Search

Rationale and Objectives Mobile mammography units provide preventive health care to patients facing barriers to annual screening. This study reviews the outcomes of a mobile mammography service during a recent 5-year period. Materials and Methods This retrospective study analyzed the examinations by mobile mammography during a 5-year period (9327 examinations). The patients recalled, biopsies performed, and cancers detected were tallied. The race, age, breast cancer size, lymph node involvement, and metastases were recorded. The positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection rate metrics were calculated as outlined by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas. Results The program identified cancer in 14 cases (cancer detection rate = 1.5 per 1000 examinations [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9–2.5]) with 11 being invasive. The majority of these cancers were small and of low stage. Lymph node status was determined in 11 of the 14 cases (1 as N1mi, 5 as N0, 4 as N1,1 as N2a). Abnormalities led to 1686 examinations recalled (Recall Rate = 17.8%; PPV 1 = 0.8% [95% CI, 0.5%–1.4%]). One hundred and one were recommended for biopsy (PPV 2 = 13.9% [95% CI, 8.4%–21.9%]), and 98 pursued biopsy (PPV 3 = 14.3% [95% CI, 8.7%–22.6%]). Patient age ranged from 41 to 67 years with an average of 50.6 years. Conclusion The program detected many cancers in an asymptomatic population facing barriers to breast cancer screening. These findings are underscored by the cancers detected at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and support the need for the development of similar programs.

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection increases the risk for several types of cancer, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as primary and second primary malignancies. HCV-infected patients with cancer, particularly those undergoing anticancer therapy, are at risk for development of enhanced HCV replication, which can lead to hepatitis flare and progression of liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. Risk factors for HCV infection include injection drug use, blood transfusion, or solid organ transplantation before 1992, receipt of clotting factor concentrates before 1987, long-term hemodialysis, chronic liver disease, HIV positivity, and occupational exposure. Widely available direct-acting antivirals are highly effective against HCV and well tolerated. Identification of HCV-infected individuals is the essential first step in treatment and eradication of the infection. One-time screening is recommended for persons born from 1945 to 1965; screening is also recommended for persons with risk factors. Recently, a public health recommendation has been drafted to screen all adults age 18 to 79 years. Two oncology organizations recommend screening all patients with hematologic malignancies and hematopoietic cell transplant recipients, and a recently published multicenter prospective study supports universal HCV screening for all patients with cancer. HCV screening entails testing for anti-HCV antibodies in serum and, when results are positive, HCV RNA quantitation to confirm infection. Direct-acting antiviral therapy eradicates HCV in almost all cases. Virologic cure of HCV prevents chronic hepatitis and progression to liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. HCV eradication also decreases the risk of developing HCV-associated primary and second primary malignancies, and it may allow HCV-infected patients access to important cancer clinical trials. Patients with HCV-related cirrhosis require lifelong surveillance for HCC, even after viral eradication.

Background: Cancer beliefs and perceptions of cancer risk affect the cancer continuum. Identifying underlying factors associated with these beliefs and perceptions in Texas can help inform and target prevention efforts. Methods: We developed a cancer-focused questionnaire and administered it online to a nonprobability sample of the Texas population. Weighted multivariable logistic regression analysis identified key factors associated with perceptions and beliefs about cancer. Results: The study population comprised 2,034 respondents (median age, 44.4 years) of diverse ethnicity: 45.5% were non-Hispanic white, 10.6% non-Hispanic black, and 35.7% Hispanic. Self-reported depression was significantly associated with cancer risk perceptions and cancer beliefs. Those indicating frequent and infrequent depression versus no depression were more likely to believe that: (i) compared to other people their age, they were more likely to get cancer in their lifetime [OR, 2.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.95–4.39 and OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.17–2.74, respectively]; and (ii) when they think about cancer, they automatically think about death (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.56–2.69 and OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11–1.92, respectively). Frequent depression versus no depression was also associated with agreement that (i) it seems like everything causes cancer (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.26–2.22) and (ii) there is not much one can do to lower one's chance of getting cancer (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09–1.89). Other predictors for perceived cancer risk and/or cancer beliefs were sex, age, ethnicity/race, being born in the United States, marital status, income, body mass index, and smoking. Conclusions: Depression and other predictors are associated with cancer risk perceptions and beliefs in Texas. Impact: Increased attention to reducing depression may improve cancer risk perceptions and beliefs.

