Workshop Objectives

To highlight existing cancer survivorship initiatives at national and international levels

To discuss the benefits and challenges of establishing an international survivorship consortium

To identify potential collaborations among researchers, clinicians and funders

To establish a commitment to developing partnerships under the umbrella of a cancer survivorship consortium

Fostering Cancer Survivorship Research in Canada:

Building Capacity Through a Research Consortium

June 2010

Presentation Objectives

Highlight Canadian efforts in developing national consensus building regarding important issues in cancer survivorship

Argue that funding research teams is a good step but not enough to sustain progress

Consider how current efforts might be contribute to international interests

Research Priority: Palliative & EOL Care

In 2003 CIHR launched an aggressive palliative & EOL research initiative to increase research capacity and collaboration with the ultimate objective of creating improvements in the delivery of patient care in Canada.

In 2001/2002, CIHR funded14 projects in the area. The modest capacity of research and similar success of funded palliative care & EOL research projects was a concern to the Canadian palliative care community as well as national research grant funding bodies.

By 2007/2008 vast improvements in funding levels were realized directly as a result of funding of NETS.

Palliative and End-of-Life Care InitiativeSource: Dr. Judy Bray, CIHR 2007

Partners: 7 CIHR Institutes, CIHR KT Branch, 8 external partners

$16.5 million invested over five years

Projects funded: 19 one-year Pilot Projects 1 Career Transition Award 10 new Emerging Teams 1 Strategic Training Program

Additional Components: Networking opportunities – e.g. UK workshop Peer review panel for palliative and end-of-life care

applications Access to Quality Cancer Care – additional project

funded ($18M) 7 teams

Statistics from the 10 Progress Reports (estimate)

Source Dr. Judy Bray, CIHR)

Team members, including co-investigators and collaborators

108

Students – post-doctoral, post-graduate and others

125

Publications - in refereed journals, abstracts and in press

190

Presentations 434

Role the RFA played to bring teams together

Members of many of the teams had not previously worked together prior to the RFA.

This RFA played a pivotal role in providing infrastructural support to bring like-minded clinicians and researchers together to begin conceptualizing how to manage difficult clinical problems.

The RFA was essential in bringing teams together. There was little prior capacity to develop a team with participants from across the country. Importantly, several of our team members had excellent expertise but would not have been active in cancer-related work without funding.

So all we need is to create lots of teams right?

In the PC\EOL context:

Collaboration between teams not an original goal Knowledge translation not a key objective but later

added Research panel continues to struggle in regards to

number of applications received A real worry that the efforts in team building may not

result in long-term sustainable research capacity Competition between teams prevalent

Why a Consortium?

Undertake research that otherwise would be difficult: large national/international studies, pooling of unique skills, data

Opportunity for fast turn-around to transfer knowledge to clinical practice

Minimize duplication & competition Greater potential for capacity building

Cancer Survivorship Themes

Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Consensus meeting March 2008: 7 priorities (models, research, KT, care plans/pathways, standards/guidelines, advocacy,

communications) November 2008 Research Priorities (unique populations,

measurement, models, impact of late effects) A recommendation to develop a national consortium to

action research themes Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control

(one national research centre)

Organization of First Canadian Consortium Meeting May, 2010

Participants: research leaders, national organizations, “survivors”, caregiver/family, experts on consortiums

Presentations, breakouts

Day 2 decisions for next steps

CIHR funding

LIVESTRONG

Governance Model (ARCC)

Canadian Consortium for Cancer Survivorship Research

Headquarters

Pan-Canadian Executive Committee Program

Co-Leads

Survivor/Community Advisory Board

International Network

Centre Administration

Program 1Preventing Late

Effects

Program 2Effective

Interventions

Program 3Models of

Care

Program 4Unique

Populations

Program 5Risk

Assessment

Knowledge Synthesis, Dissemination, and Exchange

Principles

Interdisciplinary x four research pillars

Collaborative

Shared leadership

Enhancing practice as a key research driver

Meaningful involvement of “survivors”

Institutional & community focus

Expansion of consortium in a deliberate fashion

UBC/BCCA Centre

Team building history: CIHR PC, Supportive Care team, ARCC, Provincial Networks, International Consortium

Endowed Chair in Cancer Survivorship

Theme areas of interest

Post paediatric Application of health technology Rural and remote care Health economics as a cross-cutter Knowledge translation models Model development

Next Steps

Individual projects (5~ in the works)

Cancer transitions RCT Model development in cancer survivorship Return to work approaches Rural and remote issues with emphasis on costs

to patients/families ? From today’s meeting

Challenges/Barriers

Mission

Imperative

Funding

LIVESTRONG

Caroline Huffman