Search

In 2020 the UK Global Cancer Network (UKGCN) was formed to unite those in the UK interested in Global Oncology and to strengthen collaborative partnerships with stakeholders working across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in cancer health systems, governance, and care. The UKGCN undertook a mapping exercise to document collaborations to inform the UK's global oncology strategy. A semi-structured survey was developed and disseminated using a snowball method over ten weeks from February 2021 across the UK's cancer community, to identify individuals and institutions engaged in clinical practice, research, and/or education with partners in LMICs. The survey was sent to individuals in NHS hospitals, charities, universities, other organisations, UKGCN members, and to contacts identified by a literature and web search. A total of 639 invitations were sent, and 88 responses were received. Results demonstrate a range of collaborative efforts spanning many areas of cancer control: health promotion, prevention, diagnosis and treatment, survivorship, and palliative care. A wide range of countries were represented from Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, the MENA region, China, and South-East Asia. The projects included education and training (146), clinical practice/care (144), and research (226). This mapping exercise demonstrated considerable UK collaboration with stakeholders in LMICs across all three domains of education, clinical care, and research. The survey results provide an initial framework from which to promote in-depth strategic intelligence on the broad range of activities undertaken by the UK global oncology community. This information has been used as a catalyst to create new partnerships and connect colleagues working in similar geographical settings, encouraging bidirectional learning. The UKGCN will galvanise endeavours to improve equitable access to cancer services globally. • There is considerable UK collaboration with stakeholders in LMICs working in global oncology. • The survey acts as a baseline to build on and monitor output in UK global oncology community. • This paper advocates for global oncology partnerships and bidirectional learning. • The UKGCN aims to advocate for and co-ordinate endeavours to improve equitable access to cancer services globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study assessed the change in cervical cancer screening attendance across 10 years and identified the associated factors. Methods: Data from the European Health Interview Surveys in Hungary (2009, 2014, 2019) were analyzed with multivariate and multiple logistic regressions. Results: The analysis involved 4,850 participants, revealing a significant (p < 0.001) increase in screening attendance from 69% to 77% over 10 years. Factors significantly associated with higher attendance rates included a higher education level (tertiary level AOR = 2.51 [2.03–3.09]), being in a relationship (AOR = 1.59 [1.39–1.83]), the belief that one can do much for one’s health (OR = 1.26 [1.05–1.52]), and the absence of chronic health problems (AOR = 1.56 [1.33–1.84]). Lower screening odds were significantly correlated with worse self-perceived health status (AOR = 0.65 [0.52–0.81]) and less frequent doctor (AOR = 0.64 [0.54–0.76]) and specialist visits (AOR = 0.46 [0.39–0.53]). Conclusion: Enhancing cervical cancer screening rates requires tailored public health strategies, particularly targeting individuals with lower education and poor health perceptions. Public health initiatives and enhanced collaboration among healthcare professionals are required to further increase participation rates, particularly among the identified groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Methods Results Conclusions To provide updated statistics of oral cancer incidence and mortality in Taiwan, and to describe recent developments for oral cancer control to reduce oral cancer incidence and mortality.The Taiwan Cancer Registry Annual Report 2023, the Taiwan Cancer Registry Online Interactive Search System, and the 2023 Health Promotion Administration Annual Report are consulted and summarized. A literature search using PubMed was also conducted to identify Taiwan oral cancer control‐related studies.Taiwan, with a long history of areca/betel quid chewing, has battled with oral cancer for decades. In 2021, the male lip and oral cavity cancer incidence is 29.77 (per 100,000 persons) and mortality is 11.25. Over these years, the male chewing prevalence was reduced to 6.2% in 2018. Taiwan has a sustained national oral cancer screening programme provided to high‐risk groups biennially.Although the age‐standardized incidence rates have been slowly decreasing since 2009, due to Taiwan's ageing population, the actual oral cancer burden is still stringent. The collaboration of multi‐ministries and agencies on promoting areca nut and betel quid control, improving oral cancer awareness, and delivering cancer care remains essential to prevent oral cancer and reduce oral cancer deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer outcomes in Australia are among the best in the world, but this is not the story for all Australians, with significant disparities in cancer outcomes and experiences among specific groups in Australian society. The Australian Government developed the Australian Cancer Plan (the Plan) as a national approach to improve cancer outcomes and experience for all. The Plan identifies six strategic objectives that require nationally coordinated effort, to achieve the Plan's vision of world class cancer outcomes and experience for all Australians affected by cancer. The Plan emphasises person-centred approaches to cancer care, underpinned by a Health Equity in Cancer Outcomes Framework. As the Australian Government's national cancer control agency, Cancer Australia is driving the Plan's reform agenda through five implementation policy priorities: the development and establishment of an Australian Comprehensive Cancer Network; the development of a National Optimal Care Pathways Framework; the development of a National Comprehensive Cancer Data Framework and minimum dataset; the development of a National Genomics in Cancer Control Framework; and initiatives to improve cancer outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These priorities will lay the foundation to deliver an integrated, accessible, and equitable cancer control system to deliver the Plan's vision over the next decade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer is a major global public health issue, causing a significant number of premature deaths worldwide. In 2020, the World Health Organization reported that more than 19 million individuals were diagnosed with cancer, and over 10 million lost their lives to the disease. Predictions indicate that cancer-related deaths will exceed 30 million by 2030, with around 75 % occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) like Kenya. Various factors contribute to this concerning trend, including aging populations, a high prevalence of cancer risk factors, socioeconomic disparities resulting in limited healthcare access, and deficiencies in healthcare systems within LMICs. This study focused on Nyandarua County, Kenya, which lacks a dedicated cancer registry. Without comprehensive incidence data, the county faces challenges in developing targeted programs for cancer prevention, management, and control. The main objective of this investigation was to establish a cancer registry specific to Nyandarua County, capable of continuously gathering accurate cancer data, patient treatment follow-ups and disease outcomes. A demographic survey was conducted to determine the frequency of all-cause and specific cancers among patients who attended selected health facilities between 2013 and 2020. Data were collected from existing hospital records in three main hospitals in the county. A total of 1373 cases were recorded, with 54.9 % of patients being female. North Kinangop Catholic Hospital accounted for the largest number of patients (62 %), followed by JM Kariuki County Memorial Hospital (35 %), while Engineer Hospital contributed the remaining 3 %. The top five cancer sites observed in Nyandarua County were esophagus (16.8 %), cervix uteri (13.4 %), stomach (10.6 %), breast (8.8 %), and prostate (8.6 %). Our findings provide valuable insights into the prevalence and distribution of different types of cancer in the region. With the establishment of this cancer registry, Nyandarua County is now among the pioneering counties in Kenya. It is crucial for the county government to undertake the responsibility of continuously updating the registry to draw inferences regarding cancer prevalence in the region to enhance patients follow up and survival.

