Although there has been considerable progress in reducing cancer incidence in the United States, the number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth of the population and improvements in survival rates. As a result, it is increasingly important to understand the unique medical and psychosocial needs of survivors and be aware of resources that can assist patients, caregivers, and health care providers in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship. To highlight the challenges and opportunities to serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute estimated the prevalence of cancer survivors on January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2022, by cancer site. Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were used to describe median age and stage at diagnosis and survival; data from the National Cancer Data Base and the SEER-Medicare Database were used to describe patterns of cancer treatment. An estimated 13.7 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2012, and by January 1, 2022, that number will increase to nearly 18 million. The 3 most prevalent cancers among males are prostate (43%), colorectal (9%), and melanoma of the skin (7%), and those among females are breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colorectal (8%). This article summarizes common cancer treatments, survival rates, and posttreatment concerns and introduces the new National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center, which has engaged more than 100 volunteer survivorship experts nationwide to develop tools for cancer survivors, caregivers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers.

No abstract

Palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are important collaborative referral sources for each other who can work together to improve the lives of cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers by improving both quality of care and quality of life. Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care involve the delivery of important but underutilized medical services to oncology patients by interdisciplinary teams. These subspecialties are similar in many respects, including their focus on improving cancer-related symptoms or cancer treatment-related side effects, improving health-related quality of life, lessening caregiver burden, and valuing patient-centered care and shared decision-making. They also aim to improve healthcare efficiencies and minimize costs by means such as reducing hospital lengths of stay and unanticipated readmissions. Although their goals are often aligned, different specialized skills and approaches are used in the delivery of care. For example, while each specialty prioritizes goal-concordant care through identification of patient and family preferences and values, palliative care teams typically focus extensively on using patient and family communication to determine their goals of care, while also tending to comfort issues such as symptom management and spiritual concerns. Rehabilitation clinicians may tend to focus more specifically on functional issues such as identifying and treating deficits in physical, psychological, or cognitive impairments and any resulting disability and negative impact on quality of life. Additionally, although palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are trained to diagnose and treat medically complex patients, rehabilitation clinicians also treat many patients with a single impairment and a low symptom burden. In these cases, the goal is often cure of the underlying neurologic or musculoskeletal condition. This report defines and describes cancer rehabilitation and palliative care, delineates their respective roles in comprehensive oncology care, and highlights how these services can contribute complementary components of essential quality care. An understanding of how cancer rehabilitation and palliative care are aligned in goal setting, but distinct in approach may help facilitate earlier integration of both into the oncology care continuum-supporting efforts to improve physical, psychological, cognitive, functional, and quality of life outcomes in patients and survivors.

Background: Ensuring the strength of the physician workforce is essential to optimizing patient care. Challenges that undermine the profession include inequities in advancement, high levels of burnout, reduced career duration, and elevated risk for mental health problems, including suicide. This narrative review explores whether physicians within four subpopulations represented in the workforce at levels lower than predicted from their numbers in the general population-women, racial and ethnic minorities in medicine, sexual and gender minorities, and people with disabilities-are at elevated risk for these problems, and if present, how these problems might be addressed to support patient care. In essence, the underlying question this narrative review explores is as follows: Do physician workforce disparities affect patient care? While numerous articles and high-profile reports have examined the relationship between workforce diversity and patient care, to our knowledge, this is the first review to examine the important relationship between diversity-related workforce disparities and patient care. Methods: Five databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and EBSCO Discovery Service) were searched by a librarian. Additional resources were included by authors, as deemed relevant to the investigation. Results: The initial database searches identified 440 potentially relevant articles. Articles were categorized according to subtopics, including (1) underrepresented physicians and support for vulnerable patient populations; (2) factors that could exacerbate the projected physician deficit; (3) methods of addressing disparities among underrepresented physicians to support patient care; or (4) excluded (n = 155). The authors identified another 220 potentially relevant articles. Of 505 potentially relevant articles, 199 (39.4%) were included in this review. Conclusions: This report demonstrates an important gap in the literature regarding the impact of physician workforce disparities and their effect on patient care. This is a critical public health issue and should be urgently addressed in future research and considered in clinical practice and policy decision-making.

