Industry Watch

2003 ◽  
Vol 07 (23) ◽  
pp. 1475-1490
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Athletic Performance ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Genetic Test

AustCancer Completes US Cancer Care Acquisition. Biota-Sankyo in Influenza Drug Partnership. Eastland Files Patent for Rota-Vax. GTG Commercializes Genetic Test for Athletic Performance. Meridica Licenses Xcelovair™ to Pfizer. Avesthagen Sets Up US Subsidiaries. Nicholas Piramal Hunting for Global Partners and Researchers in Therapeutic R&D. Cipla Exerts Its Presence in US Market. Unichem's Expansion Plans. Takeda Sues Mylan, Watson and Ranbaxy over Patent Infringements. Yamanouchi's Vesicare Receives USFDA Approval for Launch. TaiGen and TTY Biopharm Co-develop Cancer Treatment Drug.

scholarly journals The INTREST registry: protocol of a multicenter prospective cohort study of predictors of women’s response to integrative breast cancer treatment

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidemarie Haller ◽  
Petra Voiß ◽  
Holger Cramer ◽  
Anna Paul ◽  
Mattea Reinisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Data ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Cancer registries usually assess data of conventional treatments and/or patient survival. Beyond that, little is known about the influence of other predictors of treatment response related to the use of complementary therapies (CM) and lifestyle factors affecting patients’ quality and quantity of life. Methods INTREST is a prospective cohort study collecting register data at multiple German certified cancer centers, which provide individualized, integrative, in- and outpatient breast cancer care. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical cancer data of anticipated N = 715 women with pTNM stage I-III breast cancer are collected using standardized case report forms at the time of diagnosis, after completing neo−/adjuvant chemotherapy, after completing adjuvant therapy (with the exception of endocrine therapy) as well as 1, 2, 5, and 10 years after baseline. Endpoints for multivariable prediction models are quality of life, fatigue, treatment adherence, and progression-based outcomes/survival. Predictors include the study center, sociodemographic characteristics, histologic cancer and comorbidity data, performance status, stress perception, depression, anxiety, sleep quality, spirituality, social support, physical activity, diet behavior, type of conventional treatments, use of and belief in CM treatments, and participation in a clinical trial. Safety is recorded following the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Discussion This trial is currently recruiting participants. Future analyses will allow to identify predictors of short- and long-term response to integrative breast cancer treatment in women, which, in turn, may improve cancer care as well as quality and quantity of life with cancer. Trial registration German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00014852. Retrospectively registered at July 4th, 2018.

scholarly journals Managing Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Agility and Collaboration Toward a Common Goal

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 366-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masumi Ueda ◽  
Renato Martins ◽  
Paul C. Hendrie ◽  
Terry McDonnell ◽  
Jennie R. Crews ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
Shared Vision ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
The Face ◽  
Snohomish County

The first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020, in Snohomish County, Washington. At the epicenter of COVID-19 in the United States, the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and University of Washington are at the forefront of delivering care to patients with cancer during this public health crisis. This Special Feature highlights the unique circumstances and challenges of cancer treatment amidst this global pandemic, and the importance of organizational structure, preparation, agility, and a shared vision for continuing to provide cancer treatment to patients in the face of uncertainty and rapid change.

scholarly journals A Cross-Sectional Survey Exploring the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Cancer Care of Adolescents and Young Adults

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 3201-3213
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn Howden ◽  
Camille Glidden ◽  
Razvan G. Romanescu ◽  
Andrew Hatala ◽  
Ian Scott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Adolescents And Young Adults ◽  
P Value ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
The Impact

We aimed to describe the negative and positive impacts of changes in cancer care delivery due to COVID-19 pandemic for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in Canada, as well as the correlates of negative impact and their perspectives on optimization of cancer care. We conducted an online, self-administered survey of AYAs with cancer living in Canada between January and February 2021. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a negative impact on cancer care. Of the 805 participants, 173 (21.5%) experienced a negative impact on their cancer care including delays in diagnostic tests (11.9%), cancer treatment (11.4%), and appointments (11.1%). A prior diagnosis of mental or chronic physical health condition, an annual income of <20,000 CAD, ongoing cancer treatment, and province of residence were independently associated with a negative cancer care impact (p-value < 0.05). The majority (n = 767, 95.2%) stated a positive impact of the changes to cancer care delivery, including the implementation of virtual healthcare visits (n = 601, 74.6%). Pandemic-related changes in cancer care delivery have unfavorably and favorably influenced AYAs with cancer. Interventions to support AYAs who are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of the pandemic, and the thoughtful integration of virtual care into cancer care delivery models is essential.

scholarly journals Costs for Colon Cancer Treatment Comparing Benefit Types and Care Sources in the US Military Health System

2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (11-12) ◽  
pp. e847-e855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne L Eaglehouse ◽  
Matthew W Georg ◽  
Patrick Richard ◽  
Craig D Shriver ◽  
Kangmin Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Treatment Costs ◽  
Direct Care ◽  
Military Health System ◽  
Military Health ◽  
Insurance Benefit ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Us