This article presents global cancer statistics by world region for the year 2022 based on updated estimates from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). There were close to 20 million new cases of cancer in the year 2022 (including nonmelanoma skin cancers [NMSCs]) alongside 9.7 million deaths from cancer (including NMSC). The estimates suggest that approximately one in five men or women develop cancer in a lifetime, whereas around one in nine men and one in 12 women die from it. Lung cancer was the most frequently diagnosed cancer in 2022, responsible for almost 2.5 million new cases, or one in eight cancers worldwide (12.4% of all cancers globally), followed by cancers of the female breast (11.6%), colorectum (9.6%), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (4.9%). Lung cancer was also the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18.7%), followed by colorectal (9.3%), liver (7.8%), female breast (6.9%), and stomach (6.8%) cancers. Breast cancer and lung cancer were the most frequent cancers in women and men, respectively (both cases and deaths). Incidence rates (including NMSC) varied from four‐fold to five‐fold across world regions, from over 500 in Australia/New Zealand (507.9 per 100,000) to under 100 in Western Africa (97.1 per 100,000) among men, and from over 400 in Australia/New Zealand (410.5 per 100,000) to close to 100 in South‐Central Asia (103.3 per 100,000) among women. The authors examine the geographic variability across 20 world regions for the 10 leading cancer types, discussing recent trends, the underlying determinants, and the prospects for global cancer prevention and control. With demographics‐based predictions indicating that the number of new cases of cancer will reach 35 million by 2050, investments in prevention, including the targeting of key risk factors for cancer (including smoking, overweight and obesity, and infection), could avert millions of future cancer diagnoses and save many lives worldwide, bringing huge economic as well as societal dividends to countries over the forthcoming decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The cancer registry provides reliable data from the population. In this article, we provide cancer burden and its patterns from the Varanasi district. Methods: The method adopted by the Varanasi cancer registry is community interaction along with regular visits to more than 60 sources to collect data on cancer patients. The cancer registry was established by the Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, in 2017 covering 4 million population (57% rural and 43% urban population). Results: The registry has recorded 1,907 incidence cases (1,058 male and 849 female). The age-adjusted incidence rate per 100,000 population in male and female of Varanasi district is 59.2 and 52.1, respectively. One in 15 male and one in 17 female are at risk of developing the disease. Mouth and tongue cancers are the predominant cancers in male, whereas breast, cervix uteri, and gallbladder are the leading cancer sites among the female. In female, cervix uteri cancer is significantly higher (double) in rural areas when compared with urban areas(rate ratio [RR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.36, 0.72]), whereas in male, mouth cancer is higher in urban areas when compared with rural areas (RR 1.4, 95% CI [1.11, 1.72]). More than 50% of cancer cases in male are due to tobacco consumption. There may be underreporting of the cases. Conclusion: The results of the registry warrant policies and activities related to early detection services for the mouth, cervix uteri, and breast cancers. The Varanasi cancer registry is the foundation for cancer control and will play an important role in the evaluation of the interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectivesThis study assessed the change in cervical cancer screening attendance across 10 years and identified the associated factors.MethodsData from the European Health Interview Surveys in Hungary (2009, 2014, 2019) were analyzed with multivariate and multiple logistic regressions.ResultsThe analysis involved 4,850 participants, revealing a significant (p < 0.001) increase in screening attendance from 69% to 77% over 10 years. Factors significantly associated with higher attendance rates included a higher education level (tertiary level AOR = 2.51 [2.03–3.09]), being in a relationship (AOR = 1.59 [1.39–1.83]), the belief that one can do much for one’s health (OR = 1.26 [1.05–1.52]), and the absence of chronic health problems (AOR = 1.56 [1.33–1.84]). Lower screening odds were significantly correlated with worse self-perceived health status (AOR = 0.65 [0.52–0.81]) and less frequent doctor (AOR = 0.64 [0.54–0.76]) and specialist visits (AOR = 0.46 [0.39–0.53]).ConclusionEnhancing cervical cancer screening rates requires tailored public health strategies, particularly targeting individuals with lower education and poor health perceptions. Public health initiatives and enhanced collaboration among healthcare professionals are required to further increase participation rates, particularly among the identified groups.

Abstract Background Although polygenic risk score (PRS) has emerged as a promising tool for predicting cancer risk from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), the individual-level accuracy of lung cancer PRS and the extent to which its impact on subsequent clinical applications remains largely unexplored. Methods Lung cancer PRSs and confidence/credible interval (CI) were constructed using two statistical approaches for each individual: (1) the weighted sum of 16 GWAS-derived significant SNP loci and the CI through the bootstrapping method (PRS-16-CV) and (2) LDpred2 and the CI through posteriors sampling (PRS-Bayes), among 17,166 lung cancer cases and 12,894 controls with European ancestry from the International Lung Cancer Consortium. Individuals were classified into different genetic risk subgroups based on the relationship between their own PRS mean/PRS CI and the population level threshold. Results Considerable variances in PRS point estimates at the individual level were observed for both methods, with an average standard deviation (s.d.) of 0.12 for PRS-16-CV and a much larger s.d. of 0.88 for PRS-Bayes. Using PRS-16-CV, only 25.0% of individuals with PRS point estimates in the lowest decile of PRS and 16.8% in the highest decile have their entire 95% CI fully contained in the lowest and highest decile, respectively, while PRS-Bayes was unable to find any eligible individuals. Only 19% of the individuals were concordantly identified as having high genetic risk (> 90th percentile) using the two PRS estimators. An increased relative risk of lung cancer comparing the highest PRS percentile to the lowest was observed when taking the CI into account (OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 2.12–3.50, P-value = 4.13 × 10−15) compared to using PRS-16-CV mean (OR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.99–2.49, P-value = 5.70 × 10−46). Improved risk prediction performance with higher AUC was consistently observed in individuals identified by PRS-16-CV CI, and the best performance was achieved by incorporating age, gender, and detailed smoking pack-years (AUC: 0.73, 95% CI = 0.72–0.74). Conclusions Lung cancer PRS estimates using different methods have modest correlations at the individual level, highlighting the importance of considering individual-level uncertainty when evaluating the practical utility of PRS.

