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.

The EMPCAN study: protocol of a population-based cohort study on the evolution of the socio-economic position of workers with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The improvements in cancer control led to an increase in the number of cancer survivors, notably, in the working age population (16-64 years). There is a strong need to assess and understand their reintegration on the labour market, which underlines and ensures their social integration and quality of life. The objectives of the EMPCAN study is therefore to measure the scale of return-to-work after cancer and to identify the determining factors, allowing for the implementation of an adequate socio-professional support. METHODS: We requested data from the Belgian Cancer Registry and the Crossroad Bank for Social Security. We included all socially insured Belgian workers diagnosed between 2004 and 2011 with colorectal, breast, head & neck, prostate, testis, lung and corpus uteri cancer. The end of (administrative) follow-up was 31st December 2012. We include demographic, health-related and work-related factors in the analysis and observed how these factors interplay to determine the working status. After having solved legal, ethical and technical issues for the coupling, we will perform survival analysis with competing risks using the Fine and Gray model; we will also perform a multistate model using transitions probabilities; and finally, a group-based modeling for longitudinal data using the 'proc traj' package in SAS. DISCUSSION: The results of the EMPCAN study will allow the provision of an evidence-based support to professional reintegration policies. It will also bring some key features for the prediction of the cancer-related social security needs. Besides the raise of awareness among health professionals and policy makers, this study could lead to a better planning and organization of vocational rehabilitation programs.

Assessing factors associated with long-term work disability after cancer in Belgium: a population-based cohort study using competing risks analysis with a 7-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: The number of workers with cancer has dramatically increasing worldwide. One of the main priorities is to preserve their quality of life and the sustainability of social security systems. We have carried out this study to assess factors associated with the ability to work after cancer. Such insight should help with the planning of rehabilitation needs and tailored programmes. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted this register-based cohort study using individual data from the Belgian Disability Insurance. Data on 15 543 socially insured Belgian people who entered into the long-term work disability between 2007 and 2011 due to cancer were used. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated the duration of work disability using Kaplan-Meier and the cause-specific cumulative incidence of ability to work stratified by age, gender, occupational class and year of entering the work disability system for 11 cancer sites using the Fine and Gray model allowing for competing risks. RESULTS: The overall median time of work disability was 1.59 years (95% CI 1.52 to 1.66), ranging from 0.75 to 4.98 years. By the end of follow-up, more than one-third of the disabled cancer survivors were able to work (35%). While a large proportion of the women were able to work at the end of follow-up, the men who were able to work could do so sooner. Being women, white collar, young and having haematological, male genital or breast cancers were factors with the bestlikelihood to be able to return to work. CONCLUSION: Good prognostic factors for the ability to work were youth, woman, white collar and having breast, male genital or haematological cancers. Reviewing our results together with the cancer incidence predictions up to 2025 offers a high value for social security and rehabilitation planning and for ascertaining patients' perspectives.

Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Rare cancers pose challenges for diagnosis, treatments, and clinical decision making. Information about rare cancers is scant. The RARECARE project defined rare cancers as those with an annual incidence of less than six per 100 000 people in European Union (EU). We updated the estimates of the burden of rare cancers in Europe, their time trends in incidence and survival, and provide information about centralisation of treatments in seven European countries. METHODS: We analysed data from 94 cancer registries for more than 2 million rare cancer diagnoses, to estimate European incidence and survival in 2000-07 and the corresponding time trends during 1995-2007. Incidence was calculated as the number of new cases divided by the corresponding total person-years in the population. 5-year relative survival was calculated by the Ederer-2 method. Seven registries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the Navarra region in Spain) provided additional data for hospitals treating about 220 000 cases diagnosed in 2000-07. We also calculated hospital volume admission as the number of treatments provided by each hospital rare cancer group sharing the same referral pattern. FINDINGS: Rare cancers accounted for 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the EU during 2000-07. The overall incidence rose annually by 0.5% (99·8% CI 0·3-0·8). 5-year relative survival for all rare cancers was 48·5% (95% CI 48·4 to 48·6), compared with 63·4% (95% CI 63·3 to 63·4) for all common cancers. 5-year relative survival increased (overall 2·9%, 95% CI 2·7 to 3·2), from 1999-2001 to 2007-09, and for most rare cancers, with the largest increases for haematological tumours and sarcomas. The amount of centralisation of rare cancer treatment varied widely between cancers and between countries. The Netherlands and Slovenia had the highest treatment volumes. INTERPRETATION: Our study benefits from the largest pool of population-based registries to estimate incidence and survival of about 200 rare cancers. Incidence trends can be explained by changes in known risk factors, improved diagnosis, and registration problems. Survival could be improved by early diagnosis, new treatments, and improved case management. The centralisation of treatment could be improved in the seven European countries we studied. FUNDING: The European Commission (Chafea).

