Improving cancer control in the European Union: Conclusions from the Lisbon round-table under the Portuguese EU Presidency, 2007

Knowledge management tools and mechanisms for evidence-informed decision-making in the WHO European Region: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Knowledge management (KM) emerged as a strategy to promote evidence-informed decision-making. This scoping review aims to map existing KM tools and mechanisms used to promote evidence-informed health decision-making in the WHO European Region and identify knowledge gaps.

METHODS

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for conducting scoping reviews, we searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and Open Grey. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and conducted narrative analysis of the included studies and categorized studies according to KM type and phase.

RESULTS

Out of 9541 citations identified, we included 141 studies. The KM tools mostly assessed are evidence networks, surveillance tools, observatories, data platforms and registries, with most examining KM tools in high-income countries of the WHO European region. Findings suggest that KM tools can identify health problems, inform health planning and resource allocation, increase the use of evidence by policymakers and stimulate policy discussion.

CONCLUSION

Policymakers and funding agencies are called to support capacity-building activities, and future studies to strengthen KM in the WHO European region particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. An updated over-arching strategy to coordinate KM activities in the WHO European region will be useful in these efforts.

The Interdisciplinary Management of Lung Cancer in the European Community

Lung cancer continues to be the largest cause of cancer-related mortality among men and women globally, accounting for around 27% of all cancer-related deaths. Recent advances in lung cancer medicines, particularly for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), have increased the need for multidisciplinary disease care, thereby enhancing patient outcomes and quality of life. Different studies in the European community have evaluated the impact of multidisciplinary care on outcomes for lung cancer patients, including its impact on survival, adherence to guideline treatment, utilization of all treatment modalities, timeliness of treatment, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and referral to palliative care. This publication will examine the roles and duties of all multidisciplinary members and the influence of multidisciplinary care on lung cancer outcomes in Europe. Multidisciplinary treatment is the foundation of lung cancer treatment. The optimal setting for interdisciplinary collaboration between specialists with complementary functions is multidisciplinary meetings. Multidisciplinary care in lung cancer facilitates the delivery of a high-quality service, which may improve lung cancer patients’ survival, utilization of all treatment modalities, adherence to guideline management, and quality of life, despite the fact that only limited observational data have demonstrated these results. To confirm the relationship between multidisciplinary treatment and improved lung cancer patient outcomes, however, further research is required.

Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review

Background

Discussing patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) is customary in cancer care worldwide and requires a significant investment in terms of funding and time. Efficient collaboration and communication between healthcare providers in all the specialisms involved is therefore crucial. However, evidence-based criteria that can guarantee high-quality functioning on the part of MDTMs are lacking. In this systematic review, we examine the factors influencing the MDTMs’ efficiency, functioning and quality, and offer recommendations for improvement.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases (01–01-1990 to 09–11-2021), using different descriptions of ‘MDTM’ and ‘neoplasm’ as search terms. Inclusion criteria were: quality of MDTM, functioning of MDTM, framework and execution of MDTM, decision-making process, education, patient advocacy, patient involvement and evaluation tools. Full text assessment was performed by two individual authors and checked by a third author.

Results

Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and five themes were identified: 1) MDTM characteristics and logistics, 2) team culture, 3) decision making, 4) education, and 5) evaluation and data collection. The quality of MDTMs improves when the meeting is scheduled, structured, prepared and attended by all core members, guided by a qualified chairperson and supported by an administrator. An appropriate amount of time per case needs to be established and streamlining of cases (i.e. discussing a predefined selection of cases rather than discussing every case) might be a way to achieve this. Patient centeredness contributes to correct diagnosis and decision making. While physicians are cautious about patients participating in their own MDTM, the majority of patients report feeling better informed without experiencing increased anxiety. Attendance at MDTMs results in closer working relationships between physicians and provides some medico-legal protection. To ensure well-functioning MDTMs in the future, junior physicians should play a prominent role in the decision-making process. Several evaluation tools have been developed to assess the functioning of MDTMs.

Conclusions

MDTMs would benefit from a more structured meeting, attendance of core members and especially the attending physician, streamlining of cases and structured evaluation. Patient centeredness, personal competences of MDTM participants and education are not given sufficient attention.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08112-0.

Multicenter study on multidisciplinary committees in advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Although Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) are recommended in the management of Advanced Prostate Cancer (APC), their functioning in real practice has been poorly evaluated. We carried out a multicenter study with the objective of evaluating the functioning of uro-oncology MDTs in 6 hospitals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed. The level of Compliance with the Fundamental Quality Requirements (CFQR) of the MDTs was evaluated by means of a questionnaire filled out by the coordinators of the MDTs in each hospital. The information on the perspective of the members of the MDTs was evaluated through an anonymous survey.

RESULTS

A high level of CFQR in MDTs was evidenced (75%), showing deficiencies in terms of protocol update, agendas, audits, and scientific production. The survey was answered by 62.32% of the 69 physicians surveyed (urologists, oncologists, radiation therapists, radiologists, and pathologists). The 88.4% consider the duration of the meetings appropriate. There are disparate opinions concerning the protection of the MDT meeting time as well as protocol update. Of the patients with APC presented at the MDTs meeting, 62,8% require intervention from two specialties. Only 50% of respondents believe that all CRPC cases are discussed and that there is a prior agenda. The decisions made by the MDTs are reflected in the clinical history in 65.1% and are binding only in 60.5% of the cases. Half of the respondents have not been trained in MDTs. Most participants (90.7%) agree on the fact that MDTs. convey benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluations of the MDTs identify rectifiable deficiencies by modifying hospital inertia and care planning.

