Cancer survivorship research: a review of the literature and summary of current NCI-designated cancer center projects.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Harrop JP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3191883 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Cancer survivorship research: a review of the literature and summary of current NCI-designated cancer center projects.
Harrop J Phil JP Dean Julie A JA Paskett Electra D ED
Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 20111001 10
The number of cancer survivors and the amount of cancer survivorship research have grown substantially during the past three decades. This article provides a review of interventional and observational cancer survivorship research efforts as well as a summary of current cancer survivorship research projects being conducted by National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in an effort to identify areas that need further attention. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Clinical ethics consultation services (CECS) can be particularly complex in oncology, and widespread misconceptions exist about their nature. As a result, visibility and accessibility of information regarding CECS is critical. We investigated the availability and content of information regarding CECS on websites of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and cancer centers (CCs). Each website was reviewed for information on CECS and reviewed for benchmarks partially derived from the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities recommendations for CECS. Our analysis revealed that of 70 NCI-designated center websites, 38 had information on CECS, and 17 were found directly on these sites. When CECS information was available, most websites provided a mission statement (71%) and an explanation of what constitutes an ethics consult (74%). Few provided a description of the consult process (45%) or service membership (39%). Our findings reveal a significant gap in CECS visibility on the websites of NCI-designated CCs.
| S-EPMC11449108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe NIH and Department of Health & Human Services recommend online patient information (OPI) be written at a sixth grade level. We used a panel of readability analyses to assess OPI from NCI-Designated Cancer Center (NCIDCC) Web sites.MethodsCancer.gov was used to identify 68 NCIDCC Web sites from which we collected both general OPI and OPI specific to breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancers. This text was analyzed by 10 commonly used readability tests: the New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, Flesch Reading Ease scale, Flesch-Kinaid Grade Level, FORCAST scale, Fry Readability Graph, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook test, Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook index, New Fog Count, Raygor Readability Estimate Graph, and Coleman-Liau Index. We tested the hypothesis that the readability of NCIDCC OPI was written at the sixth grade level. Secondary analyses were performed to compare readability of OPI between comprehensive and noncomprehensive centers, by region, and to OPI produced by the American Cancer Society (ACS).ResultsA mean of 30,507 words from 40 comprehensive and 18 noncomprehensive NCIDCCs was analyzed (7 nonclinical and 3 without appropriate OPI were excluded). Using a composite grade level score, the mean readability score of 12.46 (ie, college level: 95% CI, 12.13-12.79) was significantly greater than the target grade level of 6 (middle-school: P<.001). No difference between comprehensive and noncomprehensive centers was identified. Regional differences were identified in 4 of the 10 readability metrics (P<.05). ACS OPI provides easier language, at the seventh to ninth grade level, across all tests (P<.01).ConclusionsOPI from NCIDCC Web sites is more complex than recommended for the average patient.
| S-EPMC7236813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most cancer care is delivered in the community, while most clinical trials exist in academic centers. We analyzed clinical trial accrual of a tertiary care cancer center and its affiliated community sites to better understand what types of trials accrued at the community sites and whether community accrual increased ethnic diversity. The institutional clinical trial database was searched for solid tumor accruals during 2018-2019. Patient's race was abstracted, and trial's funding source, phase, and disease type/stage were tabulated. Of 3689 accruals, 133 were at community sites, representing 26 unique trials while the main campus accrued to 93 unique trials. Community site accruals were highest for breast and colorectal cancer, but patients with less common cancers such as renal, nasopharyngeal, and gastric cancer were also accrued at community sites. Accruals occurred to randomized trials, as well as phase Ib and translational biomarker studies. Minority patients constituted 20.0% and 32.5% of community site accruals for therapeutic and non-therapeutic trials respectively, compared to 20.6% and 29.8% of main campus accruals for therapeutic and non-therapeutic trials, respectively. We conclude that community sites affiliated with an academic cancer center can accrue to a broad spectrum of clinical trials while enhancing racial diversity in participation of clinical trials. Further expansion of access to clinical trials in community sites is necessary to broaden patient access to state-of-the-art and next-generation treatment options.