Digital vs screen-film mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers.

BACKGROUND: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in most breast cancer screening programs due to technological advantages such as possibilities to adjust contrast, better image quality and transfer capabilities. This study describes the performance indicators during the transition from SFM to FFDM and the characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers. METHODS: Data of the Dutch breast cancer screening program, region North from 2004 to 2010 were linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry (N=902 868). Performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared between FFDM and SFM. RESULTS: After initial screens, recall rates were 2.1% (SFM) and 3.0% (FFDM; P<0.001). The positive predictive values (PPV) were 25.6% (SFM) and 19.9% (FFDM; P=0.002). Detection rates were similar, as were all performance indicators after subsequent screens. Similar percentages of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were found for SFM and FFDM. Invasive cancers diagnosed after subsequent screens with FFDM were more often of high-grade (P=0.024) and ductal type (P=0.030). The incidence rates of interval cancers were similar for SFM and FFDM after initial (2.69/1000 vs 2.51/1000; P=0.787) and subsequent screens (2.30 vs 2.41; P=0.652), with similar tumour characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: FFDM resulted in similar rates of screen-detected and interval cancers, indicating that FFDM performs as well as SFM in a breast cancer screening program. No signs of an increase in low-grade DCIS (which might connote possible overdiagnosis) were seen. Nonetheless, after initial screening, which accounts for 12% of all screens, FFDM resulted in higher recall rate and lower PPV that requires attention.

Barriers and opportunities for return-to-work of cancer survivors: time for action--rapid review and expert consultation.

BACKGROUND: The spread of early detection and the improvement of cancer treatment have led to an increased prevalence of cancer survivors, including in the working age population. Return-to-work (RTW) of cancer survivors has become a key issue for national cancer control plans. This study aims (1) to identify the factors that have an impact on RTW of cancer survivors and to draw a risk profile supporting health professionals in the screening of those at risk for barriers of RTW and (2) to sharpen these results with input from health, social security and academic Belgian experts and to provide evidence-based recommendations that facilitate RTW of cancer survivors. METHODS: A rapid review was conducted, based on the methodology elaborated by The Knowledge to Action Research Programme and researchers from the University of York, including a quality assessment of retained studies. Next, the Delphi method was used to organize a consultation with experts in order to discuss, validate and complement the results. RESULTS: Forty-three out of 1860 studies were included. We identified nine risk factors grouped into four categories: socio-demographic, disease and treatment-related, work-related, and personal and subjective factors. Experts suggested dividing them into two even groups: factors which are modifiable and those which are not. The awareness of health professionals regarding the identified factors, a better assessment of work capacities, clarity on the rights and obligations of employers and workers alike, and the setup of a positive discrimination employment policy for cancer survivors were acknowledged as factors facilitating RTW of cancer survivors. CONCLUSIONS: The awareness of health professionals regarding barriers of RTW may improve the early identification of cancer survivors at risk for prolonged time to RTW and may allow early supportive intervention. Social and employment policies should be better tailored to support both employers and cancer survivors in the RTW process, providing incentives to positively discriminate cancer survivors on prolonged sick leave.

Evaluating the impact of accreditation and external peer review.

