scholarly journals Article Commentary: The Role of an NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center in Fostering Basic and Translational Research of Rare Hematologic Disorders

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-101
Author(s):  
Eduardo M. Sotomayor
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
McKenzie Bedra ◽  
Tammy Vyskocil ◽  
Jennifer Emel ◽  
Crystal Edwards ◽  
Cherif Boutros

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24135-e24135
Author(s):  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Frank V. Fossella ◽  
George R. Simon ◽  
Rama Maddi ◽  
Zhanni Lu ◽  
...  

e24135 Background: Current ASCO guidelines propose early access to SC in all CP to improve quality of care, quality of life, and symptoms. Very few studies have evaluated patients’ perceived criteria for referral to outpatient SC and perceptions of patients who are referred early in their disease trajectory. Methods: In this study we evaluated CP attitudes and perceptions regarding the role of and access to outpatient Supportive Care clinic (SCC) at a comprehensive cancer center. CP with life expectancy of greater than 6 months (as determined by the oncologist) and who are newly registered at MD Anderson Cancer Center were randomized to either obtain an educational brochure that explained the role of the SCC or no brochure. Both groups then completed a survey regarding the role and access to of outpatient SCC. After completion of the survey, patients were asked if they would like to be seen by the SC team. If so, they were scheduled by their oncologist for a SC consult. Results: 288 patients were evaluable: median age was 63, 43% were female, 84% were Caucasian, and the most common cancer type was lung cancer (39%). Median survival was 15 months. Patients who received a brochure reported more understanding of the role of SC vs those who did not receive a brochure (63% vs 37%, p = 0.04). Both groups felt that SC could help to address physical (47% vs 54%) and psychosocial (50% vs 50%) symptoms. Both groups felt SC could help to address questions regarding prognosis (50% vs 50%) and future care (53% vs 47%). Both groups did not feel that time (50% vs 50%) nor financial concerns (49% vs 51%) would be barriers to access SC. Both groups did not feel that receiving SC would impede their cancer care (60% vs 40%) nor change their oncologists’ perspective of them (25% vs 75%). Both groups felt they could receive SC and cancer care simultaneously (50% vs 50%). Approximately half of the patients in both groups perceived it was not too early for a referral to SC. There were no statistical differences in these groups for these findings. Conclusions: Patients who received a brochure had a better understanding of the role of SC. A very significant proportion in both groups had limited awareness of the value of SC. Oncologist driven referral and education of SC may facilitate better understanding of the value of SC. Further studies are needed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 157-165
Author(s):  
Fazal Hussain ◽  
Saud Alhayli ◽  
Mahmoud Aljurf

AbstractResearch is the only way to challenge the existing standards of care; a dynamic and multidimensional process encompassing innovative therapeutic modalities, techniques, and interventions to optimize outcomes and quality of life of cancer patients. Cancer research has emerged as one of the core competencies for the standardization, accreditation, and academic standing of any comprehensive cancer center. Data unit is the center of gravity and the hub of research and development (databases, registries, translational research, randomized control trials) in a quality cancer care facility. Quality assurance, ethical conduct, and monitoring of research are the hallmarks of a center of excellence in galvanizing the research efforts and optimizing the quality outcomes.


1993 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel S. Epstein

A statement by 68 prominent national experts in cancer prevention, carcinogenesis, epidemiology, and public health, released at a February 4, 1992, press conference in Washington, D.C., charged that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has misled and confused the public by repeated claims of winning the war against cancer. In fact, age-standardized incidence rates have escalated to epidemic proportions over recent decades, while the ability to treat and cure most cancers has not materially improved. Furthermore, the NCI has minimized evidence for increasing cancer rates, which are largely attributed to smoking, trivializing the importance of occupational carcinogens as non-smoking attributable causes of lung and other cancers, and to diet per se, in spite of tenuous and inconsistent evidence and ignoring the important role of carcinogenic dietary contaminants. Reflecting this near exclusionary blame-the-victim theory of cancer causation, with lockstep support from the American Cancer Society and industry, the NCI discounts the role of avoidable involuntary exposures to industrial carcinogens in air, water, food, the home, and the workplace. The NCI has also failed to provide any scientific guidance to Congress and regulatory agencies on fundament principles of carcinogenesis and epidemiology, and on the critical needs to reduce avoidable exposures to environmental and occupational carcinogens. Analysis of the $2 billion NCI budget, in spite of fiscal and semantic manipulation, reveals minimal allocations for research on primary cancer prevention, and for occupational cancer, which receives only $19 million annually, 1 percent of NCI's total budget. Problems of professional mindsets in the NCI leadership, fixation on diagnosis, treatment, and basic research, much of questionable relevance, and the neglect of cancer prevention, are exemplified by the composition of the National Cancer Advisory Board. Contrary to the explicit mandate of the National Cancer Act, the Board is devoid of members authoritative in occupational and environmental carcinogenesis. These problems are further compounded by institutionalized conflicts of interest reflected in the composition of past executive President's Cancer Panels, and of the current Board of Overseers of the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center, the NCI's prototype comprehensive cancer center, with their closely interlocking financial interests with the cancer drug and other industries. Drastic reforms of NCI policies and priorities are long overdue. Implementation of such reforms is, however, unlikely in the absence of further support from industrial medicine professionals, besides action by Congress and concerned citizen groups.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 75-76
Author(s):  
Ine Schmale

Das Armamentarium zur Behandlung des Nierenzellkarzinoms (RCC) hat sich um effektive Therapien erweitert, durch die der Therapiealgorithmus komplett umgestellt werden musste. Prof. Michael B. Atkins vom Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC/USA, und Prof. Daniel Y. C. Heng vom Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary/Kanada, teilten beim ASCO-GU ihre Einschätzung zur optimalen Behandlung des Nierenzellkarzinoms in der Erst- und Zweitlinientherapie für das Jahr 2019.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document