Evaluating comprehensive cancer networks; a review of standards and evaluation methods for care networks to inform a comparison with the OECI comprehensive cancer network standards.

INTRODUCTION: To ensure that all citizens have equal access to high-quality cancer diagnosis and care, the EU4Health Programme, Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, and Horizon Europe's Cancer Mission propose Comprehensive Cancer Infrastructures in every European Union Member State. It is therefore important to establish the basic principles for high-performing cancer networks and a methodology for evaluating their quality and effectiveness. This article describes methods and standards/indicators for network evaluation found in literature, gives a comparative overview of the new OECI European Cancer Network Quality standards, and proposes principles for evaluating the performance of Comprehensive Cancer Networks as a basis for continuous improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a scoping literature review on methods and standards/indicators for care-network evaluation. We then compared the OECI set with literature findings, categorised standards that were similar, reflected on standards that were different, and deduced principles for quality standards for cancer networks. RESULTS: Of 1002 articles identified, 17 reported on evaluation methods and/or (mostly) qualitative indicators. Sixteen studies described indicators/standards for evaluating care networks, critical success factors or desirable outcomes. Of the 54 present OECI standards, 32 had a literature equivalent. No literature equivalent was found for 22 standards, especially on those related to the combination of care and research. The proposed OECI evaluation methods (survey, document review, and interviews) were all reported in the literature. From the conformity of these results, we deduced 8 principles for standards evaluating the effectiveness of Comprehensive Cancer Networks. CONCLUSIONS: Research on the evaluation of the effectiveness of care networks is scarce. Evaluation methods vary and are often single time-point assessments. The OECI set contributes to establishing clear principles and standards to evaluate the effectiveness of Comprehensive Cancer Networks.

Study protocol comparing the ethical, psychological and socio-economic impact of personalised breast cancer screening to that of standard screening in the "My Personal Breast Screening" (MyPeBS) randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The MyPeBS study is an ongoing randomised controlled trial testing whether a risk-stratified breast cancer screening strategy is non-inferior, or eventually superior, to standard age-based screening at reducing incidence of stage 2 or more cancers. This large European Commission-funded initiative aims to include 85,000 women aged 40 to 70 years, without prior breast cancer and not previously identified at high risk in six countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Israel, Spain, UK). A specific work package within MyPeBS examines psychological, socio-economic and ethical aspects of this new screening strategy. It compares women's reported data and outcomes in both trial arms on the following issues: general anxiety, cancer-related worry, understanding of breast cancer screening strategy and information-seeking behaviour, socio-demographic and economic characteristics, quality of life, risk perception, intention to change health-related behaviours, satisfaction with the trial. METHODS: At inclusion, 3-months, 1-year and 4-years, each woman participating in MyPeBS is asked to fill online questionnaires. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, subgroup comparisons and analysis of variations over time will be performed with appropriate tests to assess differences between arms. Multivariate regression models will allow modelling of different patient reported data and outcomes such as comprehension of the information provided, general anxiety or cancer worry, and information seeking behaviour. In addition, a qualitative study (48 semi-structured interviews conducted in France and in the UK with women randomised in the risk-stratified arm), will help further understand participants' acceptability and comprehension of the trial, and their experience of risk assessment. DISCUSSION: Beyond the scientific and medical objectives of this clinical study, it is critical to acknowledge the consequences of such a paradigm shift for women. Indeed, introducing a risk-based screening relying on individual biological differences also implies addressing non-biological differences (e.g. social status or health literacy) from an ethical perspective, to ensure equal access to healthcare. The results of the present study will facilitate making recommendations on implementation at the end of the trial to accompany any potential change in screening strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study sponsor: UNICANCER. My personalised breast screening (MyPeBS). CLINICALTRIALS: gov (2018) available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03672331 Contact: Cécile VISSAC SABATIER, PhD, + 33 (0)1 73 79 77 58 ext + 330,142,114,293, contact@mypebs.eu.

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.

AI for reading screening mammograms: the need for circumspection.

KEY POINTS: • The studies on AI reading of screening mammograms have methodological limitations that undermine the conclusion that AI could do better than radiologists. • These studies do not informon numbers of extra breast cancers found by AI that could represent overdiagnosis. • The ability of AI to detect breast cancers is overestimated because there are no result on biopsy procedures that should be performed when mammograms are positive at AI reading but not at radiology reading.

[General practitioners mobilize to confront a cancer cluster]. / Mobilisation sanitaire face à un agrégat de cancers: le rôle des médecins généralistes.

With a view to respond to the growing concerns of a neighborhood population where a cluster of cancer was observed in 2002, public health authorities organized monitoring and surveillance activities by mobilizing local general practitioners (GPs). The monitoring activity has been carried out in the form of a free annual prevention consultation available at some local GPs' offices. Five years after the initiation of this monitoring activity, it was deemed interesting and necessary to make a review of the activity to take stock of the procedures established. Various data sources have been analyzed: anonymous records and files completed by GPs, answers to satisfaction enquiries sent out to the beneficiaries of the action in 2008, and the compilation of feedback and reactions of participating GPs during the annual meetings with the team responsible for monitoring. In 5 years, 29% of the population concerned went to one consultation at least. The percentage of participants gradually decreased to 2% at the fifth visit. The follow-up consultation was considered to be satisfactory by the surveyed population, and GP volunteers confirmed their interest in this approach. The positive atmosphere in which the follow-up and the monitoring took place is noteworthy and corroborates the role that health professionals can play in the management of a cancer cluster.