PURPOSE: Accreditation and external peer review play important roles in assessing and improving healthcare quality worldwide. Evidence on the impact on the quality of care remains indecisive because of programme features and methodological research challenges. The purpose of this paper is to create a general methodological research framework to design future studies in this field. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A literature search on effects of external peer review and accreditation was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science. Three researchers independently screened the studies. Only original research papers that studied the impact on the quality of care were included. Studies were evaluated by their objectives and outcomes, study size and analysis entity (hospitals vs patients), theoretical framework, focus of the studied programme, heterogeneity of the study population and presence of a control group. FINDINGS: After careful selection 50 articles were included out of an initial 2,025 retrieved references. Analysis showed a wide variation in methodological characteristics. Most studies are performed cross-sectionally and results are not linked to the programme by a theoretical framework. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Based on the methodological characteristics of previous studies the authors propose a general research framework. This framework is intended to support the design of future research to evaluate the effects of accreditation and external peer review on the quality of care.

Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women.

BACKGROUND: Treatment variation is an important issue in health care provision. An external peer review programme for multidisciplinary cancer care was introduced in 1994 in the Netherlands to improve the multidisciplinary organisation of cancer care in hospitals.So far the clinical impact of external quality assessment programmes such as external peer review and accreditation remains unclear. Our objective was to examine the degree of variation in treatment patterns and the possible effect of external peer review for multidisciplinary cancer care for breast cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer were included from 23 hospitals from two 'intervention regions' with the longest experience with the programme and 7 hospitals that never participated (control group). Data on tumour and treatment characteristics were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatment modalities investigated were: the completeness of breast conserving therapy, introduction of the sentinel node biopsy, radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), adjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer (T3/M0 or any T,N2-3/M0), adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer (T1-2/N+/M0) and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for T4/M0 breast cancer. Hospitals from the two intervention regions were dichotomised based on their implementation proportion (IP) of recommendations from the final reports of each peer review (high IP vs. low IP). This was regarded as a measure of how well a hospital participated in the programme. RESULTS: 63,516 female breast cancer patients were included (1990-2010). Variation in treatment patterns was observed between the intervention regions and control group. Multidisciplinary treatment patterns were not consistently better for patients from hospitals with a high IP. CONCLUSIONS: There is no relationship between the external peer review programme for multidisciplinary cancer care and multidisciplinary treatment patterns for breast cancer patients. Regional factors seem to exert a stronger effect on treatment patterns than hospital participation in external peer review.

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.

Attending the breast screening programme after breast cancer treatment: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, breast cancer patients are treated and followed at least 5 years after diagnosis. Furthermore, all women aged 50-74 are invited biennially for mammography by the nationwide screening programme. The relation between the outpatient follow-up (follow-up visits in the outpatient clinic for 5 years after treatment) and the screening programme is not well established and attending the screening programme as well as outpatient follow-up is considered undesirable. This study evaluates potential factors influencing women to attend the screening programme during their outpatient follow-up (overlap) and the (re-)attendance to the screening programme after 5 years of outpatient follow-up. METHODS: Data of breast cancer patients aged 50-74 years, treated for primary breast cancer between 1996 and 2007 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and linked to the National Breast Cancer Screening Programme in the Northern region. Cox regression analyses were used to study women (re-)attending the screening programme over time, possible overlap with the outpatient follow-up and factors influencing this. RESULTS: In total 11227 breast cancer patients were included, of whom 19% attended the screening programme after breast cancer treatment, 4.4% within 5 years and 15.4% after more than 5 years. Factors that independently influenced attendance within 5 years as well as more than 5 years after treatment were: interval tumours (HR 0.77; 95%CI 0.61-0.97 and HR 0.69; 95%CI 0.53-0.88, ref: screen-detected tumours), receiving adjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.65; 95%CI 0.47-0.90 and HR 0.66; 95%CI 0.47-0.93; ref: none) and diagnosis of in situ tumours (HR 1.67; 95%CI 1.25-2.23 and HR 1.39; 95%CI 1.05-1.85; ref: stage I tumours). Non-screen related tumours (HR 0.41; 95%CI 0.29-0.58) and recent diagnosis (HR 0.89 per year; 95%CI 0.86-0.92) were only associated with attendance within 5 years after treatment. CONCLUSION: The interrelation between outpatient follow-up and screening should be improved to avoid overlap and low attendance to the screening programme after outpatient follow-up. Breast cancer patients should be informed that attending the screening programme during the outpatient follow-up is not necessary.

