Dermatology Representation on National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline Committees

Author(s):  
Samantha Sattler ◽  
Christina N. Kraus ◽  
Cesar A. Virgen ◽  
Ashley N. Elsensohn
2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e1343-e1354
Author(s):  
Laura Melton ◽  
Diana Krause ◽  
Jessica Sugalski

PURPOSE: The field of psycho-oncology is relatively undeveloped, with little information existing regarding the use of psychologists at cancer centers. Comprising 30 leading cancer centers across the United States, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) set out to understand the trends in its Member Institutions. METHODS: The NCCN Best Practices Committee surveyed NCCN Member Institutions regarding their use of psychologists. The survey was administered electronically in the spring/summer of 2017. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 18 cancer centers. Across institutions, 94% have psychologists appointed to provide direct care to their cancer center patients. The number of licensed psychologist full-time equivalents (FTEs) on staff who provide direct patient care ranged from < 1.0 FTE (17%) to 17.0-17.9 FTEs (6%). Regarding psychologist appointments, 41% have both faculty and staff appointments, 41% have all faculty appointments, and 18% have all staff appointments. Forty-three percent of institutions indicated that some licensed psychologists at their centers (ranging from 1%-65%) do not provide any direct clinical care, and 57% indicated that all licensed psychologist on staff devote some amount of time to direct clinical care. The percent of clinical care time that is spent on direct clinical care ranged from 15%-90%. CONCLUSION: There is great variability in psychology staffing, academic appointments, and the amount of direct patient care provided by on-staff psychologists at cancer centers.


2011 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 657-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reynaldo José Sant'Anna Pereira de Souza ◽  
Adriana P Mattedi ◽  
Marcelo P Corrêa ◽  
Marcelo L Rezende ◽  
Ana Cláudia Andrade Ferreira

FUNDAMENTOS: O câncer de maior incidência no Brasil é o de pele não-melanoma, que afeta aproximadamente 0,06% da população. Não existem políticas públicas para sua prevenção e o impacto econômico do seu diagnóstico não tem sido avaliado. OBJETIVOS: Estimar os custos do diagnóstico e tratamento do câncer de pele não-melanoma no Estado de São Paulo entre 2000 a 2007 e compará-los com os do melanoma cutâneo no mesmo período. MÉTODOS: Foi utilizado como modelo de procedimento o projeto diretriz Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, (National Comprehensive Cancer Network), adequado aos procedimentos da Fundação SOBECCan - Hospital do Câncer de Ribeirão Preto - SP. Os custos estimados baseiam-se nos valores do tratamento médico pagos pelos setores público e privado em 2007. RESULTADOS: Os valores médios de custo individual do tratamento anual do câncer de pele não-melanoma são muito mais baixos do que os estimados para o tratamento do melanoma cutâneo. Entretanto, observados os gastos totais no tratamento do câncer de pele não-melanoma, percebe-se que os 42.184 casos deste câncer em São Paulo, no período estudado, fazem com que o custo total do seu tratamento seja 14% superior ao dos 2.740 casos de melanoma cutâneo registrados no mesmo período para o SUS. Porém, para o sistema privado, o gasto total é, aproximadamente, 34% menor para o tratamento do câncer de pele não-melanoma. CONCLUSÃO: O elevado número de casos de câncer de pele não-melanoma no Brasil - com 114 mil novos casos previstos para 2010, sendo 95% diagnosticados em estágios precoces - representa um impacto financeiro ao sistema público e aos sistemas privados de saúde de cerca de R$ 37 milhões e R$ 26 milhões ao ano, respectivamente


Cancer ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 119 (12) ◽  
pp. 2282-2290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shellie D. Ellis ◽  
Bonny Blackard ◽  
William R. Carpenter ◽  
Merle Mishel ◽  
Ronald C. Chen ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.21.00195
Author(s):  
Amye J. Tevaarwerk ◽  
Thevaa Chandereng ◽  
Travis Osterman ◽  
Waddah Arafat ◽  
Jeffrey Smerage ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: The use of telemedicine expanded dramatically in March 2020 following the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to assess oncologist perspectives on telemedicine's present and future roles (both phone and video) for patients with cancer. METHODS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Electronic Health Record (EHR) Oncology Advisory Group formed a Workgroup to assess the state of oncology telemedicine and created a 20-question survey. NCCN EHR Oncology Advisory Group members e-mailed the survey to providers (surgical, hematology, gynecologic, medical, and radiation oncology physicians and clinicians) at their home institution. RESULTS: Providers (N = 1,038) from 26 institutions responded in Summer 2020. Telemedicine (phone and video) was compared with in-person visits across clinical scenarios (n = 766). For reviewing benign follow-up data, 88% reported video and 80% reported telephone were the same as or better than office visits. For establishing a personal connection with patients, 24% and 7% indicated video and telephone, respectively, were the same as or better than office visits. Ninety-three percent reported adverse outcomes attributable to telemedicine visits never or rarely occurred, whereas 6% indicated they occasionally occurred (n = 801). Respondents (n = 796) estimated 46% of postpandemic visits could be virtual, but challenges included (1) lack of patient access to technology, (2) inadequate clinical workflows to support telemedicine, and (3) insurance coverage uncertainty postpandemic. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine appears effective across a variety of clinical scenarios. Based on provider assessment, a substantial fraction of visits for patients with cancer could be effectively and safely conducted using telemedicine. These findings should influence regulatory and infrastructural decisions regarding telemedicine postpandemic for patients with cancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document