The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was founded in 1962 by research workers in the main cancer research institutes of the Common Market countries and Switzerland. This small group of cancer specialists comprising clinicians and basic science researchers decided to form an association to promote cancer research in Europe through the joint efforts of the clinical and basic research groups of several countries. Among them, were Henri TAGNON from Brussels (Belgium), Silvio GARATTINI, Director of the Institute for pharmacological Research in Milan (Italy), D. VAN BEKKUM, Director of the Radiobiological Institute TN0 at Rijswijk (Netherlands), K. BREUR, Director of the Amsterdam Cancer Institute (Netherlands), G. MATHE, D. SCHWARTZ, and M. TUBIANA from Villejuif (France). Initially the organization was called the “Groupe Europeen de Chimiotherapie anticancereuse” (GECA), 1 year later it became the EORTC and has been known all over the world under this appellation. G. MATHE was its first President from 1962 to 1965. The creation of the EORTC was immediately greeted both by the governments of the various EEC countries and by the medical and scientific circles. From the outset its two main goals were first to develop and coordinate clinical research in Europe and indeed it has organized several hundreds of cooperative multi-center controlled clinical trials and second to promote that area of basic research, which is closed, to providing significant results for diagnosis or therapy. During the past 25 years the EORTC has progressively become the largest organization for therapeutic cancer research in Europe. In 1972, the NC1 in Washington stated that its creation has been “the most important development in therapeutic research on cancer in Europe.” PRESENT STRUCTURES

The European organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC)

A major challenge in value-based health care is the lack of standardized health outcomes measurements, hindering optimal monitoring and comparison of the quality of health care across different settings globally. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary international working group, comprised of 26 health care providers and patient advocates, to develop a standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer (BC). The working group convened via 8 teleconferences and completed a follow-up survey after each meeting. A modified 2-round Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the outcomes and case-mix variables to be included. Patient focus group meetings (8 early or metastatic BC patients) and online anonymized surveys of 1225 multinational BC patients and survivors were also conducted to obtain patients' input. The standard set encompasses survival and cancer control, and disutility of care (eg, acute treatment complications) outcomes, to be collected through administrative data and/or clinical records. A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is recommended to capture long-term degree of health outcomes. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline. The ICHOM will endeavor to achieve wide buy-in of this set and facilitate its implementation in routine clinical practice in various settings and institutions worldwide.

A standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) initiative

Purpose To determine whether a nurse navigator intervention improves quality of life and patient experience with care for people recently given a diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. Patients and Methods Adults with recently diagnosed primary breast, colorectal, or lung cancer (n = 251) received either enhanced usual care (n = 118) or nurse navigator support for 4 months (n = 133) in a two-group cluster randomized, controlled trial with primary care physicians as the units of randomization. Patient-reported measures included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (FACT-G) Quality of Life scale, three subscales of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC), and selected subscales from a cancer adaptation of the Picker Institute's patient experience survey. Self-report measures were collected at baseline, 4 months, and 12 months. Automated administrative data were used to assess time to treatment and total health care costs. Results There were no significant differences ...

/pdf/nurse-navigators-in-early-cancer-care-a-randomized-4eau67aou3.pdf

Nurse Navigators in Early Cancer Care: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Physician-assessed and patient-reported outcome measures in chemotherapy-induced sensory peripheral neurotoxicity: two sides of the same coin

https://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S0885-3924(11)00456-8/pdf

Physical activity monitoring: a responsive and meaningful patient-centered outcome for surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy?

Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: issues, evidence and recommendations

N. A. Hackl

Papers

Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: issues, evidence and recommendations