Rare neuroendocrine tumours: results of the surveillance of rare cancers in Europe project.

Because of the low incidence, and limited opportunities for large patient volume experiences, there are very few relevant studies of neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). A large population-based database (including cancer patients diagnosed from 1978 to 2002 and registered in 76 population-based cancer registries [CRs]), provided by the project 'surveillance of rare cancers in Europe' (RARECARE) is used to describe the basic indicators of incidence, prevalence and survival of NETs, giving a unique overview on the burden of NETs in Europe. NETs at all cancer sites, excluding lung, were analysed in this study. In total over 20,000 incident cases of NETs were analysed and a data quality check upon specific NETs was performed. The overall incidence rate for NETs was 25/1,000,000 and was highest in patients aged 65 years and older with well differentiated endocrine carcinomas (non-functioning pancreatic and gastrointestinal) (40 per 1,000,000). We estimated that slightly more than 100,000 people were diagnosed with NETs and still alive in EU27 at the beginning of 2008. Overall, NETs had a 5 year relative survival of 50%; survival was low (12%) for poorly differentiated endocrine carcinoma, and relatively high (64%) for well differentiated carcinoma (not functioning of the pancreas and digestive organs). Within NETs, endocrine carcinoma of thyroid gland had the best 5-year relative survival (82%). Because of the complexity and number of the different disciplines involved with NETs (as they arise in many organs), a multidisciplinary approach delivered in highly qualified reference centres and an international network between those centres is recommended.

Do screen-detected breast cancers have positive margins less often than clinically detected breast cancers?

Positive tumour margins after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) have been selected as one of the major quality criteria for the surgical treatment of localized primary breast cancer. The national guideline states that the rate of positive margins should not exceed 30% in ductal carcinoma in situ and 20% in invasive cancers. We aimed to determine whether BCS in women with screen-detected breast cancer (SDBC) will have positive margins less often compared with women with clinically detected breast cancer (CDBC). Furthermore, the choice of subsequent therapy is studied when margins were positive after initial BCS. Women 50-75 years of age who underwent BCS for invasive breast cancer between July 2008 and December 2009 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data were merged with the National Cancer Screening Program, regions North and East, to identify women with SDBC. The relation to screening history, clinical and pathological factors was evaluated for correlation with margin status using multilevel analysis. Of 1537 women with an invasive breast cancer, 873 (57%) were diagnosed through the screening programme. SDBCs were significantly smaller (87 vs. 69% T1 tumours, i.e. ≤2 cm), more often well differentiated (33 vs. 26%), preoperatively confirmed (98 vs. 96%), diagnosed in a nonteaching hospital (60 vs. 66%) and more often had negative lymph nodes (LNs) (80 vs. 68%). In 170 out of 1537 women, the resection margins were positive. Multivariable analysis showed that hospital, tumour size, multifocality, positive LNs and absent preoperative confirmation were predictors of positive margins. No difference was found between women with SDBC and CDBC. Of women with positive margins, 90% underwent additional surgery. Women diagnosed with SDBC do not have a lower risk of having positive margins after BCS than women with CDBC. Although positive margins may occur in 11% of women with invasive tumours, well below the percentage recommended by the national guideline, the presence of encouraging factors by SDBC such as a smaller tumour size, unifocality, negative LNs and the presence of preoperative confirmation should not lead to performing a more sparing excision than is considered usual for comparable CDBC.

Availability of stage at diagnosis, cancer treatment delay and compliance with cancer guidelines as cancer registry indicators for cancer care in Europe: Results of EUROCHIP-3 survey.