Effects of a physician- and pharmacist-managed clinic on pain management in cancer patients in China

In China, pharmacists have started to manage cancer pain at outpatient clinics. This retrospective study performed at a tertiary teaching hospital was aimed to evaluate the effects of a physician-pharmacist joint clinic for cancer pain management. The study was performed between December 2016 and August 2019 and included 113 outpatients with moderate to severe cancer-related pain. Patients were divided into two groups according to the clinic each patient visited: the physician-pharmacist joint clinic (joint group, n = 59) or physician-only clinic (usual group, n = 54). Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Morisky Medication Adherence Measure (MMAM) were used to collect data on pain intensity, interference and medication adherence. Pain Management Index (PMI) was also calculated. BPI, MMAM and PMI were assessed at baseline (patients' first visit, week 0) and week 4 follow-up. The Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was used to assess patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at week 4. The primary outcomes were the improvement in pain intensity, adequacy of pain management and medication adherence. The secondary outcome was the improvement in HRQoL. At week 4, compared to the usual group, the BPI pain intensity categories except the pain right now were significantly lower in the joint group: worst pain, 4 (3-7) vs 6 (4-8), P = .020; least pain, 1 (0-2) vs 2 (1-3), P = .010; average pain, 3 (2-4) vs 4 (2-5), P = .023; pain right now, 2 (1-3) vs 2 (0-4), P = .796. For the seven pain interference categories, there were no significant improvements in the joint group (P > .05). Significantly more patients achieved adequate pain control in the joint group than the usual group ((P = .002). There was also a significant difference in medication adherence between the two groups (P = .001). There were no significant differences in HRQoL between the two groups. The study suggests that pharmacist participation in outpatient cancer pain management is associated with improvement of patients' pain control and medication adherence.

Multidisciplinary care models for patients with lung cancer

Multidisciplinary care is the cornerstone of lung cancer treatment in the developed world, even though there is a relative lack of consistent evidence that this care model improves outcomes. In this review, we present the available literature regarding how to set up and run an efficient multidisciplinary care model for lung cancer patients with emphasis on team members' roles and responsibilities. Moreover, we present some limited evidence about multidisciplinary care and its impact on lung cancer outcomes and survival. This review provides simple guidance on setting up and running a multidisciplinary service for lung cancer patients. It highlights the importance of defined roles and responsibilities for team members. It also presents concise information based on the literature regarding the impact of multidisciplinary care in lung cancer outcomes (e.g. survival of patients undergoing lung cancer surgery).

The fall and rise of cancer registration in Estonia: The dangers of overzealous application of data protection

BACKGROUND

The population-based Estonian Cancer Registry (ECR) has maintained a database of cancer cases since 1968. Between 2001 and 2007 the ECR was prohibited from linking cancer records to death certificates. In January 2008, the prohibition was lifted, and two years later the ECR was able to begin tracing back unmatched deaths. This paper estimates the effect of the linkage ban on reported cancer incidence and survival.

METHODS

Incident cancers in 2001-2007 were extracted from the ECR database in May 2018 to allow for late registrations. Two datasets were created: one with all incident cases and another without death-certificate-initiated (DCI) cases. Using both datasets, age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR) and their ratios; age-standardised five-year relative survival ratios (ARSR) and excess mortality rate ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

In 2001-2007, 46,535 incident cancers were registered in the ECR. Of them, 2299 (4.9 %) were DCI cases. The inclusion of DCI cases increased the ASIR for overall cancer by 6 % in men and 3 % in women. An increase ≥10 % in ASIR for lung, liver and pancreatic cancer was observed. The effect of accrued DCI cases to the ARSR was minor. Excess mortality in the dataset without DCI cases was 4 % underestimated in men and 3 % in women.

CONCLUSION

Biases in cancer incidence and survival measures generated by the temporary record linkage ban were largely correctable by using trace-back procedures when this became possible. Nevertheless, this type of ban and the arguments put forward to justify it, harm disease registration and register-based research.

Multidisciplinary team decision is rare and decreasing in percutaneous vascular interventions despite positive impact on in-hospital outcomes

Background: Worldwide prevalence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) is increasing and peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) has become the primary invasive treatment. There is evidence that multidisciplinary team decision-making (MTD) has an impact on in-hospital outcomes. This study aims to depict practice patterns and time changes regarding MTD of different medical specialties. Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study design. 20,748 invasive, percutaneous PVI of PAD conducted in the metropolitan area of Hamburg (Germany) were consecutively collected between January 2004 and December 2014. Results: MTD prior to PVI was associated with lower odds of early unsuccessful termination of the procedures (Odds Ratio 0.662, p < 0.001). The proportion of MTD decreased over the study period (30.9 % until 2009 vs. 16.6 % from 2010, p < 0.001) while rates of critical limb-threatening ischemia (34.5 % vs. 42.1 %), patients´ age (70 vs. 72 years), PVI below-the-knee (BTK) (13.2 % vs. 22.4 %), and rates of severe TASC C/D lesions BTK (43.2 % vs. 54.2 %) increased (all p < 0.001). Utilization of MTD was different between medical specialties with lowest frequency in procedures performed by internists when compared to other medical specialties (7.1 % vs. 25.7 %, p < 0.001). Conclusions: MTD prior to PVI is associated with technical success of the procedure. Nonetheless, rates of MTD prior to PVI are decreasing during the study period. Future studies should address the impact of multidisciplinary vascular teams on long-term outcomes.

Decisional conflict of physicians during the decision-making process for a simulated advanced-stage cancer patient: an international longitudinal study with German and Belgian physicians

BACKGROUND

Decision making with advanced cancer patients is often associated with decisional conflict regarding treatment outcomes. This longitudinal multicenter study investigated German physicians' course of decisional conflict during the decision-making process for a Simulated advanced-stage cancer Patient (SP). Results were compared to a matched sample of Belgian physicians.