According to the Pan American Health Organization, noncommunicable diseases, including cancer, are the leading causes of preventable and premature death in the Americas. Governments and health care systems in Latin America face numerous challenges as a result of increasing morbidity and mortality from cancer. Multiple international organizations have recognized the need for collaborative action on and technical support for cancer research and control in Latin America. The Center for Global Health at the US National Cancer Institute (NCI-CGH) is one entity among many that are working in the region and has sought to develop a strategy for working in Latin America that draws on and expands the collaborative potential of engaged, skilled, and diverse partners. NCI-CGH has worked toward developing and implementing initiatives in collaboration with global partners that share the common objectives of building a global cancer research community and translating research results into evidence-informed policy and practice. Both objectives are complementary and synergistic and are additionally supported by an overarching strategic framework that is focused on partnerships and science diplomacy. This work highlights the overall strategy for NCI-CGH engagement in Latin America through partnerships and diplomacy, and highlights selected collaborative efforts that are aimed at improving cancer outcomes in the region.

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the leading medical professional oncology society, is committed to lessening the burden of cancer and as such will promote underused interventions that have the potential to save millions of lives through cancer prevention. As the main providers of cancer care worldwide, our patients, their families, and our communities look to us for guidance regarding all things cancer related, including cancer prevention. Through this statement and accompanying recommendations, ASCO hopes to increase awareness of the tremendous global impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) –caused cancers, refocus the discussion of HPV vaccination on its likely ability to prevent millions of cancer deaths, and increase HPV vaccination uptake via greater involvement of oncology professionals in ensuring accurate public discourse about HPV vaccination and calling for the implementation of concrete strategies to address barriers to vaccine access and acceptance.

Background: Globally, tobacco can be attributed to more than 7 million deaths each year. To address this potentially avoidable mortality, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center has engaged its Global Academic Program´s (GAP) sister institutions (SI) by conducting an inaugural tobacco control assessment survey. A similar survey was done with our University of Texas academic and health science center affiliates that led to improved adoption of tobacco control policies as well as prevention and cessation services on all campuses. The baseline data collected will serve as a mechanism to develop a tobacco prevention and control strategy within a global cancer center network. Aim: To assess SI laws and policies regarding tobacco use, existing screening and cessation services. Strategy/Tactics: Qualtrics was used to administer a 27-item survey to our GAP SI from April-October 2017. Survey questions focused on key areas of tobacco prevention and control: policy, tobacco use screening, and cessation services. A survey link was emailed to 34 institutions in 23 countries. Program/Policy process: Survey GAP SI to determine current tobacco prevention and control measures being implemented. Convene GAP SI in May 2018 to share tobacco control best practices across the network and identify resources and supports to strengthen tobacco control efforts at each institution. Build collaborations aimed at progressive actions in tobacco control policies, educational programs and cessation services culturally appropriate to the needs and resources of the GAP network. Outcomes: Of the 34 GAP SI, 26 responded to the survey (76% response rate). Key findings among the 26 responding institutions: policy - 96% are located in cities with laws regulating the sale and/or use of tobacco products by minors and 77% of the cities have laws regulating the use of tobacco in the workplace; 42% of the campuses have designated smoking areas; tobacco use screening - 65% screen for and document patients´ tobacco status, however only 27% screen “all the time”; cessation services - 19% offer telephone counseling as a cessation service; 38% offer cessation services to the community; 46% offer cessation services to employees. What was learned: The baseline assessment identified areas of institutional needs: cessation services and campus policies. Further discussion with the SI will help engage them in further efforts to address gaps in tobacco control. Collectively, we aim to develop action steps to collaborate and enhance existing services by creating a global platform in which tobacco control best practices and resources can be shared.

52 Background: An estimated 14 million cancer survivors live in the U.S., with up to 18 million expected by 2020. Methods: We established a partnership with three Texas family medicine training programs to provide interactive educational sessions focused on survivors’ needs for primary prevention and lifestyle counseling, surveillance and screening, and prevention of psychosocial and long-term effects. Surveys assessing resident and PCP knowledge, self-efficacy, and practices regarding survivorship care management were administered through REDCap in July 2016 and 2017. Results: Baseline response rates were 64% (60/94) and 59% (55/93) at follow-up. Compared to baseline, providers at follow-up were significantly more likely to report being “very confident” in their knowledge about: appropriate surveillance to detect recurrent breast cancer (5% vs 24%; p = 0.01); long-term physical effects of colon cancer and its treatment (8% vs 18%; p = 0.04); potential adverse psychosocial outcomes of colon cancer treatment (24% vs 44%; p = 0.01); appropriate screening for new primary breast (29% vs 61%; p < 0.001) and colon cancers (27% vs 51%; p = 0.01); and preventive lifestyle/behavioral counseling for breast (39% vs 59%; p = 0.03) and colon cancers (37% vs 59%; p = 0.01). Participants were also more likely to “strongly agree” that they have the skills necessary to: provide follow-up care related to the colon cancer and its treatment (10% vs 28%; p = 0.02); initiate appropriate screening for other new primary cancers for breast (28% vs 56%; p < 0.01) and colon cancer survivors (28% vs 58%; p < 0.01); and conduct lifestyle/behavioral counseling to prevent cancer for breast (33% vs 53%; p = 0.03) and colon cancer survivors (34% vs 55%; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Preliminary results suggest our project has improved provider knowledge, self-efficacy, and practices regarding survivorship care management, with the highest levels in areas pertaining to screening and prevention. We aim to continue this trajectory of improvement in subsequent project years and disseminate the project to other primary care training sites in Texas and beyond.