Background: Although polygenic risk score (PRS) has emerged as a promising tool for predicting cancer risk from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), the individual-level accuracy of lung cancer PRS and the extent to which its impact on subsequent clinical applications remains largely unexplored. Methods: Lung cancer PRSs and confidence/credible interval (CI) were constructed using two statistical approaches for each individual: (1) the weighted sum of 16 GWAS-derived significant SNP loci and the CI through the bootstrapping method (PRS-16-CV) and (2) LDpred2 and the CI through posteriors sampling (PRS-Bayes), among 17,166 lung cancer cases and 12,894 controls with European ancestry from the International Lung Cancer Consortium. Individuals were classified into different genetic risk subgroups based on the relationship between their own PRS mean/PRS CI and the population level threshold. Results: Considerable variances in PRS point estimates at the individual level were observed for both methods, with an average standard deviation (s.d.) of 0.12 for PRS-16-CV and a much larger s.d. of 0.88 for PRS-Bayes. Using PRS-16-CV, only 25.0% of individuals with PRS point estimates in the lowest decile of PRS and 16.8% in the highest decile have their entire 95% CI fully contained in the lowest and highest decile, respectively, while PRS-Bayes was unable to find any eligible individuals. Only 19% of the individuals were concordantly identified as having high genetic risk (> 90th percentile) using the two PRS estimators. An increased relative risk of lung cancer comparing the highest PRS percentile to the lowest was observed when taking the CI into account (OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 2.12–3.50, P-value = 4.13 × 10−15) compared to using PRS-16-CV mean (OR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.99–2.49, P-value = 5.70 × 10−46). Improved risk prediction performance with higher AUC was consistently observed in individuals identified by PRS-16-CV CI, and the best performance was achieved by incorporating age, gender, and detailed smoking pack-years (AUC: 0.73, 95% CI = 0.72–0.74). Conclusions: Lung cancer PRS estimates using different methods have modest correlations at the individual level, highlighting the importance of considering individual-level uncertainty when evaluating the practical utility of PRS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite advances in cancer control—prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship—racial disparities in cancer incidence and survival persist and, in some cases, are widening in the United States. Since 2020, there's been growing recognition of the role of structural racism, including structurally racist policies and practices, as the main factor contributing to historical and contemporary disparities. Structurally racist policies and practices have been present since the genesis of the United States and are also at the root of environmental injustices, which result in disproportionately high exposure to environmental hazards among communities targeted for marginalization, increased cancer risk, disruptions in access to care, and worsening health outcomes. In addition to widening cancer disparities, environmental injustices enable the development of polluting infrastructure, which contribute to detrimental health outcomes in the entire population, and to climate change, the most pressing public health challenge of our time. In this commentary, we describe the connections between climate change and cancer through an Environmental Justice perspective (defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all racialized groups, nationalities, or income, in all aspects, including development, implementation, and enforcement, of policies and practices that affect the environment and public health), highlighting how the expertise developed in communities targeted for marginalization is crucial for addressing health disparities, tackling climate change, and advancing cancer control efforts for the entire population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network of academic, public health, and community organizational partners across multiple geographic sites who collaborate to reduce the cancer burden in diverse communities. Given key recommendations that suggest the need for cross-disciplinary collaboration in cancer prevention and control, we sought to explore the historical and contemporary evolution of health equity and disparities research as an area of focus within the CPCRN over time. We conducted 22 in-depth interviews with former and current leaders, co-investigators, and other members of the network. Several key themes emerged from data that were analyzed and interpreted using a constructivist, reflexive, thematic analysis approach. Nearly all participants reported a strong focus on studying health disparities since the inception of the CPCRN, which offered the network a distinct advantage in recent years for incorporating an intentional focus on health equity. Recent law enforcement injustices and the inequities observed during the COVID-19 pandemic have further invigorated network activities around health equity, such as development of a health equity-focused workgroup toolkit, among other cross-center activities. Several participants noted that, in terms of deep, meaningful, and impactful health equity-oriented research, there are still great strides for the network to make, while also acknowledging CPCRN as well-aligned with the national dialogue led by federal agency partners around health equity. Finally, several future directions were mentioned by the participants, including a focus on supporting a diverse workforce and engaging organizational partners and community members in equity-focused research. Findings from these interviews provide direction for the network in advancing the science in cancer prevention and control, with a strengthened focus on health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Approximately 20,745 new cases of cancer were registered annually with 13,199 (64%) deaths in 2020 in Cameroon. Despite the increasing cancer burden, there is a paucity of reliable data that can enhance decision-making for cancer control in Cameroon. This assessment was, therefore, designed to generate data that may enable stakeholders, policymakers and funders to make data-driven decisions on cancer control. We conducted a cross-sectional survey in July 2020, which enabled us to collect data on key cancer variables from six adult cancer treatment centres in Cameroon. The key components of the assessment included case detection, service availability, human resource capacity, cost of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the safety of chemotherapy sessions, data systems, patient education, palliative care, funding for chemotherapy and chemotherapy stock. Data were compiled and analysed using Microsoft Excel 2016. Data from four of the 6 sites show that 1,636 new cases were recorded representing an annual case detection rate of 11.8%. All the six assessed facilities offered chemotherapy services, 5/6 (83.3%) offered surgery for cancers, while just 1 (16.7%) offered radiotherapy services. In addition, none offered nuclear medicine services for cancer care and treatment. Similarly, none of the facilities had the WHO-recommended number of human resources for optimal cancer care. Overall, there were only 6 medical oncologists, 2 surgical oncologists, 3 radiation oncologists and 14 oncology nurses providing services across the 6 cancer treatment centres. Treatment services are expensive for an average national, with a complete course of chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy costing ~XAF 1,240,000 (~$2,480). None of the survey facilities had a recommended safe biosafety cabinet and clean room for the preparation of chemotherapies, rendering the preparation of chemotherapies suboptimal and hazardous. Data collection tools were manual, relatively available and very different across all the surveyed sites and the interval for data collection and transmission was collectively undefined. Optimal cancer care in adult cancer treatment centres is limited by several health systems and socio-economic factors. The identification of these barriers has enabled the formulation of action-oriented interventions, leveraging on the recently adopted national strategy for the prevention and control of cancers in the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Rapid cycle interventional research can accelerate improvements to cancer care delivery and patient health outcomes by answering multiple questions as part of a single research study. To complement ongoing efforts to increase awareness of and support for rapid cycle interventional research, we conducted a systematic portfolio analysis of research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute on the topic. Methods We used standard portfolio analytic methods for identifying, coding, and synthesizing rapid cycle interventional research funded by the National Cancer Institute between 2016 and 2022. A codebook was used to standardize assessment of the grants by common study characteristics, intervention topics, and cancer care delivery context. Results We identified 26 grants, mostly funded since 2019, as rapid cycle interventional research. Most studies included adult or older adult target populations, used electronic systems for intervention delivery, and focused primarily on testing different components of interventions. Studies also used a range of study designs, intervention content areas, cancer sites, and across the cancer control continuum. Conclusions The current portfolio analysis of funded rapid cycle interventional research grants suggests a growing albeit relatively small number of studies in this area. Several efforts are needed to continue to grow this area of research, including training programs, funding opportunities, and strengthening research-practice partnerships. This analysis provides a snapshot of current studies and highlights the opportunity for growing this important area of research to optimize cancer care delivery and improve patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Women with breast cancer have different chances of surviving their disease, depending on where they live. Variations in survival may stem from unequal access to prompt diagnosis, treatment and care. Implementation of the right to health may help remedy such inequalities. The right to health is enshrined in international human rights law, notably Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A human rights-based approach to health requires a robust, just and efficient health system, with access to adequate health services and medicines on a non-discriminatory basis. However, it may prove challenging for health policymakers and cancer management specialists to implement and monitor this right in national health systems. Method This article presents the results of a Delphi study designed to select indicators of implementation of the right to health to inform breast cancer care and management. In a systematic process, 13 experts examined an initial list of 151 indicators. Results After two rounds, 54 indicators were selected by consensus, three were rejected, three were added, and 97 remained open for debate. For breast cancer, right-to-health features selected as worth implementing and monitoring included the formal recognition of the right to health in breast cancer strategies; a population-based screening programme, prompt diagnosis, strong referral systems and limited waiting times; the provision of palliative, survivorship and end-of-life care; the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality (AAAQ) of breast cancer services and medicines; the provision of a system of accountability; and the collection of anonymised individual data to target patterns of discrimination. Conclusion We propose a set of indicators as a guide for health policy experts seeking to design national cancer plans that are based on a human rights-based approach to health, and for cancer specialists aiming to implement principles of the right to health in their practice. The 54 indicators selected may be used in High-Income Countries, or member states of the OECD who also have signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to monitor progress towards implementation of the right to health for women with breast cancer.

