7.4 PLANNING AND EVALUATION Program planning and evaluation activities are essential to the continued success of the Arizona Cancer Center (AZCC), and is critical in achieving our highest priorities. To that end, the leadership of the Arizona Cancer Center strives to maintain a culture and an environment which promotes the discovery, translation, and delivery of services which is necessary in order to meet our mission. In that endeavor, the continuous planning and evaluation of our activities is necessary. Since we are a matrix center in a highly complex environment, we employ many different mechanisms for receiving advice and contributions from our members to ensure maximum input and communication. The AZCC utilizes six formal mechanisms and one informal mechanism for program planning and evaluation. The formal methods are as follows: a. External Scientific Advisory Board; b. Retreats; c. Individual program meetings; d. Arizona Cancer Center Director's Meeting; e. Arizona Cancer Center Executive Committee (campus-wide advisory board); f. Cancer Center Board (state-wide lay advisory board); The informal method is the intake of day-to-day suggestions by individual AZCC members based on their requirements for conducting basic, translational, or clinical science. Each of these mechanisms and the help they have provided is detailed in the narrative section. An annual budget of $85,000 is requested for the continuation of this effort.
Planning and evaluation activities are critical to the mission of the Center. These activities allow for growth of scientific programs, increased collaborations, planning for new faculty recruits, implementation of new standards, and identification of required resources for new advances in technology and equipment.
|Dickinson, Sally E; Janda, Jaroslav; Criswell, Jane et al. (2016) Inhibition of Akt Enhances the Chemopreventive Effects of Topical Rapamycin in Mouse Skin. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 9:215-24|
|Schissler, A Grant; Li, Qike; Chen, James L et al. (2016) Analysis of aggregated cell-cell statistical distances within pathways unveils therapeutic-resistance mechanisms in circulating tumor cells. Bioinformatics 32:i80-i89|
|Banerjee, Bhaskar; Shaheen, Nicholas J; Martinez, Jessica A et al. (2016) Clinical Study of Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Barrett's Esophagus Patients. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 9:528-33|
|Pulko, Vesna; Davies, John S; Martinez, Carmine et al. (2016) Human memory T cells with a naive phenotype accumulate with aging and respond to persistent viruses. Nat Immunol 17:966-75|
|Warfel, Noel A; Sainz, Alva G; Song, Jin H et al. (2016) PIM Kinase Inhibitors Kill Hypoxic Tumor Cells by Reducing Nrf2 Signaling and Increasing Reactive Oxygen Species. Mol Cancer Ther 15:1637-47|
|Thomson, Cynthia A; Ho, Emily; Strom, Meghan B (2016) Chemopreventive properties of 3,3'-diindolylmethane in breast cancer: evidence from experimental and human studies. Nutr Rev 74:432-43|
|Tsikitis, Vassiliki L; Potter, Amiee; Mori, Motomi et al. (2016) MicroRNA Signatures of Colonic Polyps on Screening and Histology. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 9:942-949|
|Hanke, Neale T; Garland, Linda L; Baker, Amanda F (2016) Carfilzomib combined with suberanilohydroxamic acid (SAHA) synergistically promotes endoplasmic reticulum stress in non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 142:549-60|
|Kohler, Lindsay N; Garcia, David O; Harris, Robin B et al. (2016) Adherence to Diet and Physical Activity Cancer Prevention Guidelines and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 25:1018-28|
|Landowski, Terry H; Guntle, Gerald P; Zhao, Dezheng et al. (2016) Magnetic Resonance Imaging Identifies Differential Response to Pro-Oxidant Chemotherapy in a Xenograft Model. Transl Oncol 9:228-35|
Showing the most recent 10 out of 1161 publications