Search

PURPOSE: As the global burden of cancer rises, global knowledge sharing of effective cancer control practices will be critical. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) of the US National Cancer Institute facilitates knowledge sharing to advance cancer screening research and practice. Our analysis assessed perceptions of ICSN's value and knowledge sharing in cancer screening among participants working in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: In 2018, the National Cancer Institute fielded a self-administered, online survey to 665 ICSN participants from both HICs and LMICs. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-three individuals (36.5%) completed the full survey. LMIC participants engaged in more diverse screening activities and had fewer years of experience (13.5% with more than 20 years of experience v 31%; P =.048) in screening and were more interested in cervical cancer (76.9% v 52.6%; P =.002) than HIC participants. However, both groups spent most of their time on research (30.8% LMIC v 36.6% HIC; P =.518) and agreed that the ICSN biennial meeting enabled them to learn from the experiences of both higher-resource (88.2% v 75.7%; P =.122) and lower-resource (61.8% v 68.0%; P =.507) settings. ICSN helped them form new collaborations for research and implementation (55.1% v 58.2%; P =.063); informed advances in research/evaluation (71.4% v 68.0%; P =.695), implementation (59.2% v 47.9%; P =.259), and policies in their settings (55.1% v 48.0%; P =.425); and provided the opportunity to contribute their knowledge and expertise to assist others (67.3% v 71.1%; P =.695). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that HIC and LMIC participants benefit from knowledge sharing at ICSN meetings although their interests, backgrounds, and needs differ. This points to the importance of international research networks that are inclusive of HIC and LMIC participants in cancer control to advance knowledge and effective practices globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: International research networks have the potential to accelerate scientific progress via knowledge sharing and collaboration. In 2018, the US National Cancer Institute evaluated the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN), in operation since 1988. METHODS: ICSN hosts a biennial scientific meeting and scientific working groups. A survey was fielded to 665 ICSN participants, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted for ICSN publications. RESULTS: A total of 243 individuals completed the survey (36.5%). They reported that participating in the ICSN helped advance their knowledge of cancer screening research (75.7%), policy development (56%), and implementation (47.7%). Approximately three-quarters agreed that ICSN facilitated knowledge sharing and networking among researchers and implementers (79.9%) and those working on different continents (74.0%) and cancer sites (73.7%). More than half reported that participating helped them form new collaborations in screening implementation (58.0%) or research (57.6%). Most agreed that ICSN helped to advance screening research and evaluation (75.4%), effective screening practices (71.2%), and screening policies (60.9%). Many reported that participating informed advances in their own research (68.7%) and screening implementation (50.2%) and policies (49.4%) in their settings. Approximately two-thirds agreed that ICSN helped advance career development among current experts (66.6%) and train the next generation (62.2%). Half (51.4%) reported that participating advanced their own careers. The 20 ICSN publications included 75 coauthors. They were cited in 589 publications with more than 2,000 coauthors. CONCLUSION: Findings provide evidence of the influence of ICSN on international knowledge dissemination, collaboration, and advances in cancer screening research, implementation, and policies and highlight the potential value of longstanding international research networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care. Methods: We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality). Results: Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success. Conclusion: Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the care process among three groups (primary care, radiology, and surgery) aiding a 57-year-old woman during her screening mammography and diagnosis of breast cancer. This is the first in a series of articles exploring principles and topics relevant to teams guiding clinicians involved in cancer care. The challenges demonstrated in this case illustrate how clinicians work within and between groups to deliver this first phase of cancer care. The case helps demonstrate the differences between groups and teams. Focusing on the patient and the overall process of care coordination can help move groups toward becoming teams who deliver better care by identifying and managing goals, roles, and interdependent care tasks. Care providers and researchers can use the case to consider their own work and essential aspects of teamwork needed to improve care, patient outcomes, and the evidence that supports each. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the study by E. Ben-Ami and colleagues on ways to achieve three goals for the health care system in the U.S. He discusses the triple aim for health care delivery recommended by research organization Institute for Health Care Improvement which are improving patient care experience, improving citizens' health, and reducing medical care costs. He stresses the value of using existing information systems to improve cancer care.

Purpose: We determined the risk of breast cancer and tumor characteristics among current postmenopausal hormone therapy users compared with nonusers, by duration of use., Methods: From January 1996 to December 2000, data were collected prospectively on 374,465 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years who underwent screening mammography. We calculated the relative risk (RR) of breast cancer (invasive or ductal carcinoma-in-situ) and type of breast cancer within 12 months of postmenopausal therapy use among current hormone users with a uterus (proxy for estrogen and progestin use) and without a uterus (proxy for estrogen use), compared with nonusers., Results: Compared with nonusers, women using estrogen and progestin for >/= 5 years were at increased risk of breast tumors of stage 0 or I (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.37 to 1.66), stage II or higher (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.30 to 1.63), size