EUROCHIP (European Cancer Health Indicators Project) focuses on understanding inequalities in the cancer burden, care and survival by the indicators "stage at diagnosis," "cancer treatment delay" and "compliance with cancer guidelines" as the most important indicators. Our study aims at providing insight in whether cancer registries collect well-defined variables to determine these indicators in a comparative way. Eighty-six general European population-based cancer registries (PBCR) from 32 countries responded to the questionnaire, which was developed by EUROCHIP in collaboration with ENCR (European Network of Cancer Registries) and EUROCOURSE. Only 15% of all the PBCR in EU had all three indicators available. The indicator "stage at diagnosis" was gathered for at least one cancer site by 81% (using TNM in 39%). Variables for the indicator "cancer treatment delay" were collected by 37%. Availability of type of treatment (30%), surgery date (36%), starting date of radiotherapy (26%) and starting date of chemotherapy (23%) resulted in 15% of the PBCRs to be able to gather the indicator "compliance to guidelines". Lack of data source access and qualified staff were the major reasons for not collecting all the variables. In conclusion, based on self-reporting, a few of the participating PBCRs had data available which could be used for clinical audits, evaluation of cancer care projects, survival and for monitoring national cancer control strategies. Extra efforts should be made to improve this very efficient tool to compare cancer burden and the effects of the national cancer plans over Europe and to learn from each other.

Carcinoma of endocrine organs: results of the RARECARE project.

The rarity or the asymptomatic character of endocrine tumours results in a lack of epidemiological studies on their incidence and survival patterns. The aim of this study was to describe the incidence, prevalence and survival of endocrine tumours using a large database, which includes cancer patients diagnosed from 1978 to 2002, registered in 89 population-based cancer registries (CRs) with follow-up until 31st December 2003. These data give an unique overview of the burden of endocrine carcinomas in Europe. A list of tumour entities based on the third International Classification of Diseases for Oncology was provided by the project Surveillance of rare cancer in Europe (RARECARE) project. Over 33,594 cases of endocrine carcinomas were analysed in this study. Incidence rates increased with age and were highest in patients 65 years of age or older. In 2003, more than 315,000 persons in the EU (27 countries) were alive with a past diagnosis of a carcinoma of endocrine organs. The incidence of pituitary carcinoma equalled four per 1,000,000 person years and showed the strongest decline in survival with increasing age. Thyroid cancer showed the highest crude incidence rates (four per 100,000 person years) and was the only entity with a gender difference: (female-to-male ratio: 2:9). Parathyroid carcinoma was the rarest endocrine entity with two new cases per 10,000,000 person years. For adrenal carcinoma, the most remarkable observations were a higher survival for women compared to men (40% compared to 32%, respectively) and a particularly low relative survival of 24% in patients 65 years of age or older. More high quality studies on rare cancers, with additional information, e.g. on stage and therapeutic approach, are needed and may be of help in partly explaining the observed variation in survival.

Rare cancers are not so rare: the rare cancer burden in Europe.

PURPOSE: Epidemiologic information on rare cancers is scarce. The project Surveillance of Rare Cancers in Europe (RARECARE) provides estimates of the incidence, prevalence and survival of rare cancers in Europe based on a new and comprehensive list of these diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RARECARE analysed population-based cancer registry (CR) data on European patients diagnosed from 1988 to 2002, with vital status information available up to 31st December 2003 (latest date for which most CRs had verified data). The mean population covered was about 162,000,000. Cancer incidence and survival rates for 1995-2002 and prevalence at 1st January 2003 were estimated. RESULTS: Based on the RARECARE definition (incidence <6/100,000/year), the estimated annual incidence rate of all rare cancers in Europe was about 108 per 100,000, corresponding to 541,000 new diagnoses annually or 22% of all cancer diagnoses. Five-year relative survival was on average worse for rare cancers (47%) than common cancers (65%). About 4,300,000 patients are living today in the European Union with a diagnosis of a rare cancer, 24% of the total cancer prevalence. CONCLUSION: Our estimates of the rare cancer burden in Europe provide the first indication of the size of the public health problem due to these diseases and constitute a useful base for further research. Centres of excellence for rare cancers or groups of rare cancers could provide the necessary organisational structure and critical mass for carrying out clinical trials and developing alternative approaches to clinical experimentation for these cancers.

