The role of NCI-sponsored research in ASCO Clinical Cancer Advances 2005-2008.

Abstract

6094 Background: Recent attention has been given to the return on investment to publicly-funded cancer research (e.g., Manton et al 2009, Sun et al 2009, which correlate changes in cancer mortality with R&D spending). Such approaches, however, cannot consider the likely future effect of current breakthroughs on clinical outcomes. The “Clinical Cancer Advances” special articles of the Journal of Clinical Oncology (published 2005-2009) identify “major advances” and “notable research advances” occurring in the past year. These advances, selected by a panel of experts, identify significant research studies, including those considered to have potential to decrease mortality from cancer (Petrelli et al 2009). Methods: A study of the 119 advances reported in the 2005-2008 issues used bibliometric techniques to assess: (1) the direct funding for the research, as identified through the funding sources acknowledged by the publications and presentations that form the basis for the advancements; and (2) upstream funding. The study identified the funders heavily represented in the acknowledgements, as a proxy for assessing the relative scientific return to funding. Results: The U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) was the most frequently cited funder; there was evidence of direct NCI support for at least one publication or presentation cited by JCO for 69 (58%) of the advances – 37 solely acknowledging NCI funding and 32 acknowledging a mix of NCI and non-NCI funding. 50 advances acknowledged industry funding. By comparison, Sun et al estimated that NCI funding represented approximately 25%-35% of total U.S. cancer research and development funding 1970- 2000. There was substantial variation in the extent to which NCI funding was acknowledged by type of advance. While nearly all of advances in pediatrics, prevention, and survivorship acknowledged NCI support (21 of 23), few advances in GU cancers (1 of 11) did. Cooperative Groups were the predominant performers of NCI-funded research acknowledged as underlying the advances (28 of 69). Conclusions: While the NCI is heavily represented in the support for the advances, there are differences both by disease area and mechanism of support that warrant future research. No significant financial relationships to disclose.