Division of Molecular Oncology, National Cancer Center Research Institute Data Access Committee
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: EGAC00001002007 | EGA |
REPOSITORIES: EGA
Similar Datasets
Project description:Data Access Committee EGAC00001001272
| EGAC00001001272 | EGA
Project description:Data Access Committee EGAC00001002331
| EGAC00001002331 | EGA
Project description:Data Access Committee EGAC00001003030
| EGAC00001003030 | EGA
Project description:Data Access Committee EGAC00001000957
| EGAC00001000957 | EGA
Project description:BackgroundNational cancer organizations recommend provision of nutrition, physical activity, and mental health supportive services to cancer survivors. However, the availability of these services across diverse community oncology settings remains unclear.MethodsThe National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) is a national network of community oncology practices engaged in cancer research. The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment (5UG1CA189824) assessed individual practices' establishment of survivorship clinics and nutrition, physical activity, and mental health services, resources, and/or referrals. Descriptive statistics summarized and logistic regression quantified the association between services, practice, and patient characteristics.ResultsOf 46 NCORP community sites, 45 (98%) responded to the survey, representing 259 adult practice groups. A total of 41% had a survivorship clinic; 96% offered mental health, 94% nutrition, and 53% physical activity services, resources, and/or referrals. All 3 services were offered in various formats (eg, in-house, referrals, education) by 51% and in-house only by 25% of practices. Practices with advanced practice providers were more likely to have a survivorship clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 3.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 9.76). Practices with at least 30% Medicare patients (OR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.39 to 4.66) and more oncology providers (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.04) were more likely to have all 3 services in any format. Practices with at least 30% Medicare patients (OR = 3.41, 95% CI = 1.50 to 7.77) and a survivorship clinic (OR = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.57 to 5.14) were more likely to have all 3 services in-house.ConclusionsLarger oncology practices and those caring for more survivors on Medicare provided more supportive services, resources, and/or referrals. Smaller practices and those without survivorship clinics may need strategies to address potential gaps in supportive services.
| S-EPMC10868389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As the burden of cancers impacting low- and middle-income countries is projected to increase, formation of strategic partnerships between institutions in high-income countries and low- and middle-income country institutions may serve to accelerate cancer research, clinical care, and training. As the US National Cancer Institute and its Center for Global Health continue to encourage cancer centers to join its global mission, academic cancer centers in the United States have increased their global activities. In 2015, the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco, responded to the call for international partnership in addressing the global cancer burden through the establishment of the Global Cancer Program as a priority initiative. In developing the Global Cancer Program, we galvanized institutional support to foster sustained, bidirectional, equitable, international partnerships in global cancer control. Our focus and intent in disseminating this commentary is to share experiences and lessons learned from the perspective of a US-based, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and to provide a roadmap for other high-income institutions seeking to strategically broaden their missions and address the complex challenges of global cancer control. Herein, we review the formative evaluation, governance, strategic planning, investments in career development, funding sources, program evaluation, and lessons learned. Reflecting on the evolution of our program during the first 5 years, we observed in our partners a powerful shift toward a locally driven priority setting, reduced dependency, and an increased commitment to research as a path to improve cancer outcomes in resource-constrained settings.
| S-EPMC10919326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data Access Committee EGAC00001001909
| EGAC00001001909 | EGA
Project description:PurposeThe use of integrative approaches for symptom management is highly prevalent among patients undergoing cancer treatment and among cancer survivors and is increasingly endorsed by clinical practice guidelines. However, access to and implementation of integrative oncology (IO) approaches are hindered by barriers at multiple levels, including logistic, geographic, financial, organizational, and cultural barriers. The goal of this mixed-method study was to examine oncology provider and patient knowledge, beliefs, and preferences in IO to identify facilitators, barriers, and recommendations for implementation of IO modalities.Materials and methodsData sources included patient surveys and provider semistructured interviews. Patients were in active treatment (n = 100) and survivors (n = 100) of heterogeneous cancer types. Patient and survivor surveys interrogated: (1) interest in types of IO approaches; and (2) preferences for delivery modality, frequency, and location. Providers (n = 18) were oncologists and nurse navigators working with diverse cancer types. Interviews queried their knowledge of and attitudes about IO, about their patients' needs for symptom management, and for recommendations for implementation of IO approaches in their clinic. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework to systematically analyze provider interviews.ResultsThe primary interests reported among actively treated patients and survivors were massage therapy, acupuncture, and wellness/exercise. Most patients expressed interest in both group and individual sessions and in telehealth or virtual reality options. Emergent themes from provider interviews identified barriers and facilitators to implementing IO approaches in both the internal and external settings, as well as for the implementation process.ConclusionThe emphasis on mind-body interventions as integrative rather than alternative highlights the importance of interventions as evidence-based, comprehensive, and integrated into health care. Gaining simultaneous perspectives from both patients and physicians generated insights for the implementation of IO care into complex clinical systems within a comprehensive cancer center.
| S-EPMC9372903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cardio-oncology is a multidisciplinary field focusing on the management and prevention of cardiovascular complications in cancer patients and survivors. While the initial focus of this specialty was on heart failure associated with anthracycline use, novel anticancer agents are increasingly utilized and are associated with many other cardiotoxicities including hypertension, arrhythmias and vascular disease. Since its inception, the field has developed at a rapid pace with the establishment of programs at many major academic institutions and community practices. Given the complexities of this patient population, it is important for providers to possess knowledge of not only cardiovascular disease but also cancer subtypes and their specific therapeutics. Developing a cardio-oncology program at a stand-alone cancer center can present unique opportunities and challenges when compared to those affiliated with other institutions including resource allocation, cardiovascular testing availability and provider education. In this review, we present our experiences establishing the cardio-oncology program at Moffitt Cancer Center and provide guidance to those individuals interested in developing a program at a similar independent cancer institution.
| S-EPMC5523022 | biostudies-other
Project description:As the immuno-oncology field continues the rapid growth witnessed over the past decade, optimising patient outcomes requires an evolution in the current response-assessment guidelines for phase 2 and 3 immunotherapy clinical trials and clinical care. Additionally, investigational tools-including image analysis of standard-of-care scans (such as CT, magnetic resonance, and PET) with analytics, such as radiomics, functional magnetic resonance agents, and novel molecular-imaging PET agents-offer promising advancements for assessment of immunotherapy. To document current challenges and opportunities and identify next steps in immunotherapy diagnostic imaging, the National Cancer Institute Clinical Imaging Steering Committee convened a meeting with diverse representation among imaging experts and oncologists to generate a comprehensive review of the state of the field.
| S-EPMC10119769 | biostudies-literature