METHODS

German physicians' (n = 30) decisional conflict was assessed with the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) at baseline (t1) and after the four steps of a decision-making process: after reviewing the SP chart (t2), after viewing an assessment video interview with the SP (t3), after reviewing the team recommendations (t4), and after conducting the patient-physician decision-making interview (t5). The results were compared to those of a Belgian matched sample (n = 30).

RESULTS

Decisional conflict of German physicians decreased during the Decision-Making process (M = 53.5, SD = 11.6 at t2 to M = 37.8, SD = 9.6 at t5, p < 0.001). This was similar to the pattern in the Belgian sample (M = 53.5, SD = 12.5 at t2 to M = 34.1, SD = 10.9 at t5, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups for Decisional conflict end scores (p = 0.171). At the end of the Decision-making process, in both groups, still 43.3% of the physicians among each group (n = 13) reported a high Decisional Conflict (DCS > 37.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians' decisional conflict decreases during the decision-making process for an advanced cancer SP, though it remains at a high level. Culture, language and different health care systems have no influence on this process. The results emphasize the influence of psychosocial factors. We conclude that this issue should be considered more intensively in future research and in clinical care.

Mapping cancer research across Central and Eastern Europe, the Russian Federation and Central Asia: Implications for future national cancer control planning

Cancer research is an essential part of national cancer control programmes, and the emerging economies of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Russian Federation and Central Asia (R-CA) (Commonwealth of Independent States) remain relatively understudied. Here, we map the cancer research activity from the 29 countries across these regions over a 10-year period (2007-2016), using a standard scientometric approach. Research activity was compared with the countries' wealth and with the disease burden from different cancers, and analyses were also performed by the research domain (e.g. fundamental cancer biology, surgery). We found that although there was a correlation between outputs and national wealth, there were many outliers; the CEE countries publishing relatively more, and the R-CA, less. Outputs reflected cancer burdens, but there was a relative paucity of research on lung, colorectal, gastric and pancreatic cancer, as well as research domains such as screening and palliative care. Clinical trials accounted for only 3% of all research outputs from all countries, and were very international, with on average 1.5 CEE countries and 8.0 others involved in each article, and they were heavily cited (on average, 84 times in 5 years). Poland was by far the most research-active country, but significant needs and opportunities have been identified to expand the cancer research activity in all CEE and R-CA countries to enhance national cancer control planning.

Improving oncological care organization in Poland-The 2015 reform evaluation in the context of European experiences

Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with a significant economic impact which has been increasing in recent decades. Numerous expert groups and/or international organizations have developed guidelines on how to build effective cancer control mechanisms, while in the European Union the majority of countries have developed national programmes. In Poland, cancer is the second leading cause of death. Compared with other European countries, Poland is characterized by a relatively low cancer incidence ratio, yet in terms of mortality and survival ratios, the situation is much worse than the average. On 1 January 2015, an oncological therapy fast track was implemented in Poland, popularly known as the "oncological package." Its formal objectives were to improve access to and systemize the process of cancer diagnostics and treatment. The reform introduced some of the solutions existing in other European countries, including waiting time limits, patient pathways, multidisciplinary medical consultations, and a care coordinator position. The preliminary evaluation analyses suggest that after the reform implementation the average waiting time for diagnostics and treatment for patients covered by the new system was significantly shortened in comparison to those excluded. Further research evaluating the reform impact on quality and/or comprehensiveness of care are needed.

Malignant Bowel Obstruction in Relapsed Ovarian Cancer With Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: An Occlusive State

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the clinical and oncological outcomes of women with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) for relapsed ovarian cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed in all consecutive patients admitted at Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain, between July 2013 and July 2016 with MBO for relapsed ovarian cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis. All patients underwent the same protocol of conservative management. Surgical treatment was indicated only in selected cases.

RESULTS

There were a total of 22 patients presenting 59 episodes of MBO; 17 (77.2%) of those patients presented more than 1 episode of MBO. All patients had serous epithelial ovarian cancer; 18 (81.8%) were high grade, and 4 (18.2%) low-grade tumors. The median (range) number of episodes per patient was 3 (range, 1-7) with a mean length of hospitalization of 13 (SD, 13.6) days. The median time interval between episodes of MBO (54 episodes in 17 patients) was 17 days (range, 1-727 days). Twenty of 22 patients died with a median overall survival time from the first episode of MBO of 95 days (95% confidence interval, 49-124 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MBO due to relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer in the peritoneal carcinomatosis setting have a short life expectancy, presenting a median of 3 episodes of MBO until death, with a short time interval between episodes. These findings show that bowel obstruction can represent a constant status over time until death.

Managing cancer care through service delivery networks: The role of professional collaboration in two European cancer networks

Background The study examines two meso-strategic cancer networks, exploring to what extent collaboration can strengthen or hamper network effectiveness. Unlike macro-strategic networks, meso-strategic networks have no hierarchical governance structures nor are they institutionalised within healthcare services' delivery systems. This study aims to analyse the models of professional cooperation and the tools developed for managing clinical practice within two meso-strategic, European cancer networks. Methods Multiple case study design based on the comparative analysis of two cancer networks: Iridium, in Antwerp, Belgium and the Institut Català d'Oncologia in Catalonia, Spain. The case studies applied mixed methods, with qualitative research based on semi-structured interviews ( n = 35) together with case-site observation and material collection. Results The analysis identified four levels of collaborative intensity within medical specialties as well as in multidisciplinary settings, which became both platforms for crosscutting clinical work between hubs' experts and local care teams and the levers for network-based tools development. The organisation of clinical practice relied on professional-based cooperative processes and tiers, lacking vertical integration mechanisms. Conclusions The intensity of professional linkages largely shaped the potential of meso-strategic cancer networks to influence clinical practice organisation. Conversely, the introduction of managerial techniques or network governance structures, without introducing vertical hierarchies, was found to be critical solutions.

