Cancer in small states – No small matter

Effective technologies such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy provision, surgery and diagnostic tools are within reach but the complexities of economies of scale, limited workforce, transport issues, differing levels of development, climate changes and sometimes complex dependencies with “mother” countr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cancer epidemiology 2017-10, Vol.50 (Pt B), p.173-175
Main Authors: Logeman, Charlotte J., Flanigan, John, Foliaki, Sunia, Bray, Freddie, Barton, Michael, Sitas, Freddy
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cancer
Cancer screening
Cancer therapies
Cervical cancer
Cholera
Citizen participation
Climate change
Collaboration
Community
Community involvement
Cost benefit analysis
Cytology
Disease
Epidemiology
Health risks
Islands
Medical research
Medical screening
Population
Registration
Research projects
Snow
Trends
Waterborne diseases
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Effective technologies such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy provision, surgery and diagnostic tools are within reach but the complexities of economies of scale, limited workforce, transport issues, differing levels of development, climate changes and sometimes complex dependencies with “mother” countries have left these places struggling to deal with even the most straight-forward cases of palliative care after failing to diagnose aggressive cancer. There are concerted efforts to develop and strengthen population-based cancer registration infrastructure and practices and to improve data quality and registration coverage in these regions through the WHO-International Agency for Research on Cancer/Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development (IARC/GICR) Regional Hubs (http://gicr.iarc.fr/). Cancer Epidemiology encourages research on this topic and will continue to assess and publish papers which further the field, specifically around “twinning” arrangements for treatment, cancer registration, pathology and imaging, lifestyle and exposure information and successes and failures of different treatment, screening and prevention programs. 1 S.J. Snow, Commentary: Sutherland, snow and water: the transmission of cholera in the nineteenth century, Int. January (1), 2017 7 B. Hernandez, R. Bordallo, M. Green, R. Haddock, Cancer in Guam and Hawaii: a comparison of two U.S. island population, Cancer Epidemiol., Vol. 50PB, 2017, 199-206 8 R. Chen, E. Bitchatchi, Detection and estimation of the increasing trend of cancer incidence in relatively small populations, Cancer Epidemiol., Vol. 50PB, 2017, 207-213 9 A. Martiniuk, R. Jagilli, E. Natuzzi, W. Ilopitu, M. Oipata, A. Christie, J. Korini, C. Vujovich-Dunn, W. Yu, Cancer in the Solomon Islands, Cancer Epidemiol., Vol. 50PB, 2017, 176-183 10 P. Davies, D. Valuta, N. Cojohari, H. Sancho-Garnier, Implementing an organized cervical screening programme in the Republic of Moldova-stakeholder identification and engagement, Cancer Epidemiol., Vol. 50PB, 2017, 272-277 11 V. Senkomago, J. Royalty, J. Miller, L. Buenconsejo-Lum, V. Bernard, M. Saraiya, Cervical cancer screening in the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program (NBCCEDP) in four US-affiliated pacific islands between 2007 and 2015, Cancer Epidemiol., Vol. 50PB, 2017, 260-267 12 M. Nitta, D. Navasca, A. Tareg, N. Palafox, Cancer risk reduction in the US affiliated Pacific Islands: utilizing a novel policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) approac
ISSN:1877-7821
1877-783X
DOI:10.1016/j.canep.2017.09.005