CANCER MANAGEMENT
CANCER CONTROL 2014 81
the viability of the meeting (Table 1). Meetings convened for
the purposes of disease management, modality management
and advocacy are the most common types of international
meetings as they have the highest likelihood of funding.
However, arguably, they have the lowest probability of
enhancing population health and cancer/NCD outcomes as
they address only a segment of the cancer control
continuum and attract a relatively limited range of
professions. In contrast, meetings convened to discuss
implementation of cancer/NCD control plans are targeted at
all professions involved in cancer/NCD control in all regions
of the world. They have the lowest appeal for and probability
of funding and are thus the least common, but have a greater
potential for the impact.
UN Member States have accepted the challenge of a 25%
reduction in premature mortality from NCDs, including
cancer, by 2025, which translates into a >2% annual reduction
at a time when high-resourced nations have achieved a 1%
annual reduction and to which cardiovascular and
cerebrovascular mortality have been the dominant
contributors. This would imply that the learning and
experience of the high-resource world would need to be
adapted, leveraged, adopted and maximized through strategic
decisions and allocation of resources if the "25% by 2025"
mortality reduction from NCDs is to be realized.
If resources are to be put towards international meetings,
then the types of meetings that are held and the shift of
balance towards those that can have maximum impact upon
improving cancer/NCD outcomes needs to become a strategic
priority. Are we really strategic about the purpose of meetings
convened before embarking on their promotion, funding and
conduct? Do we have a basis for evaluating meetings and
establishing their value if their purpose, goals, objectives,
directions, outputs and outcomes have never been explicitly
defined? Can we align with resolutions such as the Global
Action Plan and its targets if the meetings convened do not
align to the populations, interventions, measures and
participation appropriate to achieving these goals?
This is more than a philosophical or semantic debate. This
paper is intended to cause us to reflect on "do the right people
come to the right place, at the right time, for the right reasons
and with the right expectations to improve cancer/NCD
control outcomes"? Given the enormity of the cancer /NCD
burden challenge ahead, it will be essential to create the right
environment and secure funding to bring together the right
people, at the right time, for the right reasons to enact the
changes that are inherent in successful attainment of the
Global Action Plan goals and targets. l
Acknowledgments
The opinions expressed herein represent those of the authors alone
and do not necessarily represent the institutions and organizations
by which they are employed.
Dr Simon B Sutcliffe chairs the Board of the Institute for Health
Systems Transformation and Sustainability; is President of the
International Cancer Control Congress Association, the
International Network for Cancer Treatment and Research-
Canada Branch (Two Worlds Cancer Collaboration); is a Senior
Advisor to the Terry Fox Research Institute and is Chief Medical
Officer for QuBiologics Inc. and Omnitura Inc.
He is a graduate of St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK in
1970. Dr Sutcliffe's training encompassed internal medicine,
scientific research, medical and radiation oncology in the UK,
South Africa, the United States and Canada. Staff appointments
have been held at St Bartholomew's Hospital, Princess Margaret
Hospital/Ontario Cancer Institute and the BC Cancer Agency.
He has been President and CEO of the Princess Margaret
Hospital/Ontario Cancer Institute and the BC Cancer Agency.
He is a past Chair of the Board of the Canadian Partnership
Against Cancer (CPAC, 2009-2012), the Michael Smith
Foundation for Health Research (MSFHR, 2006-7) and has
nt and
nt Attractiveness for
external funding
High
High
High
Low
Appropriateness for
non-profit
sponsorship and
direction
Accepted
Accepted
Inappropriate
Highly
inappropriate
Potential
Funding
Security
High
High
High
Low