Practice Patterns Regarding Multidisciplinary Cancer Management and Suggestions for Further Refinement: Results from a National Survey in Korea

Purpose

This study was conducted to explore the process and operation of a cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) after the reimbursement decision in Korea, and to identify ways to overcome the major barriers to effective and sustainable MDTs.

Materials and Methods

Approximately 1,000 cancer specialists, including medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists in general hospitals in Koreawere invited to complete the survey. The questionnaire covered the following topics: organizational structure of MDTs, candidates for consulting, the clinical decision-making initiative, and responsibility for dealing with legal disputes.

Results

We collected a total of 179 responses (18%) from physicians at institutions where an MDT approach was active. A surgical oncologist (91%), internist (90%),radiologist (89%),radiation oncologist (86%), pathologist (71%), and trainees (20%) regularly participated in MDT operations. Approximately 55% of respondents stated that MDTs met regularly. In cases of a split opinion, the physician in charge (69%) or chairperson (17%) made the final decision, and most (86%) stated they followed the final decision. About 15% and 32% of respondents were “very satisfied” and “satisfied,” respectively, with the current MDT’s operations. Among 38 institutional representatives, 34% responded that the MDT operation became more active and 18% stated an MDT was newly implemented after the reimbursement decision.

Conclusion

The reimbursement decision invigorated MDT operations in almost half of eligible hospitals. Dissatisfaction regarding current MDTs was over 50%, and the high discordance rates regarding risk sharing suggest that it is necessary to revise the current system of MDTs.

The Cancer, Educate to Prevent Model-the Potential of School Environment for Primary Prevention of Cancer

Cancer represents one of the main causes of death worldwide; consequently, preventive interventions are of utmost importance in public health education. The leading model of cancer prevention campaigns is based on general and undifferentiated actions mediated by health professionals, focusing on the technical and scientific information but rather ineffective in changing the symbolic, cognitive and practical relationship with the disease. New intervention models are thus required to address cancer literacy, being early interventions targeted to specific groups an elective counterpoint to contribute to positive and durable changes in cancer prevention. Our aim is to evaluate the feasibility and impact of cancer prevention programmes planned as focused interventions in restricted targets and mediated by non-healthcare professionals to increase cancer literacy and promote preventive behaviours. This pilot study evaluates schools' potential as a vehicle for cancer prevention education in a reality shaped by traditional health prevention campaigns. We developed a protocol of systematic surveying in order to review and, in the future, optimize and replicate this ecological model of intervention to other groups and contexts. The implementation of this model has been successful in which concerns to the effectiveness of the training programme for teachers. This led to the development of impactful cancer prevention education projects by trainees targeted to their students, allowing us to argue that it contributes to knowledge and practice in this complex as consensual priority area of intervention.

What is the role of a specialist regional mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting? A service evaluation of one tertiary referral centre in the UK

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings are standard care for cancer in the UK and Europe. Professional bodies recommend that mesothelioma cases should be discussed at specialist multidisciplinary team meetings. However, no evidence exists exploring the role of the specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical activity of 1 specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting and to determine how often a definitive diagnosis was made, whether the core requirements of the meeting were met and whether there was any associated benefit or detriment.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A service evaluation using routinely collected data from 1 specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting in a tertiary referral hospital in the South-West of England.

PARTICIPANTS

All cases discussed between 1/1/2014 and 31/12/2015.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was whether a definitive diagnosis was made. Secondary outcomes included whether treatment advice was offered, information on clinical trials provided or further investigations suggested. Additional benefits of the multidisciplinary team meeting and time taken from referral to outcome were also collected.

RESULTS

A definitive diagnosis was reached in 171 of 210 cases discussed (81%). Mesothelioma was diagnosed in 153/210 (73%). Treatment advice was provided for 127 of 171 diagnostic cases (74%) and further investigations suggested for all 35 non-diagnostic cases. 86/210 cases (41%) were invited to participate in a trial, of whom 43/86 (50%) subsequently enrolled. Additional benefits included the avoidance of postmortem examination if the coroner was satisfied with the multidisciplinary team decision. The overall process from referral to outcome dispatch was <2 weeks in 75% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting was effective at making diagnoses and providing recommendations for further investigations or treatment. The core requirements of a specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting were met. The process was timely, with most outcomes returned within 2 weeks of referral.

Improving outcomes in lung cancer: the value of the multidisciplinary health care team

Lung cancer is a major worldwide health burden, with high disease-related morbidity and mortality. Unlike other major cancers, there has been little improvement in lung cancer outcomes over the past few decades, and survival remains disturbingly low. Multidisciplinary care is the cornerstone of lung cancer treatment in the developed world, despite a relative lack of evidence that this model of care improves outcomes. In this article, the available literature concerning the impact of multidisciplinary care on key measures of lung cancer outcomes is reviewed. This includes the limited observational data supporting improved survival with multidisciplinary care. The impact of multidisciplinary care on other benchmark measures of quality lung cancer treatment is also examined, including staging accuracy, access to diagnostic investigations, improvements in clinical decision making, better utilization of radiotherapy and palliative care services, and improved quality of life for patients. Health service research suggests that multidisciplinary care improves care coordination, leading to a better patient experience, and reduces variation in care, a problem in lung cancer management that has been identified worldwide. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the multidisciplinary model of care overcomes barriers to treatment, promotes standardized treatment through adherence to guidelines, and allows audit of clinical services and for these reasons is more likely to provide quality care for lung cancer patients. While there is strengthening evidence suggesting that the multidisciplinary model of care contributes to improvements in lung cancer outcomes, more quality studies are needed.