| S-EPMC7355880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAs cancer center funds are allocated toward several resources, clinical trial offices and the clinical trial infrastructure is constantly scrutinized. It has been shown that 20% of clinical trials fail to achieve their accrual goal and in an institutional level several trials are open with poor accrual. We sought to identify factors that are associated with clinical trial accrual and develop a model to predict clinical trial accrual.Methods and materialWe identified all clinical trials from 1999 to 2015 at UT Health Cancer Center San Antonio. We included observational as well as interventional clinical trials. We collected several variables such as type of study, type of malignancy, trial phase, PI of study.ResultsIn total we included 297 clinical trials. We identified several factors to be associated with clinical trial accrual (Sponsor type, trial phase, disease category, type of trial, disease state and whether the trial involved a new investigational agent). We developed a predictive model with an AUC of 0.65 that showed that observational, interventional, industry-sponsored trials and trials authored by the local PI were more likely to achieve their accrual goal.ConclusionWe were able to identify several factors that were significantly associated with clinical trial accrual. Based on these factors we developed a prediction model for clinical trial accrual. We believe that use of this model can help improve our cancer centers clinical trial portfolio and help in fund allocation.
| S-EPMC6658414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough barriers to trial accrual are well-reported, few studies have explored trial eligibility and trial offers as potential drivers of disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment.MethodsWe identified patients with gastrointestinal (GI) or head/neck (HN) malignancies who were seen as new patients at the University of Michigan Health Rogel Cancer Center in 2016. By exhaustive review of the electronic medical record, we assessed the primary outcomes: (1) eligibility for, (2) documented offer of, and (3) enrollment in a clinical trial. All 41 of the clinical trials available to these patients were considered. Independent variables included clinical and non-clinical patient-related factors. We assessed associations between these variables and the primary outcomes using multivariable regression.ResultsOf 1446 patients, 43% were female, 15% were over age 75, 6% were Black. 305 (21%) patients were eligible for a clinical trial. Among eligible patients, 154 (50%) had documentation of a trial offer and 90 (30%) enrolled. Among the GI cohort, bivariate analyses demonstrated that older age was associated with decreased trial eligibility. Bivariate analyses also demonstrated that Black race was associated with increased trial offer. After adjustment, patients 75 or older were less likely to be eligible for a clinical trial in the GI cohort; however, we found no significant associations between race and any of the outcomes after adjustment. Among eligible GI patients, we found no significant associations between non-clinical factors and enrollment. Among the HN cohort, bivariate analyses demonstrated that female sex, older age, Black race, and unpartnered marital status were associated with decreased likelihood of trial offer; however, we found no significant associations between race, age, and marital status and any of the outcomes after adjustment. We found no significant associations between non-clinical factors and eligibility after adjustment; however, women were less likely to be offered and to enroll in a clinical trial in the HN cohort.ConclusionFactors associated with eligibility, documented offer, and enrollment differed between disease site cohorts at our institution. Future work is needed to ensure the equitable inclusion of women and elderly patients in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC10278521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are 69 National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated Cancer Centers (CCs) in the United States. Biostatistical collaboration is pivotal in cancer research, and support for a cancer biostatistics shared resource facility (C-BSRF) is included in the award. Although the services and staff needed in a C-BSRF have been outlined in general terms and best practices for biostatistical consultations and collaboration in an academic health center have been agreed upon, implementing these practices in the demanding setting of cancer centers interested in pursuing or maintaining NCI designation remains challenging. We surveyed all C-BSRF websites to assess their organizational charts, governance, size, services provided, and financial models and have identified 10 essential practices for the development of a successful C-BSRF. Here, we share our success with, and barriers to, implementation of these practices. Showcasing development plans for these essential practices resulted in an NCI score of "Excellent to Outstanding" for our C-BSRF in 2015, and performance metrics in 2016-2017 demonstrated notable improvement since our original Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) application in 2014. We believe that the essential practices described here can be adapted and adjusted, as needed, for CCs of various sizes and with different types of cancer research programs.
| S-EPMC6649702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Survivors of childhood cancer carry a substantial burden of morbidity and are at increased risk for premature death. Furthermore, clear associations exist between specific therapeutic exposures and the risk for a variety of long-term complications. The entire landscape of health issues encountered for decades after successful completion of treatment is currently being explored in various collaborative research settings. These settings include large population-based or multi-institutional cohorts and single-institution studies. The ascertainment of outcomes has depended on self-reporting, linkage to registries, or clinical assessments. Survivorship research in the cooperative group setting, such as the Children's Oncology Group, has leveraged the clinical trials infrastructure to explore the molecular underpinnings of treatment-related adverse events, and to understand specific complications in the setting of randomized risk-reduction strategies. This review highlights the salient findings from these large collaborative initiatives, emphasizing the need for life-long follow-up of survivors of childhood cancer, and describing the development of several guidelines and efforts toward harmonization. Finally, the review reinforces the need to identify populations at highest risk, facilitating the development of risk prediction models that would allow for targeted interventions across the entire trajectory of survivorship.
