Analysing the attributes of Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres across Europe to identify key hallmarks.

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high-quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission-oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes' Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high-impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals.

[Management of side effects related to adjuvant hormone therapy in young women with breast cancer]. / Gestion des effets secondaires de l'hormonothérapie du cancer du sein chez la femme jeune.

Despite proven survival benefits after breast cancer, long-trem compliance with adjuvant hormone therapy remains a major issue, partly due to the side effects of treatment. In young women treated for breast cancer, these treatments include tamoxifen, anti-aromatase and LH-RH analogues, with even more side effects when these treatments are combined, especially for younger patients with more aggressive disease. The management of the potential side effects requires first of all detailed and precise information at initiation of treatment, and preventive measures including patient education. Once the treatment has been initiated, clinicians should be able to propose to their patients appropriate measures to alleviate the potential of the side effects, which can be of various types: biological (dyslipidemia), physical (weight gain, hot flushes, vaginal dryness, sexual disorders with low libido, musculoskeletal symptoms…) or psychosocial (anxio-depressive disorders, poor body image, difficulties of professional reintegration). Management of these effects can combine various modalities: drugs (switching hormone therapy, anti-depressants, hormonal treatments of vaginal dryness in some cases, gabapentin), physical treatments (CO2 laser for vulvovaginal atrophy) or psycho-physical techniques (physical activity, mindfulness, acupuncture…). Eventually, the lenghth of these adjuvant hormonal treatments requires supportive measures to help young patients engage in new lifestyle measures, in particular in term of physical activity and diet. This will help them mitigate the symptoms related to these side-effects while reducing the long-term risks related to their disease and treatments.

[Trends and evolutions of French breast cancer research: a bibliometric study]. / Tendances et évolutions de la recherche française sur le cancer du sein: étude bibliométrique.

This article presents a bibliometric study carried out in order to describe the trends and evolutions of French breast cancer research from 2003 to 2013. The results show an increase in the number of publications, especially international publications coordinated by non-French institutions. The most visible topics, in terms of number of publications by keywords, are related to biology, clinical trials and genetics. Most publications are written by authors affiliated to comprehensive cancer centres, followed by universities, research centres, university hospitals and governmental agencies. The importance of publications by topic varies throughout the years: there has been an increase of the number of publications related to targeted therapies or genomics. The importance of institutions or country affiliation of authors varies with the topics. This study, especially the analysis by keywords, enables the coordinators of research programs to identify the predominant actors and themes.

Participation of Italian Cancer Centres of the Alleanza Contro Il Cancro (ACC) in the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) Accreditation and Designation program: a successful first national initiative.

The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched a program for accreditation and designation (A&D) of cancer centers in Europe based on voluntary participation in 2008. In 2012, the Italian Ministry of Health decided to fund cancer centers in Italy, members of the Alleanza Contro il Cancro (ACC), to go through the OECI accreditation program. Ten centers participated in the program and 10 completed the full cycle of the OECI A&D process in consecutive series over a 2-year period. The process was successfully completed within the planned timeline and the overall findings were presented to the Italian Ministry of Health and representatives of all the participating centers in November 2015. The program had a considerable team-building effect, which will likely continue as the improvement plans are implemented. Centers fed back to OECI that the A&D program had led to better formal organization of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and cancer care pathways, and had helped them to harmonize the integration of research into clinical practice. Centers also concluded that they benefited from recognition through an international accreditation system, and that it had led to them developing better patient information and involvement. The importance of the improvement plans that each center had to produce following the audit reviews cannot be underestimated. The OECI concludes that implementation of the A&D program at the national level is feasible despite national peculiarities related to health planning and organization in each member state. This is a good example of an EU project working well, with member states helping each other and learning from best practice, to improve the overall quality of cancer care and research and to establish consistency. The initial accreditation is the first part of an ongoing process of improving comprehensive cancer care, integrating bench to bedside.

Pioneering quality assessment in European cancer centers: a data analysis of the organization for European cancer institutes accreditation and designation program.

PURPOSE: In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program. METHODS: The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits. RESULTS: Volumes of various functions and activities dedicated to care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs. CONCLUSION: The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next step.

Exploring frontiers: use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients with early-stage breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly popular among cancer patients but can interfere with conventional therapies; timely data are needed to adapt current patients' care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This transversal, prospective study evaluated the use of CAM among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy for early stage breast cancer. We assessed the prevalence of use, the motivations and predictive factors for use, as well as patients' information needs over a three months period. RESULTS: 69/184 responders (37.5%) reported using at least one CAM. CAM use was associated with younger age (p = 0.03) and higher education level (p < 0.001). Pharmacological substances (e.g., homeopathy, phytotherapy) were the most commonly used (79.7%) before physical means (42%) and dietary methods (31.9%). A total of 65.8% of users felt that these treatments have demonstrated evidence of efficacy and 74.8% that they were not associated with side effects. The main goal for use was improvement of treatment-related symptoms (28.3%); secondary goal was increasing the general health status (20.5%). Patients reported high needs for information on CAMs. CAM use was associated with mild differences in secondary adverse events reported by patients. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients are common users of CAM concomitantly to their conventional cancer treatments and should be investigated regarding their current consumption of CAM. Furthermore, they need advice evidence-based data on these treatments and potential interactions with on-going treatments.