Global cancer surgery: delivering safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery

Surgery is essential for global cancer care in all resource settings. Of the 15.2 million new cases of cancer in 2015, over 80% of cases will need surgery, some several times. By 2030, we estimate that annually 45 million surgical procedures will be needed worldwide. Yet, less than 25% of patients with cancer worldwide actually get safe, affordable, or timely surgery. This Commission on global cancer surgery, building on Global Surgery 2030, has examined the state of global cancer surgery through an analysis of the burden of surgical disease and breadth of cancer surgery, economics and financing, factors for strengthening surgical systems for cancer with multiple-country studies, the research agenda, and the political factors that frame policy making in this area. We found wide equity and economic gaps in global cancer surgery. Many patients throughout the world do not have access to cancer surgery, and the failure to train more cancer surgeons and strengthen systems could result in as much as US $6.2 trillion in lost cumulative gross domestic product by 2030. Many of the key adjunct treatment modalities for cancer surgery--e.g., pathology and imaging--are also inadequate. Our analysis identified substantial issues, but also highlights solutions and innovations. Issues of access, a paucity of investment in public surgical systems, low investment in research, and training and education gaps are remarkably widespread. Solutions include better regulated public systems, international partnerships, super-centralisation of surgical services, novel surgical clinical trials, and new approaches to improve quality and scale up cancer surgical systems through education and training. Our key messages are directed at many global stakeholders, but the central message is that to deliver safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery to all, surgery must be at the heart of global and national cancer control planning.

Age and case mix-standardised survival for all cancer patients in Europe 1999-2007: Results of EUROCARE-5, a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Overall survival after cancer is frequently used when assessing a health care service's performance as a whole. It is mainly used by the public, politicians and the media, and is often dismissed by clinicians because of the heterogeneous mix of different cancers, risk factors and treatment modalities. Here we give survival details for all cancers combined in Europe, correlating it with economic variables to suggest reasons for differences.

METHODS

We computed age and cancer site case-mix standardised relative survival for all cancers combined (ACRS) for 29 countries participating in the EUROCARE-5 project with data on more than 7.5million cancer cases from 87 population-based cancer registries, using complete and period approach.

RESULTS

Denmark, United Kingdom (UK) and Eastern European countries had lower survival than neighbouring countries. Five-year ACRS has been increasing throughout Europe, and substantial increases, between 1999-2001 and 2005-2007, have been achieved in countries where survival was lower in the past. Five-year ACRS for men and women are positively correlated with macro-economic variables like the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Total National Expenditure on Health (TNEH) (R² about 70%). Countries with recent larger increases in GDP and TNEH had greater increases in cancer survival.

CONCLUSIONS

ACRS serves to compare all cancer survival in Europe taking account of the geographical variability in case-mixes. The EUROCARE-5 data on ACRS confirm previous EUROCARE findings. Survival appears to correlate with macro-economic determinants, particularly with investments in the health care system.

A Breast Cancer Clinical Registry in An Italian Comprehensive Cancer Center: An Instrument for Descriptive, Clinical, and Experimental Research

In clinical research, many potentially useful variables are available via the routine activity of cancer center-based clinical registries (CCCR). We present the experience of the breast cancer clinical registry at Fondazione IRCCS “Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori” to give an example of how a CCCR can be planned, implemented, and used. Five criteria were taken into consideration while planning our CCCR: (a) available clinical and administrative databases ought to be exploited to the maximum extent; (b) open source software should be used; (c) a Web-based interface must be designed; (d) CCCR data must be compatible with population-based cancer registry data; (e) CCCR must be an open system, able to be connected with other data repositories. The amount of work needed for the implementation of a CCCR is inversely linked with the amount of available coded data: the fewer data are available in the input databases as coded variables, the more work will be necessary, for information technology staff, text mining analysis, and registrars (for collecting data from clinical records). A cancer registry in a comprehensive cancer center can be used for several research aspects, such as estimate of the number of cases needed for clinical studies, assessment of biobank specimens with specific characteristics, evaluation of clinical practice and adhesion to clinical guidelines, comparative studies between clinical and population sets of patients, studies on cancer prognosis, and studies on cancer survivorship.

Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are considered the gold standard of cancer care in many healthcare systems, but a clear definition of their format, scope of practice and operational criteria is still lacking. The aims of this review were to assess the impact of MDTs on patient outcomes in cancer care and identify their objectives, organisation and ability to engage patients in their care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature in the Medline database. Fifty-one peer-reviewed papers were selected from November 2005 to June 2012. MDTs resulted in better clinical and process outcomes for cancer patients, with evidence of improved survival among colorectal, head and neck, breast, oesophageal and lung cancer patients in the study period. Also, it was observed that MDTs have been associated with changes in clinical diagnostic and treatment decision-making with respect to urological, pancreatic, gastro-oesophageal, breast, melanoma, bladder, colorectal, prostate, head and neck and gynaecological cancer. Evidence is consistent in showing positive consequences for patients' management in multiple dimensions, which should encourage the development of structured multidisciplinary care, minimum standards and exchange of best practices.

2013 President's Plenary International Psycho-oncology Society: embracing the IPOS standards as a means of enhancing comprehensive cancer care

BACKGROUND

The second President's Plenary at the 2013 International Psycho-oncology Society's World Congress in Rotterdam, the Netherlands aimed to progress and, where needed, initiate changes to achieve comprehensive cancer care. Recent initiatives have been driven by the need to see psychosocial care as an integrated part of holistic multidisciplinary quality cancer care. The President's Plenary session covered the need for the following: An internationally agreed standard of quality cancer care, which includes psychosocial care for patients and their families and caregivers. An endorsement to assess distress as the 6th vital sign. Psycho-oncology professionals to integrate into a federation promoting better national and international outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This overview highlights progress in terms of enhanced communication between and within different professionals groups supporting the implementation of a model of comprehensive patient care that is inclusive of psychosocial support and screening for distress. Tasks and challenges for the future are set out but the primary message is of the importance of collaboration in order to achieve recognition that psychosocial care is integrated into comprehensive cancer care; in this way, patient, family and carer needs can be more appropriately met.

