Understanding a Diverse Cancer Center Catchment Area: A Qualitative Needs Assessment Built on a Theoretical Framework.

INTRODUCTION: Quantitative approaches to the cancer incidence and mortality of a geographic region may lack understanding of the human context in the region thereby affecting how relevant cancer prevention and control activities can best be targeted to a cancer center's catchment area. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to obtain and analyze qualitative data that described the barriers and facilitators in a cancer center's catchment area. A further objective was to use the assessment to plan a comprehensive approach to cancer prevention and control activities in the region. METHODS: Extensive qualitative data were gathered from 32 key informants in the 13 county catchment area. We used the Warnecke Model for Analysis of Population Health and Health Disparities to analyze the qualitative data. We coded factors affecting cancer prevention and control using a directed content analysis approach guided by the Warnecke Model. RESULTS: Four outcome types included fundamental barriers such as political environment and discrimination, gaps in resources, and lack of coordinated activities. Social and physical barriers included distrust, diverse language and cultures, and geographic distance. Individual barriers included lack of system negotiation, health literacy, and poverty. Biological barriers were disparate disease rates in specific groups. CONCLUSION: The analysis and assessment led to the creation of a catchment area wide coalition that used the results to formulate a comprehensive strategic plan to address the barriers in the region.

National Cancer Institute Centers and Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Research Synergy.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine the influence of Surgical Society Oncology (SSO) membership and National Cancer Institute (NCI) status on the academic output of surgical faculty. METHODS: NCI cancer program status for each department of surgery was identified with publically available data, whereas SSO membership was determined for every faculty member. Academic output measures such as NIH funding, publications, and citations were analyzed in subsets by the type of cancer center (NCI comprehensive cancer center [CCC]; NCI cancer center [NCICC]; and non-NCI center) and SSO membership status. RESULTS: Of the surgical faculty, 2537 surgeons (61.9%) were from CCC, whereas 854 (20.8%) were from NCICC. At the CCC, 22.7% of surgeons had a history of or current NIH funding, compared with 15.8% at the NCICC and 11.8% at the non-NCI centers. The academic output of SSO members was higher at NCICC (52 ± 113 publications/1266 ± 3830 citations) and CCC (53 ± 92/1295 ± 4001) compared with nonmembers (NCICC: 26 ± 78/437 ± 2109; CCC: 37 ± 91/670 ± 3260), respectively, P < 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that SSO membership imparts an additional 22 publications and 270 citations, whereas NCI-designated CCC added 10 additional publications, but not citations. CONCLUSIONS: CCCs have significantly higher academic output and NIH funding. Recruitment of SSO members, a focus on higher performing divisions, and NIH funding are factors that non-NCI cancer centers may be able to focus on to improve academic productivity to aid in obtaining NCI designation.

Population-based geographic access to parent and satellite National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Satellite facilities of National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers have expanded their regional footprints. This study characterized geographic access to parent and satellite NCI cancer center facilities nationally overall and by sociodemographics. METHODS: Parent and satellite NCI cancer center facilities, which were geocoded in ArcGIS, were ascertained. Travel times from every census tract in the continental United States and Hawaii to the nearest parent and satellite facilities were calculated. Census-based population attributes were used to characterize measures of geographic access for sociodemographic groups. RESULTS: From the 62 NCI cancer centers providing clinical care in 2014, 76 unique parent locations and 211 satellite locations were mapped. The overall proportion of the population within 60 minutes of a facility was 22% for parent facilities and 32.7% for satellite facilities. When satellites were included for potential access, the proportion of some racial groups for which a satellite was the closest NCI cancer center facility increased notably (Native Americans, 22.6% with parent facilities and 39.7% with satellite facilities; whites, 34.8% with parent facilities and 50.3% with satellite facilities; and Asians, 40.0% with parent facilities and 54.0% with satellite facilities), with less marked increases for Hispanic and black populations. Rural populations of all categories had dramatically low proportions living within 60 minutes of an NCI cancer center facility of any type (1.0%-6.6%). Approximately 14% of the population (n = 43,033,310) lived more than 180 minutes from a parent or satellite facility, and most of these individuals were Native Americans and/or rural residents (37% of Native Americans and 41.7% of isolated rural residents). CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic and rural populations showed markedly improved geographic access to NCI cancer center care when satellite facilities were included. Cancer 2017;123:3305-11. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The National Cancer Institute R25 Cancer Education Grants Program: A Workshop Report.

