Considering that strategies in personalized medicine increasingly target individuals' unique health conditions, environments, and ancestries, further analysis is needed on how ELSI scholarship can better serve the increasingly global, interdisciplinary, and diverse PGM research community.

The International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP) is an active network of cancer research funding organizations, sharing information about funded research projects in a common database. Data are publicly available to enable the cancer research community to find potential collaborators and avoid duplication. This study presents an aggregated analysis of projects funded by 120 partner organizations and institutes in 2006-2018, to highlight trends in cancer research funding. Overall, the partners’ funding for cancer research increased from $5.562 billion (bn) US dollars (USD) in 2006 to $8.511bn USD in 2018, an above-inflation increase in funding. Analysis by the main research focus of projects using Common Scientific Outline categories showed that Treatment was the largest investment category in 2018, followed by Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis; Cancer Biology; Etiology; Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes; and Prevention. Over the 13 years covered by this analysis, research funding into Treatment and Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis had increased in terms of absolute investment and as a proportion of the portfolio. Research funding in Cancer Biology and Etiology declined as a percentage of the portfolio, and funding for Prevention and Control, Survivorship and Outcomes remained static. In terms of cancer site–specific research, funding for breast cancer and colorectal cancer had increased in absolute terms but declined as a percentage of the portfolio. By contrast, investment for brain cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, melanoma, and pancreatic cancer increased both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the portfolio.

As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public.

PURPOSE The National Cancer Institute (NCI)–Designated Cancer Centers (NDCCs) are active in global oncology research and training, leading collaborations to support global cancer control. To better understand global oncology activities led by NDCCs, the NCI Center for Global Health collaborated with ASCO to conduct the 2018/2019 NCI/ASCO Global Oncology Survey of NDCCs. METHODS Seventy NDCCs received a two-part survey that focused on global oncology programs at NDCCs and non–National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded global oncology projects with an international collaborator led by the NDCCs. Sixty-seven NDCCs responded to the survey. Data were coded and analyzed by NCI-Center for Global Health staff. RESULTS Thirty-three NDCCs (47%) reported having a global oncology program, and 61 (87%) reported a collective total of 613 non–NIH-funded global oncology projects. Of the NDCCs with global oncology programs, 17 reported that trainees completed rotations outside the United States and the same number enrolled trainees from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Primary focus areas of non–NIH-funded projects were research (469 [76.5%]) and capacity building or training (197 [32.1%]). Projects included collaborators from 110 countries; 68 of these were LMIC. CONCLUSION This survey shows that there is a substantial amount of global oncology research and training conducted by NDCCs and that much of this is happening in LMIC. Trends in these data reflect those in recent literature: The field of global oncology is growing, advancing scientific knowledge, contributing to building research and training capacity in LMIC, and becoming a recognized career path. Results of the 2018 Global Oncology Survey can be used to foster opportunities for NDCCs to work collaboratively on activities and to share their findings with relevant stakeholders in their LMIC collaborator countries.

PURPOSE The National Cancer Institute (NCI)–Designated Cancer Centers (NDCCs) are active in global oncology research and training, leading collaborations that contribute to the evidence to support global cancer control. To better understand global oncology activities led by NDCCs, the National Cancer Institute Center for Global Health (NCI-CGH) collaborated with ASCO to conduct the 2018 NCI/ASCO Global Oncology Survey of NDCCs. METHODS The 70 NDCCs received a two-part survey that focused on global oncology programs at NDCCs and non–National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funded global oncology projects with an international collaborator led by the NDCCs. Sixty-five NDCCs responded to the survey, and 57 reported non–NIH-funded global oncology projects. Data were cleaned, coded, and analyzed by NCI-CGH staff. RESULTS Thirty NDCCs (43%) report having a global oncology program, and 538 non–NIH-funded global oncology projects were reported. Of the NDCCs with global oncology programs, 17 report that trainees complete rotations outside the United States, and the same number enroll trainees from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In addition, 147 (28%) of the non–NIH-funded projects focused on capacity building or training, the second highest category after research. Of the 30 top project collaborator countries, 17 were LMICs. Compared with the NCI-funded international grant portfolio, non–NIH-funded global oncology projects were more likely to focus on prevention (12% NCI-funded v 20% non–NIH-funded); early detection, diagnosis, and prognosis (23% v 30%); and cancer control, survivorship, and outcomes research (13% v 22%). CONCLUSION This survey shows that there is a substantial amount of global oncology research and training supported by NDCCs, and much of this is happening in LMICs. Results of the 2018 Global Oncology Survey can be used to foster opportunities for NDCCs to work collaboratively on activities and to share their findings with relevant stakeholders in their LMIC collaborator countries.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Center for Global Health (CGH) serves as a clearinghouse of information on global oncology activities within the NCI and across the 70 NCI-designated Cancer Centers. Global oncology, as defined by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), “addresses disparities and differences in cancer prevention, care, research, education and the disease's social and human impact around the world”. While CGH routinely reports on NCI-funded global oncology projects conducted at the cancer centers, there is limited reporting of non-NCI funded global oncology activities of the cancer centers. To address this gap, CGH has surveyed the cancer centers about their global oncology programs and projects informally in 2012 and 2014. The 2018 survey, in partnership with ASCO, represents the first systematically conducted survey, with new questions about cancer center global oncology programs, faculty, and trainees. Aim: The aim of the 2018 survey is to develop a summary report of cancer center global oncology programs for use by cancer centers as a knowledge sharing and collaborative tool; by the NCI to inform program development; and, by ASCO to better understand the current state of global oncology training at US institutions. Methods: CGH developed a 2-part online survey with questions about global oncology projects led by cancer centers, and the level of support for global oncology training and faculty engagement at cancer centers. CGH piloted the survey to 7 of the 70 cancer centers (10%) from January to March 2018. Revisions based on the pilot were made, and CGH fielded the survey to the rest of the 63 cancer centers (90%) from March to July 2018. CGH supplemented the survey data with an Internet search of cancer centers' Web sites. The submitted data will be compiled, analyzed, and organized into a summary report for distribution to NCI, ASCO, and the cancer centers. Results: Data from the 7 pilot institutions show that while all 7 institutions (100%) have a global oncology program, there is great variance in the percentage of global oncology faculty who receive external or administrative research grant support for their work. Three institutions (43%) report that 50% or fewer global oncology faculty receive external research grant support, and 6 institutions (86%) report that 50% or fewer global oncology faculty receive cancer center administrative fund support for their work. Additional results and analysis will be available and presented as part of this presentation. Conclusion: In addition to serving as a knowledge sharing and collaboration tool for cancer centers, the global oncology survey allows NCI, ASCO, and global oncology partners to understand the current landscape of and sources of support for global oncology training, research, and programming at the cancer centers. This information will inform future discussions on how to strengthen global oncology programming and partnerships.