"Cancer--Educate to Prevent"--high-school teachers, the new promoters of cancer prevention education campaigns

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and thus represents a priority for national public health programs. Prevention has been assumed as the best strategy to reduce cancer burden, however most cancer prevention programs are implemented by healthcare professionals, which constrain range and educational impacts. We developed an innovative approach for cancer prevention education focused on high-school biology teachers, considered privileged mediators in the socialization processes. A training program, "Cancer, Educate to Prevent" was applied, so that the teachers were able to independently develop and implement prevention campaigns focused on students and school-related communities. The program encompassed different educational modules, ranging from cancer biology to prevention campaigns design. Fifty-four teachers were empowered to develop and implement their own cancer prevention campaigns in a population up to five thousands students. The success of the training program was assessed through quantitative evaluation--questionnaires focused on teachers' cancer knowledge and perceptions, before the intervention (pre-test) and immediately after (post-test). The projects developed and implemented by teachers were also evaluated regarding the intervention design, educational contents and impact on the students' knowledge about cancer. This study presents and discusses the results concerning the training program "Cancer, Educate to Prevent" and clearly shows a significant increase in teacher's cancer literacy (knowledge and perceptions) and teachers' acquired proficiency to develop and deliver cancer prevention campaigns with direct impact on students' knowledge about cancer. This pilot study reinforces the potential of high-school teachers and schools as cancer prevention promoters and opens a new perspective for the development and validation of cancer prevention education strategies, based upon focused interventions in restricted targets (students) through non-health professionals (teachers).

Case review in urology multidisciplinary team meetings: What members think of its functioning

Objective:

To improve communication and decision making between specialists, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) were introduced with the premise they would improve cancer care for patients. Minimal evidence exists on MDT functionality. We investigated MDT members’ views on barriers to optimal functioning and explored their suggestions for improvements.

Materials and methods:

Twenty urology MDT members from seven hospitals including surgeons, oncologists, pathologists, radiologists and clinical nurse specialists took part in a semi-structured interview study. Interviews focused on information presentation, case discussion, factors affecting the multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) and potential improvements. Interviews were transcribed and analysed through emergent theme analysis.

Results:

Factors negatively influencing the MDMs included insufficient time to prepare cases so that enough information is available to make appropriate decisions; absence of the clinician in charge or not knowing the patient; and lack of a systematic approach to case discussion. Recommendations included protected time for case preparation, focusing on performance and comorbidities of the patient, standardising the MDT meeting and improving case selection.

Conclusions:

MDTs in urology have contributed to advances in cancer care but there is significant scope for further improvement. Implementing recommendations from team members on the front line may help drive quality in this sensitive domain.

Health care policy and cancer survivorship

The United States and the European Union (EU) vary widely in approaches to ensuring affordable health care coverage for our respective populations. Such variations stem from differences in the political systems and beliefs regarding social welfare. These variations are also reflected in past and future initiatives to provide high quality cancer survivorship care. The United States spends considerably more on health care compared to most European countries, often with no proven benefit. In the United States, individuals with chronic illnesses, such as cancer survivors, often experience difficulties affording insurance and maintaining coverage, a problem unknown to EU countries with national health insurance. This article reviews health policy development over time for the United States and EU and the impact for cancer survivors. For the United States, the impact of the Affordable Care Act on improving access to affordable care for cancer survivors is highlighted. For the EU, the importance of multiple-morbidity disease management, cancer plan development, and pan-European data collection for monitoring cancer outcomes is addressed. Given predicted workforce shortages and ever-increasing numbers of aging cancer survivors on both sides of the Atlantic, sharing lessons learned will be critical.

Survivorship programs and care planning

Formal cancer survivorship care is a growing focus internationally. This article provides a broad overview of the national strategies currently in progress for the development of survivorship programs and care plans within the United States and across Europe. The different approaches taken in their implementation, staffing, and clinical focus are highlighted, with an emphasis on how they are incorporated into various models of care. The considerable variation in making survivorship a formal period of care across countries and health care systems is discussed, including the factors influencing these differences. A review of research focused on the evaluation of definitions and outcomes is provided along with a discussion of important areas requiring future research.

Policy statement on multidisciplinary cancer care

BACKGROUND

Cancer care is undergoing an important paradigm shift from a disease-focused management to a patient-centred approach, in which increasingly more attention is paid to psychosocial aspects, quality of life, patients' rights and empowerment and survivorship. In this context, multidisciplinary teams emerge as a practical necessity for optimal coordination among health professionals and clear communication with patients. The European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), an initiative launched by the European Commission in 2009, addressed the multidisciplinary care from a policy perspective in order to define the core elements that all tumour-based multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should include. To that effect, a working group conference was held in January 2013 within the EPAAC Work Package 7 (on Healthcare) framework.

METHODS

The consensus group consisted of high-level representatives from the following European scientific societies, patient associations and stakeholders: European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European SocieTy for Radiology & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG), European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS), International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS),European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), EuropaColon, Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Association of European Cancer Leagues (ECL), Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI), EUSOMA - European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists, European Hospital and Healthcare Federation (HOPE) and EPAAC Work Packages 5 (Health promotion and prevention), 7, 8 (Research), 9 (Information systems) and 10 (Cancer plans). A background document with a list of 26 core issues drawn from a systematic review of the literature was used to guide the discussion. Five areas related to MDTs were covered: care objectives, organisation, clinical assessment, patients' rights and empowerment and policy support. Preliminary drafts of the document were widely circulated for consultation and amendments by the working group before final approval.

RESULTS

The working group unanimously formulated a Policy Statement on Multidisciplinary Cancer Care to define the core elements that should be implemented by all tumour-based MDTs. This document identifies MDTs as the core component in cancer care organisation and sets down the key elements to guide changes across all European health systems.