Through the R25 Cancer Education Grants Program (CEGP), the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has been supporting the broad educational needs of the cancer research and cancer healthcare communities since 1974. NCI sponsored a workshop on September 13, 2016 in Bethesda, Maryland, with the objectives of sharing best practices in cancer education, communicating R25 CEGP programmatic information, and gathering ideas to strengthen the R25 CEGP to better meet the emerging needs in cancer education in the face of a rapidly changing landscape in cancer research and cancer care. With 53 leaders in cancer education in attendance, the workshop featured an overview of the R25 CEGP by NCI Program Staff, a showcase of several types of CEGP programs by current R25 grantees, and in-depth discussions on a broad range of questions critical for the continued success of the R25 CEGP. The workshop afforded an opportunity, for the first time, for cancer researchers and clinicians conducting different forms of cancer education activities to gather in one place as leaders of a community of increasing importance. The discussion resulted in a set of suggestions that will benefit the R25 CEGP and cancer education in general. There was a general consensus among the participants that bringing the cancer education community together is a significant achievement of the workshop that will have a long-lasting impact on cancer education.

National Cancer Institute's leadership role in promoting State and Community Tobacco Control research.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has been at the vanguard of funding tobacco control research for decades with major efforts such as the Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT) in 1988 and the American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST) in 1991, followed by the Tobacco Research Initiative for State and Community Interventions in 1999. Most recently, in 2011, the NCI launched the State and Community Tobacco Control (SCTC) Research Initiative to address gaps in secondhand smoke policies, tax and pricing policies, mass media countermeasures, community and social norms and tobacco marketing. The initiative supported large scale research projects and time-sensitive ancillary pilot studies in response to expressed needs of state and community partners. This special issue of Tobacco Control showcases exciting findings from the SCTC. In this introductory article, we provide a brief account of NCI's historical commitment to promoting research to inform tobacco control policy.

Provider-based research networks may improve early access to innovative colon cancer treatment for African Americans treated in the community.

BACKGROUND: African American (AA) patients with colon cancer (CC) experience worse outcomes than whites partly due to differential treatment. The National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP), a provider-based research network, adopts and diffuses innovative CC treatments quickly. The authors hypothesized that CCOP participation would lessen racial differences in the receipt of oxaliplatin, an innovative treatment for CC, among patients with stage III CC in the community. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, the authors performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of AA and white individuals aged ≥66 years who were diagnosed with AJCC stage III CC from 2003 through 2005. Generalized estimating equations were used to calculate the odds of receiving an oxaliplatin-containing regimen. Predicted probabilities of oxaliplatin receipt for race-CCOP combinations were calculated. The absolute difference in oxaliplatin receipt between races was estimated using the interaction contrast ratio. RESULTS: Of 2971 included individuals, 36% received oxaliplatin, 29.5% were CCOP-affiliated, and 7.6% were AA. On multivariate analysis, early diffusion of oxaliplatin was not found to be associated with race or CCOP participation. The probability of receiving oxaliplatin for AAs participating in a CCOP (0.46) was nearly double that of AAs who were not participating in a CCOP (0.25; P <.05). For white individuals, the probabilities of receiving oxaliplatin did not differ by CCOP participation. For oxaliplatin receipt, the joint effects assessment suggested a greater benefit of CCOP participation among AAs (interaction contrast ratio, 1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with stage III CC, there is a differential impact of race on oxaliplatin receipt depending on CCOP participation. AAs treated by CCOPs were more likely to receive oxaliplatin than AAs treated elsewhere. Provider-based research networks may facilitate early access to innovative treatment for AAs with stage III CC.