The number of cancer survivors in the United States continues to grow and is approaching 14 million. Cancer survivorship care varies by disease type, but the primary components of care include surveillance for recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, and primary prevention involving lifestyle interventions and improving psychosocial functioning. The goal of survivorship care is to maximize disease-free survival while maintaining optimal quality of life. Optimal care can be provided by primary care physicians in addition to cancer specialists; however, delivery of high-quality care for cancer survivors can be hindered by poor coordination of care, limitations in knowledge and skills related to survivorship care, gaps in evidence-based recommendations for prevention and other areas of survivorship care beyond the first few years, and communication issues. Coordination of care and communication may be improved by the use of a “survivorship care plan” document that provides a concise summary of the patient’s treatment and a plan for follow-up care. In addition, variations across ethnic groups in the impact of cancer during the survivorship phase of care have been documented in several areas of study, and cultural, social, and ethnic considerations are important factors in delivering optimal care to cancer survivors.

Responding to growing concerns regarding the safety, quality, and efficacy of cancer care in the United States, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences commissioned a comprehensive review of cancer care delivery in the US health care system in the late 1990s. The National Cancer Policy Board (NCPB), a 20-member board with broad representation, performed this review. In its review, the NCPB focused on the state of cancer care delivery at that time, its shortcomings, and ways to measure and improve the quality of cancer care. The NCPB described an ideal cancer care system in which patients would have equitable access to coordinated, guideline-based care and novel therapies throughout the course of their disease. In 1999, the IOM published the results of this review in its influential report, Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. The report outlined 10 recommendations, which, when implemented, would: 1) improve the quality of cancer care, 2) increase the current understanding of quality cancer care, and 3) reduce or eliminate access barriers to quality cancer care. Despite the fervor generated by this report, there are lingering doubts regarding the safety and quality of cancer care in the United States today. Increased awareness of medical errors and barriers to quality care, coupled with escalating health care costs, has prompted national efforts to reform the health care system. These efforts by health care providers and policymakers should bridge the gap between the ideal state described in Ensuring Quality Cancer Care and the current state of cancer care in the United States. Cancer 2011;. © 2011 American Cancer Society.

e19629 Background: Multidisciplinary care models provide a comprehensive approach to improve the care of long-term cancer survivors as recommended by the Institute of Medicine report.. Here we describe a Multidisciplinary Survivorship Care Model and the metrics used to evaluate the delivery of personalized care to long-term survivors. Methods: Critical components used to develop survivorship services included: 1) engaging clinical and administrative leadership; 2) conducting extensive reviews/syntheses of published literature including health promotion, prevention and risk reduction, late treatment effects, and rehabilitative services for each disease-site; 3) determining eligibility criteria to transition patients from active-disease care to survivorship care; 4) developing, implementing, and evaluating algorithms by involving a multidisciplinary team expert-consensus; 5) obtaining approval for integration of algorithms into practice by institutional credentialing and regulatory committees; 6) identifying appropriate survivorship clinics to pilot the feasibility of algorithms in routine clinical operations; 7) performing improvement checks of the clinic operations; and 8) revising operations and scheduling as needed. Metrics used to evaluate the progress of the clinical activity of each multidisciplinary survivorship care clinic (MSCC) included number of unique patients transitioned, number seen, number of arrived appointments, number of summary care plans issued, and survivors’ satisfaction. Results: The MSCCs included gynecology, thyroid, genitourinary, stem cell transplant, breast, head and neck, colorectal, lymphoma, and melanoma, with varied launch dates for each clinic. Between 09/01/2008 and 12/31/2011, there were a total of 7396 unique survivors, 12,741 arrived appointments, and 10,016 summary care plans completed within 30 days from appointment. Conclusions: Dedicated multidisciplinary survivorship care models are a comprehensive approach to deliver long-term survivorship care. Comparative effectiveness and other health outcomes research examining the feasibility, usability, acceptance, and effectiveness of the MSCC by providers and survivors is warranted.