CONCLUSION

MDTs are an essential instrument of effective cancer care policy, and their continued development crucial to providing patients the care they need and deserve. While implementation must remain in local hands, European health systems can still benefit from having a basis for an effective multidisciplinary model of cooperation. This policy statement is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers and healthcare providers who wish to improve the services currently provided to the cancer patients whose lives and well-being depend on their action.

Undergraduate cancer education in Spain: The debate, the opportunities and the initiatives of the University Forum of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR)

Most medical schools in Spain (80%) offer undergraduate training in oncology. This education is highly variable in terms of content (theory and practical training), number of credits, and the medical specialty and departmental affiliation of the professors. Much of this variability is due to university traditions in the configuration of credits and programmes, and also to the structure of the hospital-based practical training. Undergraduate medical students deserve a more coherent and modern approach to education with a strong emphasis on clinical practice. Oncology is an interdisciplinary science that requires the input of professors from multiple specialties to provide the primary body of knowledge and skills needed to obtain both a theoretical and clinical understanding of cancer. Clinical skills should be a key focus due to their importance in the current model of integrated medical management and care. Clinical radiation oncology is a traditional and comprehensive hospital-based platform for undergraduate education in oncology. In Spain, a significant number (n = 80) of radiation oncology specialists have a contractual relationship to teach university courses. Most Spanish universities (80%) have a radiation oncologist on staff, some of whom are department chairs and many others are full professors who have been hired and promoted under competitive conditions of evaluation as established by the National Agency for Quality Evaluation. The Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) has identified new opportunities to improve undergraduate education in oncology. In this article, we discuss proposals related to theoretical (20 items) and practical clinical training (9 items). We also describe the SEOR University Forum, which is an initiative to develop a strategic plan to implement and organize cancer education at the undergraduate level in an interdisciplinary teaching spirit and with a strong contribution from radiation oncologists.

Insights into cancer surveillance in Central and Eastern Europe, Israel and Turkey

The current cancer landscape within transitional economies in central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area is not particularly optimistic. Current perceptions are often based on extrapolations from other countries and regions; and hence the authors collaborated with the South Eastern Europe Oncology Group (SEEROG) to collect information on cancer registration in Central and Eastern Europe, Israel and Turkey. Healthcare authorities and specialist oncology centres in 21 countries in the region were contacted for information on cancer registries in their countries. Based on this information, the authors believe that the recording and reporting of data on cancer in the region is at an acceptable level. The authors discuss and compare institution- and population-based registries, and present opinions on elements of an 'ideal registry' based on the survey replies and comparisons with other registries. A comparison with the sources used for GLOBOCAN 2008 illustrates the need for consistent data to be communicated, published and utilised throughout the region and the oncology community. The authors conclude by considering the potential value of collaboration between health authorities across the region, as well as between the clinical and epidemiological communities, to ensure that cancer data are consistently collected, verified and made public.

Cancer registration, public health and the reform of the European data protection framework: Abandoning or improving European public health research?

The importance of cancer- and other disease registries for planning, management and evaluation of healthcare systems has been shown repeatedly during the last 50 years. Complete and unbiased population-level analyses on routinely collected, individual data concerning health and personal characteristics can address significant concerns about risk factors for cancer and provide sound evidence about public health and the effectiveness of healthcare systems. The existence of quality controlled and comprehensive data in registries, allowed to be used for quality control, research and public health purposes are taken as granted by most health professionals and researchers. However, the current revision of the European Union (EU) data protection framework suggests a harmonisation of requirements for confidentiality and individual consent to data processing, likely at the expense of proper use of registry data in the health sector. Consequences of excessive confidentiality rules that may lead to missed data linkages have been simulated. The simulations provide one possible explanation for observed heterogeneity among some cancer incidence data. Further, public health, quality control and epidemiological research on large populations can no longer provide evidence for health interventions, if requirements for consent renders research impossible or where attempts to obtain consent from each data subject generates biased results. Health professionals should engage in the on-going debate on the Commission's proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation. The nature and use of registry data in public health research must be explained and known to policy-makers and the public. Use of cancer registry data and other epidemiological activity will terminate abruptly if an unnecessarily strict EU data protection regulation is adopted. Research based interventions, as well as the international recognised standing of cancer registries and register-based research institutions in Europe are at stake.

Melanoma incidence and mortality in Europe: new estimates, persistent disparities

BACKGROUND

Melanoma incidence and mortality in Europe are high but there are significant gaps in the epidemiological information available across the continent.

OBJECTIVES

With the aim of enhancing the planning of educational programmes for reducing the melanoma burden in Europe, we analysed the most recent incidence and mortality data for Europe with a new focus on the regional disparities of melanoma reporting.

METHODS

GLOBOCAN 2008, the standard set of worldwide estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer for 2008, was used to provide the estimated age-standardized rates (world standard population) of melanoma incidence and mortality in European countries and regions.

RESULTS

The estimated age-standardized incidence of melanoma (measured per 100 000 person-years) varies widely from 19·2 in Switzerland to 2·2 in Greece. The incidence rate of 4·3 of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is less than half of that of Western Europe. Melanoma mortality rates of 1·5 are similar in CEE and Western Europe, although rates vary with a high of 3·2 in Norway and a low of 0·9 in Greece. Over 20 000 deaths from melanoma were estimated in Europe in 2008, with CEE having the largest share (35·5%) among the four geographical European regions. Population-based data are lacking for significant parts of CEE, which must rely on estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The most recent estimates of melanoma incidence and mortality in Europe reveal sharp differences between European countries, possibly related to missed opportunities for early diagnosis and incomplete reporting of melanoma in Eastern Europe.

The state of research and development in global cancer surgery

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to perform an analysis of global cancer surgery research and development trends over the last 10 years across 21 countries.

