Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Significant improvement in cancer management in Europe
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Background
Cancer management represents one of the most complex disease management segments in health care. Quality National Cancer Control Programmes (NCCPs) play the key role in cancer management in responding to population needs by preventing, detecting and treating cancer only through adequate planning. An effective NCCP represents benefits for patients, citizens, health care providers, health systems and governments. Europe is still characterised by inequalities in cancer control both between and within countries. In response to this challenge, a generic list of evidence-based tools for efficient stewardship and measure of effects of the cancer control will be prepared.
Methods
A survey on the current state of NCCPs in EU Member States, EEA countries and EU candidate countries and on the presence of some key elements, which NCCPs should include, was conducted in 2018 in the frame of the Joint Action (JA) Innovative Partnership for Action Against Cancer (iPAAC). The completed surveys were analysed; the answers were compared with the report prepared on the basis of the survey carried out in 2011 in the frame of JA EPAAC.
Results
In total, 33 out of 34 EU Member States, some EEA countries and EU candidate countries completed the survey, the response rate was 97%. Thirty-one out of 33 countries reported that they have a NCCP or another relevant cancer document. Belgium does not have a NCCP, Croatia and Serbia prepared draft versions. The inclusion of patient pathways, quality indicators as well as PROMS in NCCPs is not satisfactory. Only 10 countries included PROMS in their NCCP.
Conclusions
On the basis of the preliminary results of the survey we conluded that the situation regarding NCCPs in Europe improved in comparison with the situation in 2011. EU countries have mostly adopted a NCCP, plan or strategy as a single or several documents. We aim at developing practical instructions for the successful governance and steering of cancer care in all EU Member States.
Key messages
The development of NCCPs represents added value for cancer patients in all EU Member States. The inclusion of patient pathways, quality indicators as well as patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) in NCCPs/cancer documents is not satisfactory.
Title: Significant improvement in cancer management in Europe
Description:
Abstract
Background
Cancer management represents one of the most complex disease management segments in health care.
Quality National Cancer Control Programmes (NCCPs) play the key role in cancer management in responding to population needs by preventing, detecting and treating cancer only through adequate planning.
An effective NCCP represents benefits for patients, citizens, health care providers, health systems and governments.
Europe is still characterised by inequalities in cancer control both between and within countries.
In response to this challenge, a generic list of evidence-based tools for efficient stewardship and measure of effects of the cancer control will be prepared.
Methods
A survey on the current state of NCCPs in EU Member States, EEA countries and EU candidate countries and on the presence of some key elements, which NCCPs should include, was conducted in 2018 in the frame of the Joint Action (JA) Innovative Partnership for Action Against Cancer (iPAAC).
The completed surveys were analysed; the answers were compared with the report prepared on the basis of the survey carried out in 2011 in the frame of JA EPAAC.
Results
In total, 33 out of 34 EU Member States, some EEA countries and EU candidate countries completed the survey, the response rate was 97%.
Thirty-one out of 33 countries reported that they have a NCCP or another relevant cancer document.
Belgium does not have a NCCP, Croatia and Serbia prepared draft versions.
The inclusion of patient pathways, quality indicators as well as PROMS in NCCPs is not satisfactory.
Only 10 countries included PROMS in their NCCP.
Conclusions
On the basis of the preliminary results of the survey we conluded that the situation regarding NCCPs in Europe improved in comparison with the situation in 2011.
EU countries have mostly adopted a NCCP, plan or strategy as a single or several documents.
We aim at developing practical instructions for the successful governance and steering of cancer care in all EU Member States.
Key messages
The development of NCCPs represents added value for cancer patients in all EU Member States.
The inclusion of patient pathways, quality indicators as well as patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) in NCCPs/cancer documents is not satisfactory.
Related Results
Are Cervical Ribs Indicators of Childhood Cancer? A Narrative Review
Are Cervical Ribs Indicators of Childhood Cancer? A Narrative Review
Abstract
A cervical rib (CR), also known as a supernumerary or extra rib, is an additional rib that forms above the first rib, resulting from the overgrowth of the transverse proce...
Diagnostic Rate of the Cancer by BDORT Utilizing the Cancer Slide
Diagnostic Rate of the Cancer by BDORT Utilizing the Cancer Slide
Purpose:
To make a diagnosis of cancer with BDORT (resonance test), we can choose two methods. One is to use a chemical agent like Integrin α5β1 or Oncogene C-f...
Edoxaban and Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials
Edoxaban and Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials
Abstract
Introduction
Cancer patients face a venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk that is up to 50 times higher compared to individuals without cancer. In 2010, direct oral anticoagul...
Abstract ED02-04: Intersection of cancer, aging, and survivorship
Abstract ED02-04: Intersection of cancer, aging, and survivorship
Abstract
Cancer is a disease associated with aging, with approximately 60% of cancer diagnoses occurring in patients age 65 and older. Of 10.8 million cancer survivo...
Breast Carcinoma within Fibroadenoma: A Systematic Review
Breast Carcinoma within Fibroadenoma: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Introduction
Fibroadenoma is the most common benign breast lesion; however, it carries a potential risk of malignant transformation. This systematic review provides an ove...
Abstract 4602: Clinicopathological and genetic features of prostate cancer in Algerian patients: First report
Abstract 4602: Clinicopathological and genetic features of prostate cancer in Algerian patients: First report
Abstract
Background: Prostate cancer is the second most frequent malignancy (after lung cancer) in men worldwide. It is the third most common cancer in men in Algeri...
Coexisting Granulomatous Mastitis and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
Coexisting Granulomatous Mastitis and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Introduction: Granulomatous mastitis (GM) is a rare inflammatory breast disease that mimics carcinoma. GM can coexist with breast cancer (BC), though the relationship rema...
Abstract OI-1: OI-1 Decoding breast cancer predisposition genes
Abstract OI-1: OI-1 Decoding breast cancer predisposition genes
Abstract
Women with one or more first-degree female relatives with a history of breast cancer have a two-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer. This risk i...