Unveiling SEER-CAHPS®: a new data resource for quality of care research.

BACKGROUND: Since 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have collaborated to create linked data resources to improve our understanding of patterns of care, health care costs, and trends in utilization. However, existing data linkages have not included measures of patient experiences with care. OBJECTIVE: To describe a new resource for quality of care research based on a linkage between the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient surveys and the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data. DESIGN: This is an observational study of CAHPS respondents and includes both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with and without cancer. The data linkage includes: CAHPS survey data collected between 1998 and 2010 to assess patient reports on multiple aspects of their care, such as access to needed and timely care, doctor communication, as well as patients' global ratings of their personal doctor, specialists, overall health care, and their health plan; SEER registry data (1973-2007) on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics; and longitudinal Medicare claims data (2002-2011) for fee-for-service beneficiaries on utilization and costs of care. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 150,750 respondents were in the cancer cohort and 571,318 were in the non-cancer cohort. MAIN MEASURES: The data linkage includes SEER data on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics, in addition to longitudinal data from Medicare claims and information on patient experiences from CAHPS surveys. KEY RESULTS: Sizable proportions of cases from common cancers (e.g., breast, colorectal, prostate) and short-term survival cancers (e.g., pancreas) by time since diagnosis enable comparisons across the cancer care trajectory by MA vs. FFS coverage. CONCLUSIONS: SEER-CAHPS is a valuable resource for information about Medicare beneficiaries' experiences of care across different diagnoses and treatment modalities, and enables comparisons by type of insurance.

Creating a "culture of research" in a community hospital: Strategies and tools from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program.

BACKGROUND: The value of community-based cancer research has long been recognized. In addition to the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical and Minority-Based Oncology Programs established in 1983, and 1991 respectively, the National Cancer Institute established the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program in 2007 with an aim of enhancing access to high-quality cancer care and clinical research in the community setting where most cancer patients receive their treatment. This article discusses strategies utilized by the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program to build research capacity and create a more entrenched culture of research at the community hospitals participating in the program over a 7-year period. METHODS: To facilitate development of a research culture at the community hospitals, the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program required leadership or chief executive officer engagement; utilized a collaborative learning structure where best practices, successes, and challenges could be shared; promoted site-to-site mentoring to foster faster learning within and between sites; required research program assessments that spanned clinical trial portfolio, accrual barriers, and outreach; increased identification and use of metrics; and, finally, encouraged research team engagement across hospital departments (navigation, multidisciplinary care, pathology, and disparities) to replace the traditionally siloed approach to clinical trials. LIMITATIONS: The health-care environment is rapidly changing while complexity in research increases. Successful research efforts are impacted by numerous factors (e.g. institutional review board reviews, physician interest, and trial availability). The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program sites, as program participants, had access to the required resources and support to develop and implement the strategies described. Metrics are an important component yet often challenging to identify and collect. The model requires a strong emphasis on outreach that challenges hospitals to improve and expand their reach, particularly into underrepresented populations and catchment areas. These efforts build on trust and a referral pipeline within the community which take time and significant commitment to establish. CONCLUSION: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program experience provides a relevant model to broadly address creating a culture of research in community hospitals that are increasingly networked via systems and consortiums. The strategies used align well with the National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Accrual Symposium recommendations for patient-/community-, physician-/provider-, and site-/organizational-level approaches to clinical trials; they helped sites achieve organizational culture shifts that enhanced their cancer research programs. The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program hospitals reported that the strategies were challenging to implement yet proved valuable as they provided useful metrics for programmatic assessment, planning, reporting, and growth. While focused on oncology trials, these concepts may be useful within other disease-focused research as well.

Cancer prevention through stealth: science, policy advocacy, and multilevel governance in the establishment of a "National Tobacco Control Regime" in the United States.

