Evidence Gaps in Cancer Survivorship Care: A Report From the 2019 National Cancer Institute Cancer Survivorship Workshop.

Today, there are more than 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States; this number is projected to grow to 22.2 million by 2030. Although much progress has been made in describing cancer survivors' needs and in improving survivorship care since the seminal 2006 Institute of Medicine report "From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition," there is a need to identify evidence gaps and research priorities pertaining to cancer survivorship. Thus, in April 2019, the National Cancer Institute convened grant-funded extramural cancer survivorship researchers, representatives of professional organizations, cancer survivors, and advocates for a 1-day in-person meeting. At this meeting, and in a subsequent webinar aimed at soliciting input from the wider survivorship community, evidence gaps and ideas for next steps in the following 6 areas, identified from the 2006 Institute of Medicine report, were discussed: surveillance for recurrence and new cancers, management of long-term and late physical effects, management of long-term and late psychosocial effects, health promotion, care coordination, and financial hardship. Identified evidence gaps and next steps across the areas included the need to understand and address disparities among cancer survivors, to conduct longitudinal studies as well as longer-term (>5 years postdiagnosis) follow-up studies, to leverage existing data, and to incorporate implementation science strategies to translate findings into practice. Designing studies to address these broad evidence gaps, as well as those identified in each area, will expand our understanding of cancer survivors' diverse needs, ultimately leading to the development and delivery of more comprehensive evidence-based quality care.

Survivorship Science at the NIH: Lessons Learned From Grants Funded in Fiscal Year 2016.

Federal investment in survivorship science has grown markedly since the National Cancer Institute's creation of the Office of Cancer Survivorship in 1996. To describe the nature of this research, provide a benchmark, and map new directions for the future, a portfolio analysis of National Institutes of Health-wide survivorship grants was undertaken for fiscal year 2016. Applying survivorship-relevant terms, a search was conducted using the National Institutes of Health Information for Management, Planning, Analysis and Coordination grants database. Grants identified were reviewed for inclusion and categorized by grant mechanism used, funding agency, and principal investigator characteristics. Trained pairs of coders classified each grant by focus and design (observational vs interventional), population studied, and outcomes examined. A total of 215 survivorship grants were identified; 7 were excluded for lack of fit and 2 for nonresearch focus. Forty-one (19.7%) representing training grants (n = 38) or conference grants (n = 3) were not coded. Of the remaining 165 grants, most (88.5%) were funded by the National Cancer Institute; used the large, investigator-initiated (R01) mechanism (66.7%); focused on adult survivors alone (84.2%), often breast cancer survivors (47.3%); were observational in nature (57.3%); and addressed a broad array of topics, including psychosocial and physiologic outcomes, health behaviors, patterns of care, and economic/employment outcomes. Grants were led by investigators from diverse backgrounds, 28.4% of whom were early in their career. Present funding patterns, many stable since 2006, point to the need to expand research to include different cancer sites, greater ethnoculturally diverse samples, and older (>65 years) as well as longer-term (>5 years) survivors and address effects of newer therapies.

An Individualized Approach to Cancer Screening Decisions in Older Adults: A Multilevel Framework.

Guidelines for optimal cancer screening in older adults remain unclear, particularly for adults over the age of 75. While cancer screening in older adults may benefit some in good health, it may cause unnecessary burdens in others with limited life expectancy. Thus, a systematic approach to enable individualized cancer screening decisions in older adults is needed. We suggest a framework that guides such decisions through evidence-based approaches from multiple interactions, and that involves the patient, clinician, and healthcare system. An individualized approach considers differences in disease risk rather than the chronological age of the patient. This paper presents a comprehensive framework that depicts the independent and converging levels of influences on individualized cancer screening decisions in older adults. This Individualized Decisions for Screening (IDS) framework recognizes the reality of these interrelationships, including the tensions that arise when behaviors and outcomes are valued differently at the patient, clinician, and healthcare organization levels. Person-centered approaches are essential to advancing multilevel research of individualized cancer screening decisions among older adults.

Occupational practices and the making of health news: a national survey of US Health and medical science journalists.

News media coverage of health topics can frame and heighten the salience of health-related issues, thus influencing the public's beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Through their routine coverage of scientific developments, news media are a critical intermediary in translating research for the public, patients, practitioners, and policymakers. Until now, little was known about how health and medical science reporters and editors initiate, prioritize, and develop news stories related to health and medicine. We surveyed 468 reporters and editors representing 463 local and national broadcast and print media outlets to characterize individual characteristics and occupational practices leading to the development of health and medical science news. Our survey revealed that 70% of respondents had bachelor's degrees; 8% were life sciences majors in college. Minorities are underrepresented in health journalism; 97% of respondents were non-Hispanic and 93% were White. Overall, initial ideas for stories come from a "news source" followed by press conferences or press releases. Regarding newsworthiness criteria, the "potential for public impact" and "new information or development" are the major criteria cited, followed by "ability to provide a human angle" and "ability to provide a local angle." Significant differences were seen between responses from reporters vs. editors and print vs. broadcast outlets.