scholarly journals Comprehensive cancer control in the United States: progress and opportunity

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 1965-1965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie S. Given ◽  
Karin Hohman ◽  
Madeline La Porta ◽  
Lori Belle-Isle ◽  
Phyllis Rochester
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Control

scholarly journals Extent of Inclusion of “Rural” in Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathryn Murphy ◽  
Sydney Evans ◽  
Natoshia Askelson ◽  
Jan M. Eberth ◽  
Whitney E. Zahnd
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Control

scholarly journals Implementation of Cancer Plans in the United States: A Review

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 291
Author(s):  
Michael W. Bacchus ◽  
Bobbie McKee ◽  
Clement K. Gwede ◽  
Christopher R. Cogle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Stakeholder Engagement ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Control ◽  
Implementation Plan ◽  
Cancer Plan ◽  
Implementation Plans

State cancer plans facilitate prioritization and stakeholder engagement in preventing and controlling cancer. Implementation plans further help stakeholders prioritize efforts, reduce redundancy, and find opportunities for work synergies. A review of cancer plan implementations plans was performed in the development of an implementation plan for the Florida Cancer Plan. This review sought to identify, characterize, and summarize the use of implementation plans that support comprehensive cancer control activities. Although 100% of states and territories published a cancer plan and 78% of states provided funding for implementing their state cancer plans, only 32% published an implementation plan. Commonalities and unique features of state cancer plan implementations are presented and discussed. An example implementation plan is provided for states without a plan to model.

The Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) story: review of community oncologists' experiences with clinical research trials in cancer with an emphasis on the CCOP of the National Cancer Institute between 1982 and 1987.

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 1718-1723 ◽  
Author(s):  
R W Frelick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Cancer Management ◽  
Clinical Research Trials

PURPOSE To review the growth of community physicians' involvement in National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical research trials as a significant contribution to cancer control, and to show their impact, not yet fully realized, on cancer morbidity and mortality in the United States. DESIGN Background information, based on the personal experience of participants, as well as a review of pertinent literature, portrays the evolution of the clinical research component of community oncology in the United States over the last 25 years. RESULTS Data from Community Clinical Oncology Programs (CCOPs) I and II have been used to outline some of the results of this far-reaching program. CONCLUSION The CCOP was introduced at an appropriate time to expand the clinical trial resources of the NCI, while at the same time helping community oncologists practice state-of-the-art cancer management found in the research protocols. This in turn provided improved resources to manage cancer patients, as most of them are treated in their own communities. CCOPs have also indirectly had a positive impact on the trial processes of the NCI cooperative groups and comprehensive cancer centers, and have helped to widen the scope and hasten progress in cancer-control research and practice.

scholarly journals The history and use of cancer registry data by public health cancer control programs in the United States

Cancer ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 123 ◽  
pp. 4969-4976 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary C. White ◽  
Frances Babcock ◽  
Nikki S. Hayes ◽  
Angela B. Mariotto ◽  
Faye L. Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Cancer Registry ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Registry Data ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Cancer Registry Data

Analysis of Mammography Screening Schedules under Varying Resource Constraints for Planning Breast Cancer Control Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Mathematical Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-378
Author(s):  
Shifali Bansal ◽  
Vijeta Deshpande ◽  
Xinmeng Zhao ◽  
Jeremy A. Lauer ◽  
Filip Meheus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
United States ◽  
Mammography Screening ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Optimal Screening ◽  
Current Guidelines

Background. Low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) have higher mortality-to-incidence ratio for breast cancer compared to high-income countries (HICs) because of late-stage diagnosis. Mammography screening is recommended for early diagnosis, however, the infrastructure capacity in LMICs are far below that needed for adopting current screening guidelines. Current guidelines are extrapolations from HICs, as limited data had restricted model development specific to LMICs, and thus, economic analysis of screening schedules specific to infrastructure capacities are unavailable. Methods. We applied a new Markov process method for developing cancer progression models and a Markov decision process model to identify optimal screening schedules under a varying number of lifetime screenings per person, a proxy for infrastructure capacity. We modeled Peru, a middle-income country, as a case study and the United States, an HIC, for validation. Results. Implementing 2, 5, 10, and 15 lifetime screens would require about 55, 135, 280, and 405 mammography machines, respectively, and would save 31, 62, 95, and 112 life-years per 1000 women, respectively. Current guidelines recommend 15 lifetime screens, but Peru has only 55 mammography machines nationally. With this capacity, the best strategy is 2 lifetime screenings at age 50 and 56 years. As infrastructure is scaled up to accommodate 5 and 10 lifetime screens, screening between the ages of 44-61 and 41-64 years, respectively, would have the best impact. Our results for the United States are consistent with other models and current guidelines. Limitations. The scope of our model is limited to analysis of national-level guidelines. We did not model heterogeneity across the country. Conclusions. Country-specific optimal screening schedules under varying infrastructure capacities can systematically guide development of cancer control programs and planning of health investments.

scholarly journals Geospatial approaches to cancer control and population sciences at the United States cancer centers

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Korycinski ◽  
Bethany L. Tennant ◽  
Michelle A. Cawley ◽  
Bonny Bloodgood ◽  
April Y. Oh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Centers

44 BLADDER CANCER CONTROL OUTCOMES HAVE NOT IMPROVED WITHIN THE LAST THIRTY YEARS: A TREND ANALYSIS IN THE UNITED STATES

2011 ◽  
Vol 185 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Firas Abdollah ◽  
Maxine Sun ◽  
Jan Schmitges ◽  
Claudio Jeldres ◽  
Daniel Liberman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Bladder Cancer ◽  
Trend Analysis ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document