{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024888888888888887, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.75975975975976, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Therapy: State‐of‐the‐art assessment of quality. The national cancer institute perspective

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a broad spectrum of responsibilities that range from support of basic laboratory research to the clinical testing of new therapeutics and, finally, the dissemination of results of this research to the practicing physician and the public. The reduction of cancer mortality is largely dependent on the responsibility for widespread application of state‐of‐the‐art cancer treatments. A major cancer control focus of the NCI over the last decade has been the development and implementation of programs designed to improve awareness, access and application of state‐of‐the‐art cancer treatment. In addition to the computerized Physician Data Query system, three targeted programs, the Cooperative Group Outreach Program (CGOP), the Community Hospital Oncology Program (CHOP), and the Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) have all been aimed at establishing mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of new patient care technology; and, thereby, provide the highest quality cancer treatment in the community setting. An evaluation was conducted to determine if patterns and outcomes of cancer care management changed over time, and whether this could be related to the presence of CGOP, CHOP, and CCOP. Measurement of required program implementation was relatively straightforward. However, measurement of resultant changes in “quality of care” and the factors that influence physician performance are complex and controversial. Critical elements in the treatment of breast, colon, rectum, and small cell lung cancer were used as tracers to measure changes in the patterns of care in communities where programs were implemented. Results from this study highlight issues in state‐of‐the‐art assessment of quality, such as the difficulty in defining quality cancer care, relationships between process and outcome indicators, and the problems of documentation and missing data. Assurance of quality cancer care requires the interaction of health care professionals with knowledge of the most up‐to‐date cancer research results working in a health care delivery system that encourages and rewards application of these results.