Abstract Background: Researchers generally do an excellent job tracking the scientific impacts of their scholarship in ways that are relevant for academia (e.g., publications, grants) but too often neglect to focus on broader impacts on population health and equity. The National Cancer Institute’s Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) includes 7 P50 Centers that are interested in broad measures of impact. We provide an overview of the approach underway within the ISC3 consortium to identify health and social impacts. Methods: ISC3 adapted and applied the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) to identify the impact on the discipline of D&I science and to consider dissemination and implementation (D&I) impacts in the four original TSBM domains: (1) clinical; (2) community; (3) economic; and (4) policy. To collect data from all Centers, we: (1) co-developed a set of detailed impact indicators with examples; (2) created a data collection template; and (3) summarized the impact data from each center. Results: Based on data from 48 ISC3 pilot studies, cores, or consortium activities, we identified 84 distinct benefits. The most common impacts were shown for implementation science (43%), community (28%), and clinical (18%). Frequent audiences included primary care providers, public health practitioners, and community partners. ISC3 members highlighted the need for product feedback, and storytelling assistance to advance impact. Conclusions: The ISC3 consortium is using a participatory approach to successfully apply the TSBM, thus seeking to maximize the real-world impacts of D&I science. The D&I field needs to prioritize ways to more fully document and communicate societal impacts.