Actionable indicators for short and long term outcomes in rectal cancer.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Although patient and tumour characteristics are the most important determinants for outcomes in rectal cancer care, actionable factors for improving these are still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the impact of surgeon and hospital factors which can actually be influenced to improve on postoperative complications, disease-free survival (DFS) and relative survival (RS) in rectal cancer. METHODS: For 819 curatively operated rectal cancer patients, staged I-III and diagnosed between 2001 and 2005, data were derived from the population-based Cancer Registry of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre North East and supplemented by medical record examination. (Multilevel) Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the influence of relevant factors on postoperative complications and time from diagnosis to first treatment. Besides, Cox regression analysis for DFS and relative survival analysis was performed. RESULTS: Postoperative complications were dependent on type of surgery (p=0.024) and hospital volume (p=0.029). DFS was mainly influenced by stage (p<0.001) and time to treatment (p=0.018). Actionable indicators related to RS were type of surgery (p=0.011) and time to treatment (p=0.048). Time to treatment was found to be related to co-morbidity (p=0.007), preoperative radiotherapy (p=0.003) and referral for operation (p=0.048). Nevertheless, 18.2% unexplained variation in time to treatment remained on hospital level. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that optimal outcomes for rectal cancer care can be achieved by focusing on early detection and timely diagnosis, as well as adequate choice and timeliness of treatment in hospitals with optimal logistics for rectal cancer patients.

Organization of population-based cancer control programs: Europe and the world.

As cancer is to a large extent avoidable and treatable, a cancer control program should be able to reduce mortality and morbidity and improve the quality of life of cancer patients and their families. However, the extent to which the goals of a cancer control program can be achieved will depend on the resource constraints a country faces. Such population-based cancer control plans should prioritize effective interventions and programs that are beneficial to the largest part of the population, and should include activities devoted to prevention, screening and early detection, treatment, palliation and end-of-life care, and rehabilitation. In order to develop a successful cancer control program, leadership and the relevant stakeholders, including patient organizations, need to be identified early on in the process so that all partners can take ownership and responsibility for the program. Various tools have been developed to aid them in the planning and implementation process. However, countries developing a national cancer control program would benefit from a discussion of different models for planning and delivery of population-based cancer control in settings with differing levels of resource commitment, in order to determine how best to proceed given their current level of commitment, political engagement and resources. As the priority assigned to different components of cancer control will differ depending on available resources and the burden and pattern of cancer, it is important to consider the relative roles of prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and palliative care in a cancer control program, as well as how to align available resources to meet prioritized needs. Experiences from countries with differing levels of resources are presented and serve to illustrate the difficulties in developing and implementing cancer control programs, as well as the innovative strategies that are being used to maximize available resources and enhance the quality of care provided to cancer patients around the world.

CoCanCPG. Coordination of cancer clinical practice in Europe.

All European countries are facing common challenges for delivering appropriate, evidence-based care to patients with cancer. Despite tangible improvements in diagnosis and treatment, marked differences in cancer survival exist throughout Europe. The reliable translation of new research evidence into consistent patient-oriented strategies is a key endeavour to overcome inequalities in healthcare. Clinical-practice guidelines are important tools for improving quality of care by informing professionals and patients about the most appropriate clinical practice. Guideline programmes in different countries use similar strategies to achieve similar goals. This results in unnecessary duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources. While different initiatives at the international level have attempted to improve the quality of guidelines, less investment has been made to overcome existing fragmentation and duplication of effort in cancer guideline development and research. To provide added value to existing initiatives and foster equitable access to evidence-based cancer care in Europe, CoCanCPG will establish cooperation between cancer guideline programmes. CoCanCPG is an ERA-Net coordinated by the French National Cancer Institute with 17 partners from 11 countries. The CoCanCPG partners will achieve their goal through an ambitious, stepwise approach with a long-term perspective, involving: 1. implementing a common framework for sharing knowledge and skills; 2. developing shared activities for guideline development; 3. assembling a critical mass for pertinent research into guideline methods; 4. implementing an appropriate framework for cooperation. Successful development of joint activities involves learning how to adopt common quality standards and how to share responsibilities, while taking into account the cultural and organisational diversity of the participating organisations. Languages barriers and different organisational settings add a level of complexity to setting up transnational collaboration. Through its activities, CoCanCPG will make an important contribution towards better access to evidence-based cancer practices and thus contribute to reducing inequalities and improving care for patients with cancer across Europe.