ABSTRACT Introduction Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the USA, contributing largely to US healthcare spending. Provision of services (direct or purchased) and insurance benefit type may impact cost for cancer care. As a common cause of cancer in both men and women, we aim to compare colon cancer treatment costs between insurance benefit types and care sources in the US Military Health System (MHS) to better understand whether and to what extent these system factors impact cancer care costs. Materials and Methods Department of Defense Central Cancer Registry records and MHS Data Repository administrative claims were used to identify MHS beneficiaries aged 18–64 who were diagnosed with primary colon adenocarcinoma and received treatment between 2003 and 2008. The data linkage was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the Defense Health Agency, and the National Institutes of Health. Costs to the MHS for each claim related to cancer treatment were extracted from the linked data and adjusted to 2008 USD. We used quantile regression models to compare median cancer treatment costs between benefit types and care sources (direct, purchased, or both), adjusted for demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Results The median per capita (n = 801) costs for colon cancer care were $60,321 (interquartile range $24,625, $159,729) over a median follow-up of 1.7 years. The model-estimated treatment costs were similar between benefit types. Patients using direct care had significantly lower estimated median costs [$34,145 (standard error $4,326)] than patients using purchased care [$106,395 ($10,559)] or both care sources [$82,439 ($13,330)], controlled for patient demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Differences in cost by care source were noted for patients with later stage tumors and by treatment type. Relative costs were 2–3 times higher for purchased care compared to direct care for patients with late-stage tumors and for patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation treatment. Conclusions In the MHS, median cost for colon cancer treatment was lower in direct care compared to purchased care or patients using a combination of direct and purchased care. The variation in cancer treatment costs between care sources may be due to differences in treatment incentives or capabilities. Additional studies on cost differences between direct and purchased services are needed to understand how provision of care affects cancer treatment costs and to identify possible targets for cost reduction.

Pastoral care of cancer patients: Defining utilization of services at a comprehensive cancer center.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24171-e24171
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Palmer ◽  
Anghela Paredes ◽  
Madison Hyer ◽  
Timothy M. Pawlik
Keyword(s):  
Pastoral Care ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Spiritual Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Spiritual Needs ◽  
Active Listening ◽  
Patients With Cancer

e24171 Background: Addressing the religious/spiritual needs of patients is an important component of comprehensive cancer care. Patients often report that providers infrequently engage them about their needs during treatment. In addition, providers cite inadequate training as a significant barrier to providing spiritual care. While patients may benefit from the presence of a spiritual care specialist during cancer treatment, the utilization and content of these services are not well defined. We sought to characterize utilization of pastoral care (PC) services, as well as delineate differences in PC utilization among patients with cancer. Methods: Data on patients being treated for cancer at a Comprehensive Cancer Center between 2015-2018 were obtained from the electronic medical record. Overall utilization, type of PC services utilized, as well as factors associated with use of PC were assessed. Analyses included descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Results: Among 14,322 cancer patients, roughly one-third (n = 5166, 36.1%) had at least one PC encounter during their cancer treatment. Interventions most frequently provided by PC included supportive presence (93.5%) and active listening (86.6%), while the most frequently explored topics were treatment expectations (59.8%), issues with faith/beliefs (42.9%), and available coping mechanisms (35.4%). Patients diagnosed with colorectal (OR:1.42, 95%CI:1.07-1.89), liver (OR:2.41, 95%CI:1.80-3.24), or pancreatic cancer (OR:1.43, 95%CI:1.02-2.00) were more likely to utilize PC services compared with other cancers. Patients that identified as Catholic (OR:1.47, 95%CI:1.17-1.84) or Christian (OR:1.73, 95%CI:1.39-2.15) were more likely to request PC services (both p < 0.001) than individuals who had no religious preference/affiliation. Among surgical patients (n = 1,174), the majority of encounters with PC services were in the postoperative setting (n = 801, 70.6%). Patients most often reported that PC helped with verbalization of their feelings (93.6%) and helped reduce stress (76.9%). Conclusions: Over one-third of patients with cancer interacted with PC and received services that often addressed both psychosocial and spiritual concerns. Overall PC utilization and types of PC services rendered varied relative to demographic and religious factors. Providers should be aware of varying patient religious/spiritual needs so as to optimize the entire cancer care experience for patients.

scholarly journals Special aspects of medical care for cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. 2-2
Author(s):  
Mariia Pavlushenko ◽  
Roman Liubota ◽  
Roman Vereshchako ◽  
Nikolay Anikusko ◽  
Irina Liubota
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
World Health Organization ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
World Health ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization

The biggest challenge for the World Health Organization today is the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. The current situation prompted major adjustments in the system of cancer care. In this review, we investigate the aspects of cancer treatment and care during the pandemic, since in this setting oncological services face challenges in determining the feasibility of anticancer treatments while minimizing the risk of infection. Cancer patients are at a higher risk from COVID-19 disease. Therefore, oncological community is discussing on the priorities for providing cancer therapies and care and at the same time minimizing the risk of infection.

scholarly journals The Anti-Cancer League and public outreach for cancer control in Peru

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 49-69
Author(s):  
Raúl Necochea López
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Public Outreach ◽  
State Health ◽  
Early Signs ◽  
Lay People ◽  
Health Agencies ◽  
Anti Cancer ◽  
State Health Agencies

Abstract Peru’s first cancer control public outreach scheme started in the 1910s, but ground to a standstill as it attained official governmental recognition in 1926 as the Liga Anti-Cancerosa (LAC). This paper explains the developments leading to that earliest effort to enlist a coalition of State health agencies, physicians, and lay people in a campaign to publicize early signs of this disease, as well as the medical and political reasons for and implications of its decline. Besides highlighting the importance of professional initiatives shaping cancer activism, contextualizing the rise and fall of the LAC calls attention to the effects that hospitalization of cancer treatment had on aspects of cancer care that were not directly treatment-related, such as public outreach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document