The purpose of a population-based cancer registry is to provide information on the disease burden for cancer control planning and is essential in studies on assessing the effectiveness of prevention, early detection, screening and cancer care interventions, where implemented. Sri Lanka is one of the Member States of the World Health Organisation's South-East Asia Region and receives technical support for cancer registration from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the IARC Regional Hub based at the Tata Memorial Centre in Mumbai, India. For data management of cancer registry records, Sri Lanka National Cancer Registry (SLNCR) uses the open-source registry software tool, CanReg5, as developed by IARC. The SLNCR has received data from 25 centres located across the country. Inputted data from the respective centres was then exported from various CanReg5 systems to the main centre in Colombo. As the import to the central CanReg5 system held in the capital is manual, the records were manually modified to avoid any duplicate entries, and the quality of data was compromised. To overcome this issue, a new software tool, Rupantaran, has been created and developed by IARC Regional Hub, Mumbai to help merge the records from different centres. Rupantaran was tested and implemented successfully at the SLNCR with 47,402 merged records. The Rupantaran software has proven beneficial in maintaining the quality of cancer registry data by avoiding manual errors, thus enabling rapid analysis and dissemination, a limiting factor previously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Project ECHO model of telementoring has been used for the past 10 years to expand access to specialized cancer care. This scoping review identifies evidence for the model's ability to improve provider outcomes, synthesizing findings from existing studies within Moore et al.'s (2009) framework for continuing medical education outcomes. We search two large research databases and a collection maintained by Project ECHO staff for articles that focus on cancer ECHO programs, involve primary data collection, and were published between December 1, 2016, and November 30, 2021. We identified 25 articles for inclusion in our scoping review. Most articles reported results for outcomes related to program participation: attendance, satisfaction, and learning. Yet, just under half reported changes in provider practices. Results demonstrate widespread participation and improved learning resulting from ECHO programs focused on cancer care. There is also evidence of improved practices related to HCV vaccination and palliative care. We highlight examples of best practices as well as opportunities to improve provider outcome evaluations for cancer ECHO programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Partnerships between researchers and community members and organizations can offer multiple benefits for research relevance and dissemination. The goal of this project was to build infrastructure to create bidirectional relationships between University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center (UWCCC) researchers and community educators in the Division of Extension, which connects the knowledge and resources of the university to communities across the state. Methods: This project had three aims: (1) create linkages with Extension; (2) establish an in-reach program to educate and train researchers on the science of Community Outreach and Engagement (COE); and (3) identify and facilitate collaborative projects between scientists and communities. Survey and focus group-based needs assessments were completed with both researchers and Extension educators and program activity evaluations were conducted. Results: Most Extension educators (71%) indicated a strong interest in partnering on COE projects. UWCCC faculty indicated interest in further disseminating their research, but also indicated barriers in connecting with communities. Outreach webinars were created and disseminated to community, a "COE in-reach toolkit" for faculty was created and a series of "speed networking" events were hosted to pair researchers and community. Evaluations indicated the acceptability and usefulness of these activities and supported continuation of collaborative efforts. Conclusion: Continued relationship and skill building, along with a sustainability plan, is critical to support the translation of basic, clinical, and population research to action in the community outreach and engagement context. Further incentives for faculty should be explored for the recruitment of basic scientists into community engagement work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In view of limited resources and financial constraints, overburdened cancer services in low-middle income countries struggle to provide timely interventions in patients with cancer. Cancer services have been severely affected during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many patients are being deprived of timely screening and treatments have been delayed owing to resource reallocation and funding constraints. Artificial intelligence shows considerable promise in reducing screening, treatment, and patient waiting times; it also increases departmental throughput and improves the cost-benefit ratio of treatment. In limited resource settings, the reallocation of saved costs may be used to improve care services. In view of the disruption caused by the pandemic, greater use of artificial intelligence for cancer screening and care may reduce the burden on existing facilities in low-middle income countries. This may aid early diagnosis and treatment, prevent the need for prolonged and intensive treatments, and improve patient outcomes at this difficult time.

Abstract Background Cancer survival varies by socioeconomic status in Japan. We examined the extent to which survival disparities are explained by factors relevant to cancer control measures (promoting early‐stage detection, standardizing treatment, and centralizing patients to government‐accredited cancer hospitals [ACHs]). Methods From the Osaka Cancer Registry, patients diagnosed with solid malignant tumors during 2005–2014 and aged 15–84 years (N = 376,077) were classified into quartiles using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI). Trends in inequalities were assessed for potentially associated factors: early‐stage detection, treatment modality, and utilization of ACH (for first contact/diagnosis/treatment). 3‐year all‐cause survival was computed by the ADI quartile. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess survival disparities and their trends through a series of adjustment for the potentially associated factors. Results During 2005–2014, the most deprived ADI quartile had lower rates than the least deprived quartile for early‐stage detection (42.6% vs. 48.7%); receipt of surgery (58.1% vs. 64.1%); and utilization of ACH (83.5% vs. 88.4%). While rate differences decreased for receipt of surgery and utilization of ACH (Annual Percent Change = −3.2 and − 11.9, respectively) over time, it remained unchanged for early‐stage detection. During 2012–2014, the most deprived ADI quartile had lower 3‐year survival than the least deprived (59.0% vs. 69.4%) and higher mortality (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.32, adjusted for case‐mix): this attenuated with additional adjustment for stage at diagnosis (HR = 1.23); treatment modality (HR = 1.20); and utilization of ACH (HR = 1.19) Conclusions Despite improvements in equalizing access to quality cancer care during 2005–2014, survival disparities remained. Interventions to reduce inequalities in early‐stage detection could ameliorate such gaps.

Research has shown cigarette smoking is a major risk factors for many type of cancer or cancer prognosis. Tobacco related health disparities were addressed continually in cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. The present study evaluated the health disparities in attendance of smoking cessation counseling classes for 4,826 patients scheduled to attend between 2005 and 2007. Of 3,781 (78.4%) patients with records to calculate the distance from their home domicile to counseling sites using Geographic Information System technology, 1,435 (38%) of smokers who attended counseling had shorter travel distances to counseling sites (11.6 miles, SD = 11.29) compared to non-attendees (13.4 miles, SD = 16.72). When the travel distance was >20 miles, the estimated odds of attending decreased with greater travel distance. Smokers who actually attended were more likely to be older, female, White, living in urban areas, and receiving free healthcare. After controlling for other socio-demographic factors, shorter distances were associated with greater class attendance, and individuals more likely to attend included those that lived closer to the counseling site and in urban settings, were female, White, commercially insured, and older than their counterparts. These findings have the potential to provide important insights for reducing health disparities for cancer prevention and control, and to improve shared decision making between providers and smokers.

Abstract Most new cancer cases are currently arising in low- and middle-income countries, where their outcomes are significantly poorer compared to high-income countries. Innovative solutions are imperiously needed to prevent, detect early, and manage cancer in low- and middle-income countries, aiming to improve the chances of survival.

