scholarly journals Factors Involved in the Collaboration Between the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs and Tobacco Control Programs: A Qualitative Study of 6 States, United States, 2012

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Behnoosh Momin ◽  
Antonio Neri ◽  
Sonya A. Goode ◽  
Nikie Sarris Esquivel ◽  
Carol L. Schmitt ◽  
...  
2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phyllis Rochester ◽  
Deborah S. Porterfield ◽  
Lisa C. Richardson ◽  
Kelly McAleer ◽  
Elizabeth Adams ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 95 (5) ◽  
pp. 597-609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvana Luciani ◽  
Lianne Vardy ◽  
Eugenio Paci ◽  
Isaac Adewole ◽  
Annie Sasco ◽  
...  

Cancer prevention, screening and early detection can provide some of the greatest public health benefits for cancer control. In low resource settings, where cancer control is challenged by limited human, financial and technical resources, cancer prevention and screening are of utmost importance and can provide significant impacts on the cancer burden. Public policies, social, environmental and individual level interventions which promote and support healthy eating and physical activity can lower cancer risks. Tobacco use, a significant cancer risk factor, can be reduced through the application of key mandates of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. In addition, cancer screening programs, namely for cervical and breast cancers, can have a significant impact on reducing cancer mortality, including in low resource settings. Comprehensive cancer control programs require interventions for cancer prevention, screening and early detection, and involve sectors outside of health to create supportive environments for healthy ways of life. Sharing experiences in implementing cancer control programs in different settings can create opportunities for interchanging ideas and forming international alliances.


2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 2023-2031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura C. Seeff ◽  
Anne Major ◽  
Julie S. Townsend ◽  
Ellen Provost ◽  
Diana Redwood ◽  
...  

Cancer ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 123 ◽  
pp. 4969-4976 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary C. White ◽  
Frances Babcock ◽  
Nikki S. Hayes ◽  
Angela B. Mariotto ◽  
Faye L. Wong ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 1965-1965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie S. Given ◽  
Karin Hohman ◽  
Madeline La Porta ◽  
Lori Belle-Isle ◽  
Phyllis Rochester

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-378
Author(s):  
Shifali Bansal ◽  
Vijeta Deshpande ◽  
Xinmeng Zhao ◽  
Jeremy A. Lauer ◽  
Filip Meheus ◽  
...  

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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Michael Underwood ◽  
Naheed Lakhani ◽  
Elizabeth Rohan ◽  
Angela Moore ◽  
Sherri L. Stewart

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document