INTRODUCTION:In a recent report, the American Heart Association estimated that medical costs and productivity losses of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are expected to grow from $555 billion in 2015 to $1.1 trillion in 2035. Although the burden is significant, the estimate does not include the costs of family, informal, or unpaid caregiving provided to patients with CVD. In this analysis, we estimated projections of costs of informal caregiving attributable to CVD for 2015 to 2035. METHODS:We used data from the 2014 Health and Retirement Survey to estimate hours of informal caregiving for individuals with CVD by age/sex/race using a zero-inflated binomial model and controlling for sociodemographic factors and health conditions. Costs of informal caregiving were estimated separately for hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, stroke, and other heart disease. We analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of 16 731 noninstitutionalized adults ≥54 years of age. The value of caregiving hours was monetized by the use of home health aide workers' wages. The per-person costs were multiplied by census population counts to estimate nation-level costs and to be consistent with other American Heart Association analyses of burden of CVD, and the costs were projected from 2015 through 2035, assuming that within each age/sex/racial group, CVD prevalence and caregiving hours remain constant. RESULTS:The costs of informal caregiving for patients with CVD were estimated to be $61 billion in 2015 and are projected to increase to $128 billion in 2035. Costs of informal caregiving of patients with stroke constitute more than half of the total costs of CVD informal caregiving ($31 billion in 2015 and $66 billion in 2035). By age, costs are the highest among those 65 to 79 years of age in 2015 but are expected to be surpassed by costs among those ≥80 years of age by 2035. Costs of informal caregiving for patients with CVD represent an additional 11% of medical and productivity costs attributable to CVD. CONCLUSIONS:The burden of informal caregiving for patients with CVD is significant; accounting for these costs increases total CVD costs to $616 billion in 2015 and $1.2 trillion in 2035. These estimates have important research and policy implications, and they may be used to guide policy development to reduce the burden of CVD on patients and their caregivers.

Our understanding of the biology of cancer and the application of this knowledge to cancer treatment has greatly outpaced what we know of the biology underlying the symptoms and toxic effects that therapies produce. These adverse effects of therapy cause substantial discomfort and distress to patients and their families, limit treatment tolerability and can persist indefinitely in post-treatment survivorship. Despite these concerns, little research effort is targeted at documenting the nature of these effects. Similarly, limited efforts are being made in the drug-development arena to identify or develop treatments that might prevent or reduce toxicities. A panel of clinicians and researchers as well as representatives from advocacy groups, federal agencies and the pharmaceutical industry was convened to identify gaps in cancer treatment toxicity research and to provide direction for future action. With an emphasis on coordinating multidisciplinary efforts, this panel has presented a strategy to increase funding for the field and develop a coherent research agenda.

This article highlights key findings from the "Comprehensive Cancer Care for Children and Their Families" March 2015 joint workshop by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the American Cancer Society. This initiative convened more than 100 family members, clinician investigators, advocates, and members of the public to discuss emerging evidence and care models and to determine the next steps for optimizing quality-of-life outcomes and well-being for children and families during pediatric cancer treatment, after treatment completion, and across the life spectrum. Participants affirmed the triple aim of pediatric oncology that strives for every child with cancer to be cured; provides high-quality palliative and psychosocial supportive, restorative, and rehabilitative care to children and families throughout the illness course and survivorship; and assures receipt of high-quality end-of-life care for patients with advancing disease. Workshop outcomes emphasized the need for new pediatric cancer drug development and identified critical opportunities to prioritize palliative care and psychosocial support as an integral part of pediatric cancer research and treatment, including the necessity for adequately resourcing these supportive services to minimize suffering and distress, effectively address quality-of-life needs for children and families at all stages of illness, and mitigate the long-term health risks associated with childhood cancer and its treatment. Next steps include dismantling existing silos and enhancing collaboration between clinical investigators, disease-directed specialists, and supportive care services; expanding the use of patient-reported and parent-reported outcomes; effectively integrating palliative and psychosocial care; and clinical communication skills development. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:398-407. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Since then, nonprofit and academic institutions have focused their research and marketing strategies on prolonging survival, via cure and prevention. This strategy has been successful. Whereas only 3 million survivors lived in the United States in 1970, nearly 14 million Americans with a history of cancer were living in 2012. They will number 18 million by 2022. 1(p52) As survival for many types of cancer has improved, however, goals must evolve as well. Cancer survivors desire both more days and better days. In response to the improved survival rates, cancer advocates have begun to place equal emphasis on prolonging survival and improving quality of life. They assert-and we agree-that it is time to move beyond the "war" metaphor to embrace a dual message of surviving and thriving. We propose 3 priority areas-in clinical practice, in messaging, and in research-in which a successful quality-of-life agenda can be implemented. Advances in early detection and treatment, coupled with advocacy campaigns organized around "conquering" or "eradicating" cancer, have driven the substantial gains in life expectancy among certain cancer types. Breast cancer is a stark example: 5-year survival for breast cancer alone has increased from 63% in the early 1960s to more than 90% today, due largely to improvements in early detection and treatment. 2(p4) Alongside research investment, cancer advocacy efforts have helped improve detection and survival and, for some cancers, even offer a cure. There are limitations of a narrow focus on cure and prevention, however. The risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment from large-scale cancer screening programs and associated treatment are now well known. Previous advocacy efforts have also fallen short in addressing family caregiver support needs, the high costs of cancer treatment, and symptoms and late effects that cause substantial preventable suffering. 1 Long-term health consequences of cancer treatment are increasingly evident. Among adult survivors of childhood cancer, more than 98% experience a chronic health condition by age 45 years, including cardiomyopathy and pulmonary disease, that are in many cases attributable to treatment received early in life. 3 Furthermore, total inflation-adjusted medical costs of cancer have nearly doubled between 1987 and 2005. 4 The exorbitant costs of some novel chemotherapies and screening tools add