The great potential for reducing the cancer burden and cancer disparities through prevention and early detection is unrealized at the population level. A new community-based coalition, the San Francisco Cancer Initiative (SF CAN), focuses on the city and county of San Francisco, where cancer is the leading cause of death. SF CAN is an integrated, cross-sector collaboration launched in November 2016. It brings together the San Francisco Department of Public Health; the University of California, San Francisco; major health systems; and community coalitions to exert collective impact. Its goals are to reduce the burden of five common cancers-breast, lung and other tobacco-related, prostate, colorectal, and liver-for which there are proven methods of prevention and detection, while reducing known disparities. We describe the infrastructure, coalition building, and early progress of this initiative, which may serve as a model for other municipalities.

Purpose of Review Cancer incidence and mortality are decreasing, but inequities in outcomes persist. This paper describes the San Francisco Cancer Initiative (SF CAN) as a model for the systematic application of epidemiological evidence to reduce the cancer burden and associated inequities. Recent Findings SF CAN is a multi-institutional implementation of existing evidence on the prevention and early detection of five common cancers (i.e., breast, prostate, colorectal, liver, and lung/tobacco-related cancers) accounting for 50% of cancer deaths in San Francisco. Five Task Forces follow individual logic models designating inputs, outputs, and outcomes. We describe the progress made and the challenges faced by each Task Force after 5 years of activity. Summary SF CAN is a model for how the nation’s Comprehensive Cancer Centers are ideally positioned to leverage cancer epidemiology for evidence-based initiatives that, along with genuine community engagement and multiple stakeholders, can reduce the population burden of cancer.

Introduction The primary objective of this study was to determine whether workplace culture in academic oncology differed by gender, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods We used the Culture Conducive to Women’s Academic Success (CCWAS), a validated survey tool, to investigate the academic climate at an NCI-designated Cancer Center. We adapted the CCWAS to be applicable to people of all genders. The full membership of the Cancer Center was surveyed (total faculty = 429). The questions in each of 4 CCWAS domains (equal access to opportunities, work-life balance, freedom from gender bias, and leadership support) were scored using a 5-point Likert scale. Median score and interquartile ranges for each domain were calculated. Results A total of 168 respondents (men = 58, women = 106, n = 4 not disclosed) submitted survey responses. The response rate was 39% overall and 70% among women faculty. We found significant differences in perceptions of workplace culture by gender, both in responses to individual questions and in the overall score in the following domains: equal access to opportunities, work-life balance, and leader support, and in the total score for the CCWAS. Conclusions Our survey is the first of its kind completed during the COVID-19 pandemic at an NCI-designated Cancer Center, in which myriad factors contributed to burnout and workplace challenges. These results point to specific issues that detract from the success of women pursuing careers in academic oncology. Identifying these issues can be used to design and implement solutions to improve workforce culture, mitigate gender bias, and retain faculty. This article evaluates whether workplace culture differed by gender in academic oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic.