centre has investigated the application of multidisciplinary care and outcomes for women with breast cancer. Our article focused on the “Principles of multidisciplinary care” developed as a basis for a subsequent project (outcomes yet to be published). It was necessary to define such principles at the outset, as there is not yet an agreed view about what constitutes “multidisciplinary care” within the Australian healthcare context.

We also agree that the standard of clinical care in Australia is generally good. However, delivery of care is often fragmented and inconsistent.1 In other countries with high quality services, multidisciplinary meetings have been found to result in care that is more in accord with the evidence than non-multidisciplinary care.2 The Principles emphasise the role of the general practitioner, while recognising that some patients will require appropriate specialist referral.3 They also state that living in a rural area should be no impediment to accessing care.

We agree that multidisciplinary care is as important in advanced breast cancer as it is in early disease. The Principles were developed before the release of the guidelines for advanced breast cancer and it would be useful to extend them in the future.

The importance of one main contact for women is acknowledged. The purpose of a multidisciplinary case conference is to identify treatment options and their relative merits. This ought to assist communication with women and enable them to make a more informed choice.