It is currently not known how many more cancer deaths would have occurred among Canadians if cancer mortality rates were unchanged following various modern human interventions. The objective of this study was to estimate the number of cancer deaths that have been avoided in Canada since the age-standardized overall cancer mortality rate peaked in 1988. We applied the age-specific overall cancer mortality rates from 1988 to the Canadian population for all subsequent years to estimate the number of expected deaths. Avoided cancer deaths were estimated as the difference between the observed and expected number of cancer deaths for each year. Since 1988, there have been 372 584 (standardized mortality ratio = 0.77) and 120 045 (standardized mortality ratio = 0.90) avoided cancer deaths in males and females, respectively (492 629 total). Nearly half a million cancer deaths have been avoided in Canada since the overall cancer mortality rate peaked, which demonstrates the exceptional progress made in modern cancer control in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Women with breast cancer have different chances of surviving their disease, depending on where they live. Variations in survival may stem from unequal access to prompt diagnosis, treatment and care. Implementation of the right to health may help remedy such inequalities. The right to health is enshrined in international human rights law, notably Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A human rights-based approach to health requires a robust, just and efficient health system, with access to adequate health services and medicines on a non-discriminatory basis. However, it may prove challenging for health policymakers and cancer management specialists to implement and monitor this right in national health systems. Method: This article presents the results of a Delphi study designed to select indicators of implementation of the right to health to inform breast cancer care and management. In a systematic process, 13 experts examined an initial list of 151 indicators. Results: After two rounds, 54 indicators were selected by consensus, three were rejected, three were added, and 97 remained open for debate. For breast cancer, right-to-health features selected as worth implementing and monitoring included the formal recognition of the right to health in breast cancer strategies; a population-based screening programme, prompt diagnosis, strong referral systems and limited waiting times; the provision of palliative, survivorship and end-of-life care; the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality (AAAQ) of breast cancer services and medicines; the provision of a system of accountability; and the collection of anonymised individual data to target patterns of discrimination. Conclusion: We propose a set of indicators as a guide for health policy experts seeking to design national cancer plans that are based on a human rights-based approach to health, and for cancer specialists aiming to implement principles of the right to health in their practice. The 54 indicators selected may be used in High-Income Countries, or member states of the OECD who also have signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to monitor progress towards implementation of the right to health for women with breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background In 2019–2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in ‘real-world’ settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. Methods In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. Results Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. Conclusions The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

Considering the growing trend of cancer incidence and mortality in the world, regardless of the human development level, cancer control and prevention programs should be a high priority in health policies. Developing the national cancer control program is in line with these efforts. Therefore, the current review study was conducted to examine the dimensions of national cancer control programs and the strategies used in these programs. This study was conducted to investigate the dimensions of the national cancer control program of different countries. To find relevant articles, the authors searched keywords, such as National Program of Cancer Registries, Screening, Neoplasms, Cancer, and Cancer Control separately and in combination in databases, including Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, and Science Direct. Furthermore, the Persian equivalents of these keywords were searched in Sid, Magiran, and Civilica. Finally, full text articles related to the cancer control program in Farsi or English published from 2000 to 2020 were selected. 586 articles were identified, and finally, 19 were investigated. The dimensions of the national cancer control program differed among countries and they had used different strategies to implement the cancer control program. The National Cancer Control Program is the most logical means to achieve a significant degree of cancer control, even in cases with limited resources.

Purpose: The 2016–2020 Utah Comprehensive Cancer Prevention and Control Plan prioritized strategies to address cancer survivorship experiences. In this paper we present estimates for nine indicators evaluating these priorities, trends over time, and assess disparities in survivorship experiences across demographic subgroups. Methods: We surveyed a representative sample of Utah cancer survivors diagnosed between 2012 and 2019 with any reportable cancer diagnosis. We calculated weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each indicator. We assessed change over time using a test for trend across survey years in a logistic regression model and used Rao-Scott F-adjusted chi-square tests to test the association between demographic characteristics and each survivorship indicator. Results: Most of the 1,793 respondents (93.5%) reported their pain was under control, 85.7% rated their overall health as good, very good, or excellent, but 46.5% experienced physical, mental, or emotional limitations. Only 1.7% of survivors aged 75 or older were current smokers, compared to 5.8% of 65–74-year-olds and 7.9% of survivors aged 55–74 (p < 0.006). No regular physical activity was reported by 20.6% and varied by survivor age and education level. The proportion who received a survivorship care plan increased from 34.6% in 2018 to 43.0% in 2021 (p = 0.025). However, survivors under age 55 were significantly less likely to receive a care plan than older survivors. Conclusion: This representative survey of cancer survivors fills a gap in understanding of the cancer survivorship experience in Utah. Results can be used to evaluate and plan additional interventions to improve survivorship quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer survival varies by socioeconomic status in Japan. We examined the extent to which survival disparities are explained by factors relevant to cancer control measures (promoting early‐stage detection, standardizing treatment, and centralizing patients to government‐accredited cancer hospitals [ACHs]). Methods: From the Osaka Cancer Registry, patients diagnosed with solid malignant tumors during 2005–2014 and aged 15–84 years (N = 376,077) were classified into quartiles using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI). Trends in inequalities were assessed for potentially associated factors: early‐stage detection, treatment modality, and utilization of ACH (for first contact/diagnosis/treatment). 3‐year all‐cause survival was computed by the ADI quartile. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess survival disparities and their trends through a series of adjustment for the potentially associated factors. Results: During 2005–2014, the most deprived ADI quartile had lower rates than the least deprived quartile for early‐stage detection (42.6% vs. 48.7%); receipt of surgery (58.1% vs. 64.1%); and utilization of ACH (83.5% vs. 88.4%). While rate differences decreased for receipt of surgery and utilization of ACH (Annual Percent Change = −3.2 and − 11.9, respectively) over time, it remained unchanged for early‐stage detection. During 2012–2014, the most deprived ADI quartile had lower 3‐year survival than the least deprived (59.0% vs. 69.4%) and higher mortality (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.32, adjusted for case‐mix): this attenuated with additional adjustment for stage at diagnosis (HR = 1.23); treatment modality (HR = 1.20); and utilization of ACH (HR = 1.19) Conclusions: Despite improvements in equalizing access to quality cancer care during 2005–2014, survival disparities remained. Interventions to reduce inequalities in early‐stage detection could ameliorate such gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in Uruguay, yet less than half of the eligible population is up to date with screenings. Research is hampered because no measures exist to assess psychosocial factors that influence screening decisions in this population. To address this gap, we report on the development and psychometric validation of the Colorectal Cancer Literacy Scale—Uruguay Version, a scale based on the health literacy model. We developed an item pool based on the extant literature, obtained feedback from experts, and conducted focus groups with community participants and health care providers. After revision, we conducted a psychometric validation with a national community sample of 405 participants. Through an exploratory factor analysis, we identified four factors that were collapsed into two for theoretical and pragmatic reasons, representing (a) disposition toward cancer prevention and (b) attitudes, beliefs, and emotions about cancer. A third factor, knowledge about colorectal cancer, was examined separately given its distinct focus. Subsequently, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with the remaining sample participants using Rasch measurement theory for validation purposes and to further assess the scales’ psychometric properties. The resulting 44-item scale presented a good model fit with adequate EAP reliabilities and good initial discriminant validity. Further criterion-related validity analyses should be performed when additional measures are available. The Colorectal Cancer Literacy Scale—Uruguay Version is a theoretically based measure that can bring to light barriers and facilitative factors in an underscreened population at risk. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