Decision-making from multidisciplinary team meetings to the bedside: factors influencing the recruitment of breast cancer patients into clinical trials.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Our aim was to determine factors influencing physicians and breast cancer patients to respectively propose or accept participation in a clinical trial following proposals made during a multidisciplinary team meeting (MTM) in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients considered eligible for a clinical trial by a breast cancer-specific MTM were included. A detailed analysis of factors predictive of the physician proposing the trial and the patient's acceptance and final inclusion was conducted. RESULTS: MTM proposed 547 inclusions in 25 clinical trials for 397 patients between March and September 2011. The physician proposed the scheduled clinical trial in only 39% of the cases. The patients accepted the proposal in 74% of the cases, and finally 29% were included. The main reason for non-inclusion was the physician's failure to propose the trial in 45-81%, depending on the type of study. The only factor predictive of both the physician proposing the trial and final inclusion was the type of study (both p < 0.001). Diagnostic/prognostic studies were the most frequently proposed trials. The professional status (of the subject) was predictive of acceptance (p = 0.03) with higher rates among retired patients and executives (84 and 76% respectively). CONCLUSION: The major reason for non-inclusion in clinical trials was the physician's failure to propose the trial, while the patient's professional status and the type of study influenced both physicians and patients. Educative measures mostly directed at physicians could be implemented to overcome such poor compliance.

Assessing excellence in translational cancer research: a consensus based framework.

BACKGROUND: It takes several years on average to translate basic research findings into clinical research and eventually deliver patient benefits. An expert-based excellence assessment can help improve this process by: identifying high performing Comprehensive Cancer Centres; best practices in translational cancer research; improving the quality and efficiency of the translational cancer research process. This can help build networks of excellent Centres by aiding focused partnerships. In this paper we report on a consensus building exercise that was undertaken to construct an excellence assessment framework for translational cancer research in Europe. METHODS: We used mixed methods to reach consensus: a systematic review of existing translational research models critically appraised for suitability in performance assessment of Cancer Centres; a survey among European stakeholders (researchers, clinicians, patient representatives and managers) to score a list of potential excellence criteria, a focus group with selected representatives of survey participants to review and rescore the excellence criteria; an expert group meeting to refine the list; an open validation round with stakeholders and a critical review of the emerging framework by an independent body: a committee formed by the European Academy of Cancer Sciences. RESULTS: The resulting excellence assessment framework has 18 criteria categorized in 6 themes. Each criterion has a number of questions/sub-criteria. Stakeholders favoured using qualitative excellence criteria to evaluate the translational research "process" rather than quantitative criteria or judging only the outputs. Examples of criteria include checking if the Centre has mechanisms that can be rated as excellent for: involvement of basic researchers and clinicians in translational research (quality of supervision and incentives provided to clinicians to do a PhD in translational research) and well designed clinical trials based on ground-breaking concepts (innovative patient stratification, substantial fraction of phase I/II trials, investigator-initiated trials). Critically, the framework supports reduced bureaucracy by building on existing European evaluation systems. CONCLUSIONS: The excellence framework is the product of an intense stakeholder consensus building exercise. It will be piloted during an expert peer review/site visit of at least three European Comprehensive Cancer Centres. The findings regarding content, governance and implementation can have relevance for other clinical and research fields.

Improvement of European translational cancer research. Collaboration between comprehensive cancer centers.

Even though the increasing incidence of cancer is mainly a consequence of a population with a longer life span, part of this augmentation is related to the increasing prevalence of patients living with a chronic cancer disease. To fight the problem, improved preventive strategies are mandatory in combination with an innovative health care provision that is driven by research. To overcome the weakness of translational research the OECI is proposing a practical approach as part of a strategy foreseen by the EUROCAN+PLUS feasibility study, which was launched by the EC in order to identify mechanisms for the coordination of cancer research in Europe.

Towards quality, comprehensiveness and excellence. The accreditation project of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI).

There are important gaps in the health status of citizens across Europe, as measured by life expectancy, mortality or morbidity data (Report for the European Commission on the health status of the European Union, 2003). Among the main determinants of the major causes of mortality and morbidity, stated in this report, stands recurrently access to quality healthcare. There is a fundamental need to define quality indicators and set minimal levels of performance quality criteria for healthcare. There is a need to integrate research into healthcare and to provide patients with equity of access to such high quality care. Oncology is a specialty particularly suited to experimenting a first application of accreditation at European level. The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes is a growing network of cancer Centres in Europe. The focus of the OECI is to work with professionals and organisations with regard to prevention, care, research, development, patient's role and education. In order to fulfil its mission, the OECI initiated in 2002 an accreditation project with three objectives: * to develop a comprehensive accreditation system for oncology care, taking into account prevention, care, research, education and networking. * to set an updated database of cancer centres in Europe, with exhaustive information on their resources and activities (in care, research, education and management) * to develop a global labelling tool dedicated to comprehensive cancer centres in Europe, designating the various types of cancer structures, and the comprehensive cancer centres of reference and Excellence. An accreditation tool has been established, defining standards and criteria for prevention, care, research, education and follow-up activities. A quantitative database of cancer centres is integrated in the tool, with a questionnaire, that provides an overall view of the oncological landscape in OECI cancer centres in Europe. Data on infrastructures, resources and activities have been collected. This OECI accreditation tool will be launched in autumn 2008 for all cancer centres in Europe. It serves as a basis for the development of the labelling tool for cancer structures in Europe, with a focus on Comprehensiveness and Excellence labels. Quality assessment and improvement is a critical need in Europe and is addressed by the OECI for cancer care in Europe. Accreditation is a well accepted process and is feasible. Standards and criteria as well as an accreditation tool have been developed. The OECI questionnaire gives an accurate vision of cancer institutions throughout Europe, helping assessing the needs and providing standards. The accreditation project is a long-term complete and voluntary process with external and internal added value, an active process of sharing information and experience that should help the whole cancer community reach comprehensiveness and excellence.