| S-EPMC4567704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 1971, the National Cancer Act created a process to recognize the leadership, facilities, and research efforts at cancer centers throughout the United States. Toward this goal, each NCI-designated cancer center defines and describes a catchment area to which they tailor specific scientific and community engagement activities.MethodsThe geographically defined catchment areas of 63 NCI-designated comprehensive and clinical cancer centers are collated and presented visually. In addition, the NCI-designated cancer center catchment areas are geographically linked with publicly available data sources to aggregate sociodemographic and epidemiologic characteristics across the NCI Cancer Centers Program.ResultsThe national map portrays the size, shape, and locations for 63 catchment areas of the 71 NCI-designated cancer centers. The findings illustrate the geographic extent of the NCI Cancer Centers Program during the 50th anniversary of the National Cancer Act.ConclusionsNCI-designated cancer centers occupy a prominent role in the cancer control ecosystem and continue to perform research to address the burden of cancer among their local communities. The strength of the NCI Cancer Centers Program is partly defined by the scope, quality, and impact of community outreach and engagement activities in the catchment areas.ImpactThe collation and geographic presentation of the distinct, but complementary, NCI-designated cancer center catchment areas are intended to support future research and community outreach activities among NCI-designated cancer centers. See related commentary by Vadaparampil and Tiro, p. 952.
| S-EPMC9074106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Racial and ethnic minority populations are consistently under-represented in oncology clinical trials despite comprising a disproportionate share of a cancer burden. Phase I oncology clinical trials pose a unique challenge and opportunity for minority inclusion. Here we compared the sociodemographic characteristics of patients participating in phase 1 clinical trials a National Cancer Institute ( NCI)-designated comprehensive center to all patients at the center, patients with new cancer diagnosis in metropolitan Atlanta and patients with new cancer diagnoses in the state of Georgia. From 2015 to 2020, 2325 patients (43.4% female, 56.6% male) consented to participate in a phase I trial. Grouped self-reported race distribution was 70.3% White, 26.2% Black, and 3.5% other. Of new patient registrations at Winship Cancer Institute (N = 107 497) (50% F, 50% M), grouped race distribution was 63.3% White, 32.0% Black, and 4.7% other. Patients with new cancer diagnoses in metro Atlanta from 2015 to 2016 (N = 31101) were 58.4% White, 37.2% Black, and 4.3% other. Race and sex distribution of phase I patients was significantly different than Winship patients (P < .001). Over time, percent of White patients decreased in both phase I and Winship groups (P = .009 and P < .001, respectively); percentage of females did not change in either group (P = .54 phase I, P = .063 Winship). Although phase I patients were more likely to be White, male, and privately ensured than the Winship cohort, from 2015 to 2020 the percentage of White patients in phase I trials and among all new patients treated at Winship decreased. The intent of characterizing existing disparities is to improve the representation of patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds in phase I clinical trials.
| S-EPMC10712723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) on "Pancreatitis-Diabetes-Pancreatic Cancer" focused on the risk factors of chronic pancreatitis (CP) and diabetes mellitus (DM) on the development of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Sessions were held on (a) an overview of the problem of PDAC; (b) CP as a risk factor of PDAC; (c) DM as a risk factor of PDAC; (d) pancreatogenic, or type 3c, DM; (e) genomic associations of CP, DM, and PDAC; (f) surveillance of high-risk populations and early detection of PDAC; and (g) effects of DM treatment on PDAC. Recent data and current understandings of the mechanisms of CP- and DM-associated factors on PDAC development were discussed, and a detailed review of the possible risks of DM treatment on the development of PDAC was provided by representatives from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration. The current status of possible biomarkers of PDAC and surveillance strategies for high-risk populations were discussed, and the gaps in knowledge and opportunities for further research were elucidated. A broad spectrum of expertise of the speakers and the discussants provided an unusually productive workshop, the highlights of which are summarized in the accompanying article.
| S-EPMC3878448 | biostudies-literature