Cancer awareness campaigns in Ghana and many parts of the world have gathered pace in recent years. Despite this encouraging trend, there has been no significant reduction in stigma in Ghana. This study investigated the role of beliefs about the causes of cancer in stigmatization and perceptions about treatment. Using standardized scales deployed in a survey, the study measured student perceptions about the causes of cancer, stigmatization, and opinion about the possibility of treating cancer. 225 students were sampled from two universities in the Ghanaian capital of Accra. The study used multiple linear regression and a logistic regression to answer two research questions. These asked whether beliefs in the mythical causes of cancer are associated with stigma towards cancer and whether this stigma is associated with the belief that cancer cannot be treated. The findings point to the association between perceived causes of cancer and stigma. Stigmatization was associated with the belief that cancer could not be treated. The findings imply that the perceived causes of cancer are associated with stigma and should thus be addressed by campaigners. Educating the public about the causes of cancer and addressing some of the myths can help reduce stigma and correct misperceptions about treatment.

Background: In 2019–2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. Methods: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. Results: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. Conclusions: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cervical cancer (CCa) is the fourth most frequent and a common cause of cancer mortality in women, the majority of whom live in low- and middleincome countries. Data on CCa mortality and its determinants have been poorly studied in Nigeria, resulting in a paucity of information that can assist patient management and cancer control policy. Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess the mortality rate among CCa patients in Nigeria as well as the major factors influencing CCa mortality. Study design: Data from the medical records of 343 CCa patients seen at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital and NSIA-LUTH Cancer Center from 2015 to 2021 were used in a retrospective cohort analysis. The hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CI) associated with the exposure variables and CCa mortality were calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression. Results: The CCa mortality rate was 30.5 per 100 women-years after 2.2 years of median follow-up. Clinical factors such as HIV/AIDS (adjusted HR [aHR]: 11.9; 95% CI: 4.6, 30.4), advanced clinical stage (aHR: 2.7; 95% CI: 1.5, 4.7), and anemia at presentation (aHR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.0) were associated with a higher mortality risk, as were non-clinical factors such as age at diagnosis >50years (aHR: 1.4; 95%CI: 1.0, 1.9) and family history of CCa (aHR: 3.5; 95%CI: 1.1, 11.1). Conclusion: CCa has a high mortality rate in Nigeria. Incorporating these clinical and non-clinical factors into CCa management and control policies may improve women's outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) Network represents a large-scale initiative to create an infrastructure to support and enable the efficient, effective, and equitable translation of approaches and evidence-based treatments to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. This Cancer Moonshot funded ISC3 Network consists of seven P50 Centers that support and advance the rapid development, testing, and refinement of innovative approaches to implement a range of evidence-based cancer control interventions. The Centers were designed to have research-practice partnerships at their core, and to create the opportunity for a series of pilot studies that could explore new and sometimes risky ideas and embed in their infrastructure a two-way engagement and collaboration essential to stimulating lasting change. ISC3 also seeks to enhance capacity of researchers, practitioners and communities to apply implementation science approaches, methods, and measures. The Organizing Framework that guides the work of ISC3 highlights a collective set of three core areas of collaboration within and among Centers, including: (1) assess and incorporate dynamic, multilevel context; (2) develop and conduct rapid and responsive pilot and methods studies; and (3) build capacity for knowledge development and exchange. Core operating principles that under-gird the framework include open collaboration, consideration of the dynamic context and engagement of multiple implementation partners to advance pragmatic methods, advancement of health equity, and facilitation of leadership and capacity building across Implementation Science and cancer control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients are at increased risk of malnutrition prior to and during radiation, chemotherapy, and surgical treatment. Nutrition intervention is recommended by several organizations, but is not part of treatment guidelines. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials in HNC patients to determine whether nutrition interventions prevented weight loss, and improved quality of life, nutrient intake, and treatment tolerance. Interventions, including medical nutrition therapy provided by a registered dietitian and including oral nutrition supplements, had the most favorable outcomes in these patients. Head and neck cancer (HNC) is associated with high rates of malnutrition. We conducted a systematic review and descriptive analysis to determine the effects of nutrition interventions on the nutrition status, quality of life (QOL), and treatment tolerance of HNC patients. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched to include all potentially relevant studies published between 2006–2022. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity of study designs and outcomes reported. Studies were categorized as nutrition interventions: (1) with oral nutrition supplements (ONS) and medical nutrition therapy (MNT) delivered by an RD; (2) with enteral nutrition (EN) support and MNT delivered by an RD; (3) with motivational interviewing and no ONS or EN; and (4) with ONS and no RD. Seven articles met inclusion criteria. Studies measured outcomes from immediately following treatment to 12 months post-treatment. Interventions resulted in benefits to lean mass/weight maintenance (three studies), QOL (two studies), nutrient intake adequacy (one study) and treatment tolerance (two studies). Nutrition counseling by a registered dietitian leads to improved nutrition status and QOL. Further research is needed to determine best practices related to timing of initiation, duration of nutrition intervention, as well as frequency of dietitian follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implementation of primary and secondary preventive strategies is based on the evidence generated by cancer epidemiology, where the identification of risk factors and the description of their prevalence are fundamental to derive estimates on the burden of cancer from different etiologies, typically expressed as the population attributable fraction, which corresponds to the proportion of a cancer that may be prevented by controlling a given risk factor. However, even when cancer finds its etiology in modifiable factors, its prevention through the control of those factors is not always feasible, or it remains suboptimal despite the possibility of reducing the burden. We reviewed selected associations between modifiable risk factors and cancer, including tobacco smoking, occupational exposures, infections, air pollution, alcohol, and diet and obesity, and illustrated examples of both successes and failures in cancer control, underlying how current understanding of the avoidable causes of cancer is incomplete. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Mammography has been introduced in many countries for the early detection of breast tumors and thus prevention of deaths in breast cancer. Survival in breast cancer has universally improved but it is not known to what extent mammography may have contributed to this positive development. National mammographic screening was offered to women in Finland and Sweden since the 1980s and in Denmark and Norway since the 1990s. We assessed, at the national level, if relative survival had improved after the introduction of the screening activities in age groups that were screened compared to those not screened. We observed an improvement in five-year and 10-year survival after the period of national mammography screening was in place. Timing and age-specific targeting of the improvements suggest that mammography may have contributed these. However, as we had no individual data on women who used the service, more detailed studies are needed to confirm the suggested survival advantage. Survival in female breast cancers has generally improved but the relative contribution of early detection or treatment in this positive development is not known. Our aim was to assess the possible role of national mammography screening programs in survival improvement. Such screening has been offered to women, usually at 50–69 years of age, in Finland and Sweden since the 1980s and in Denmark and Norway since the 1990s. Participation rates have been high, ranging from 60% to 90%. We analyzed incidence and mortality changes and relative 5- and 10-year survival trends in breast cancer as novel measures in these countries using the NORDCAN database. Survival trends were compared in age groups of women who were screened to those who were not screened. We observed a relative survival advantage in 5-year and 10-year survival in the screened age groups after the period of national mammography screening was in place and this was consistent in each country. Timing and age-specific targeting of the improvements suggest that mammography may have contributed to the survival benefits. However, as we had no individual data on women who used the service, more detailed studies are needed to confirm the suggested survival advantage, particularly concerning mortality in stage-specific breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract To improve cancer care in Indiana, a telementoring program using the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) model was introduced in September 2019 to promote best-practice cancer prevention, screening, and survivorship care by primary care providers (PCPs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the program’s educational outcomes in its pilot year, using Moore’s Evaluation Framework for Continuing Medical Education and focusing on the program’s impact on participants’ knowledge, confidence, and professional practice. We collected data in 22 semi-structured interviews (13 PCPs and 9 non-PCPs) and 30 anonymous one-time surveys (14 PCPs and 16 non-PCPs) from the program participants (hub and spoke site members), as well as from members of the target audience who did not participate. In the first year, average attendance at each session was 2.5 PCPs and 12 non-PCP professionals. In spite of a relatively low PCP participation, the program received very positive satisfaction scores, and participants reported improvements in knowledge, confidence, and practice. Both program participants and target audience respondents particularly valued three features of the program: its conversational format, the real-life experiences gained, and the support received from a professional interdisciplinary community. PCPs reported preferring case discussions over didactics. Our results suggest that the Cancer ECHO program has benefits over other PCP-targetted cancer control interventions and could be an effective educational means of improving cancer control capacity among PCPs and others. Further study is warranted to explain the discrepancies among study participants’ perceptions of the program’s strengths and the relatively low PCP participation before undertaking a full-scale effectiveness study.

Abstract Background Multi-center research initiatives offer opportunities to develop and strengthen connections among researchers. These initiatives often have goals of increased scientific collaboration which can be examined using social network analysis. Methods The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative conducted an online social network survey in its first year of funding (2020) to (1) establish baseline network measures including the extent of cross-center collaboration and (2) assess factors associated with a network member’s access to the network such as one’s implementation science (IS) expertise. Members of the seven funded centers and NCI program staff identified collaborations in planning/conducting research, capacity building, product development, scientific dissemination, and practice/policy dissemination. Results Of the 192 invitees, 182 network members completed the survey (95%). The most prevalent roles were faculty (60%) and research staff (24%). Almost one-quarter (23%) of members reported advanced expertise in IS, 42% intermediate, and 35% beginner. Most members were female (69%) and white (79%). One-third (33%) of collaboration ties were among members from different centers. Across all collaboration activities, the network had a density of 14%, suggesting moderate cohesion. Degree centralization (0.33) and betweenness centralization (0.07) measures suggest a fairly dispersed network (no single or few central member(s) holding all connections). The most prevalent and densely connected collaboration was in planning/conducting research (1470 ties; 8% density). Practice/policy dissemination had the fewest collaboration, lowest density (284 ties’ 3% density), and the largest number of non-connected members (n=43). Access to the ISC3 network varied significantly depending on members’ level of IS expertise, role within the network, and racial/ethnic background. Across all collaboration activities, most connected members included those with advanced IS expertise, faculty and NCI staff, and Hispanic or Latino and white members. Conclusions Results establish a baseline for assessing the growth of cross-center collaborations, highlighting specific areas in need of particular growth in network collaborations such as increasing engagement of racial and ethnic minorities and trainees or those with less expertise in IS.