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the main modality for cancer cure and control globally. Yet, in comparison to other areas such as cancer drugs, we know little about ongoing research activities to inform policymakers.

METHODS

Two subfield filters, surgery research and oncology, were developed and applied to Web of Science. The intersection of these 2 filters identified papers in surgical oncology, and their bibliographic details were downloaded for analysis. This included matching of 5-year citation counts to the papers, impact factor, geographical analysis by country, translational collaboration, involvement in clinical trials, citation on clinical guidelines, and percentage of reviews.

RESULT

Surgical oncology represents about 9% of all cancer research-low in comparison with surgery's contribution to cancer treatment. The US published the most, followed by Japan which had a high relative commitment to surgery within cancer research, followed by the large West European countries. Although Sweden's papers were relatively basic, it participated the most in clinical trials. Its papers were also the most cited on clinical guidelines, but contained relatively few reviews, where the UK, Greece, and Belgium scored best. Surgical oncology papers are generally not well cited compared with cancer research overall, but on this measure the Netherlands, the US, and Sweden scored best. International collaboration was measured relative to what might have been expected, on this indicator Canada, Switzerland, and the US were the best performers.

CONCLUSIONS

Globally, low activity-low funding cycle needs to be addressed by new national and supranational policies to support surgical oncology research.

Multidisciplinary cancer care in Spain, or when the function creates the organ: qualitative interview study

Background

The Spanish National Health System recognised multidisciplinary care as a health priority in 2006, when a national strategy for promoting quality in cancer care was first published. This institutional effort is being implemented on a co-operative basis within the context of Spain's decentralised health care system, so a high degree of variability is to be expected. This study was aimed to explore the views of professionals working with multidisciplinary cancer teams and identify which barriers to effective team work should be considered to ensure implementation of health policy.

Methods

Qualitative interview study with semi-structured, one-to-one interviews. Data were examined inductively, using content analysis to generate categories and an explanatory framework. 39 professionals performing their tasks, wholly or in part, in different multidisciplinary cancer teams were interviewed. The breakdown of participants' medical specialisations was as follows: medical oncologists (n = 10); radiation oncologists (n = 8); surgeons (n = 7); pathologists or radiologists (n = 6); oncology nurses (n = 5); and others (n = 3).

Results

Teams could be classified into three models of professional co-operation in multidisciplinary cancer care, namely, advisory committee, formal co-adaptation and integrated care process. The following barriers to implementation were posed: existence of different gateways for the same patient profile; variability in development and use of clinical protocols and guidelines; role of the hospital executive board; outcomes assessment; and the recording and documenting of clinical decisions in a multidisciplinary team setting. All these play a key role in the development of cancer teams and their ability to improve quality of care.

Conclusion

Cancer team development results from an specific adaptation to the hospital environment. Nevertheless, health policy plays an important role in promoting an organisational approach that changes the way in which professionals develop their clinical practice.

Patterns of care in surgery for ovarian cancer in Europe

Quality of surgery is one of the most important determinants of the outcome in ovarian cancer patients. Surgery by a gynaecological oncologist in a specialised, high-volume environment and removal of all visible tumours are associated with a higher likelihood of favourable outcome for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Population-based studies in Europe however show that a substantial number of patients do not receive optimal surgical care. Less than half of the patients suffering from advanced-stage ovarian cancer are operated by a gynaecological oncologists. Also the proportion of patients operated in a high-volume or specialised hospital is lower than 50%. In a substantial number of patients, minimum standard procedures are not performed and optimal tumor debulking is not achieved. To improve the quality of care, efforts are needed to develop and implement robust evidence-based European guidelines, provide surgical training for gynaecological oncologists and establish comprehensive cancer networks with sufficient resources.

The state of the art of cancer control in 30 European countries in 2008

Inequalities in cancer incidence, mortality and survival represent a major challenge for public health. Addressing this challenge requires complex and multidisciplinary approaches. Sharing successful experiences from across Europe may therefore be of benefit. We describe the state of the art of cancer control structures in the 27 European Union countries, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, at the beginning of 2008. Information on cancer plans, cancer registries, cancer screening, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and smoking restrictions in each country was identified through PubMed, the official websites of national and international organizations and Google searches. Experts and/or health authorities from each country completed and validated the information. Sixteen countries had implemented national cancer plans in 2008. Twenty four countries had population-based cancer registries with 100% coverage. The exceptions were Greece and Luxembourg (no population-based registry yet), France, Italy and Spain (<50%), and Switzerland (62%). In 9 countries, population coverage of breast cancer screening was 100% with participation ranging from 26 to 87%; 8 countries did not have organized programmes. Seven countries had cervical cancer screening programmes with 100% coverage with participation ranging from 10 to 80%; 8 countries had no organized programme. Nine countries had announced national HPV vaccination policies by early 2008. Six countries had organized colorectal cancer screening programmes. Five countries had complete bans on smoking in public places. There is wide international heterogeneity in cancer control structures in Europe. This provides considerable scope and motivation for cooperation and sharing of experience.

Maximising recruitment into randomised controlled trials: the role of multidisciplinary cancer teams

Multidisciplinary cancer teams offer many theoretical benefits, although few have been formally examined. This study evaluated the role of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in recruitment into randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Consecutive MDT patient records were categorised into those with or without a recommendation for a national multicentre RCT. Clinical trial office records identified whether patients were subsequently screened and randomised. In 125 MDT meetings, 350 new patients were discussed, of whom 103 were potentially suitable for a RCT. The MDT recommended 68 patients for the trial, of whom 58 (85%) were screened for trial eligibility. Of the 35 without an MDT trial recommendation, only 23 (66%) were screened (p=0.022). This difference persisted and resulted in a greater proportion of MDT recommended patients being recruited (65% versus 49%; p=0.12). This study demonstrates that trial recommendation by an MDT significantly increases trial screening rates and may improve recruitment.