The role of the US federal government in developing tobacco control through a cooperative, interactive program with state and local private and public organizations has been underestimated. This article investigates how the government initiated and sustained a program of "capacity building" through the scientific authority of the National Cancer Institute, beginning in the 1980s. There are several major questions to be answered: (1) How did this program manage to be adopted and sustained despite the well-documented hindrances to effective tobacco control policy at the federal level? (2) How did a tobacco control policy program become incorporated into the scientific research agenda of the National Cancer Institute? (3) How have science, social factors, and government at various levels interacted in this capacity-building program? The study emphasizes how the US federal government, blocked by a tobacco-friendly Congress from enacting effective tobacco control legislation, utilized its scientific research role and, with the cooperation of other levels of government and large, private antitobacco organizations, established an ongoing policy effort.

The business case for provider participation in clinical trials research: an application to the National Cancer Institute's community clinical oncology program.

BACKGROUND: Provider-based research networks (PBRNs) make clinical trials available in community-based practice settings, where most people receive their care, but provider participation requires both financial and in-kind contributions. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore whether providers believe there is a business case for participating in PBRNs and what factors contribute to the business case. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We use a multiple case study methodology approach to examine the National Cancer Institute's community clinical oncology program, a long-standing federally funded PBRN. Interviews with 41 key informants across five sites, selected on the basis of organizational maturity, were conducted using a semistructured interview guide. We analyzed interview transcripts using an iterative, deductive process to identify themes and subthemes in the data. FINDINGS: We found that a business case for provider participation in PBRNs may exist if both direct and indirect financial benefits are identified and included in the analysis and if the time horizon is long enough to allow those benefits to be realized. We identified specific direct and indirect financial benefits that were perceived as important contributors to the business case and the perceived length of time required for a positive return to accrue. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As the lack of a business case may result in provider reluctance to participate in PBRNs, knowledge of the benefits we identified may be crucial to encouraging and sustaining participation, thereby preserving patient access to innovative community-based treatments. The results are also relevant to federally funded PBRNs outside of oncology or to providers considering participation in any clinical trials research.

Oncologists' perspectives on concurrent palliative care in a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand oncology clinicians' perspectives about the care of advanced cancer patients following the completion of the ENABLE II (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) randomized clinical trial (RCT) of a concurrent oncology palliative care model. METHOD: This was a qualitative interview study of 35 oncology clinicians about their approach to patients with advanced cancer and the effect of the ENABLE II RCT. RESULTS: Oncologists believed that integrating palliative care at the time of an advanced cancer diagnosis enhanced patient care and complemented their practice. Self-assessment of their practice with advanced cancer patients comprised four themes: (1) treating the whole patient, (2) focusing on quality versus quantity of life, (3) "some patients just want to fight," and (4) helping with transitions; timing is everything. Five themes comprised oncologists' views on the complementary role of palliative care: (1) "refer early and often," (2) referral challenges: "Palliative" equals "hospice"; "Heme patients are different," (3) palliative care as consultants or co-managers, (4) palliative care "shares the load," and (5) ENABLE II facilitated palliative care integration. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Oncologists described the RCT as holistic and complementary, and as a significant factor in adopting concurrent care as a standard of care.

Approaches for the Evaluation of the National Cancer Institute's Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention: lessons from the all-Ireland NCI cancer consortium.

The NCI Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention (SCCP) has provided interdisciplinary training in cancer prevention and control to cancer health-care professionals, including nurses, physicians, and scientists, since 1986. It has trained over 1,200 participants, 256 of them from Ireland and Northern Ireland through two summer courses: a 4-week course on Principles and Practice of Cancer Prevention and Control (PP) and 1-week on Molecular Prevention (MP). This report is our attempt to measure achievements and level of satisfaction among alumni from the island of Ireland upon return to their home institution. A questionnaire was developed to assess this. Our analysis found statistically significant differences in the types of accomplishments reported among respondents of the MP and PP courses as well as statistically significant differences in their level of satisfaction. More data are needed to better explain the differences observed as well as level of resources available to alumni upon their return home.