Global funding for cancer research between 2016 and 2020: a content analysis of public and philanthropic investments.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of disease burden globally, with more than 19·3 million cases and 10 million deaths recorded in 2020. Research is crucial to understanding the determinants of cancer and the effects of interventions, and to improving outcomes. We aimed to analyse global patterns of public and philanthropic investment in cancer research. METHODS: In this content analysis, we searched the UberResearch Dimensions database and Cancer Research UK data for human cancer research funding awards from public and philanthropic funders between Jan 1, 2016, and Dec 31, 2020. Included award types were project and programme grants, fellowships, pump priming, and pilot projects. Awards focused on operational delivery of cancer care were excluded. Awards were categorised by cancer type, cross-cutting research theme, and research phase. Funding amount was compared with global burden of specific cancers, measured by disability-adjusted life-years, years lived with disability, and mortality using data from the Global Burden of Disease study. FINDINGS: We identified 66 388 awards with total investment of about US$24·5 billion in 2016-20. Investment decreased year-on-year, with the largest drop observed between 2019 and 2020. Pre-clinical research received 73·5% of the funding across the 5 years ($18 billion), phase 1-4 clinical trials received 7·4% ($1·8 billion), public health research received 9·4% ($2·3 billion), and cross-disciplinary research received 5·0% ($1·2 billion). General cancer research received the largest investment ($7·1 billion, 29·2% of the total funding). The most highly funded cancer types were breast cancer ($2·7 billion [11·2%]), haematological cancer ($2·3 billion [9·4%]), and brain cancer ($1·3 billion [5·5%]). Analysis by cross-cutting theme revealed that 41·2% of investment ($9·6 billion) went to cancer biology research, 19·6% ($4·6 billion) to drug treatment research, and 12·1% ($2·8 billion) to immuno-oncology. 1·4% of the total funding ($0·3 billion) was spent on surgery research, 2·8% ($0·7 billion) was spent on radiotherapy research, and 0·5% ($0·1 billion) was spent on global health studies. INTERPRETATION: Cancer research funding must be aligned with the global burden of cancer with more equitable funding for cancer research in low-income and middle-income countries (which account for 80% of cancer burden), both to support research relevant to these settings, and build research capacity within these countries. There is an urgent need to prioritise investment in surgery and radiotherapy research given their primacy in the treatment of many solid tumours. FUNDING: None.

Multiple-Breath Washout Outcome Measures in Adults with Bronchiectasis.

Rationale: Lung clearance index (LCI) has good intravisit repeatability with better sensitivity in detecting lung disease on computed tomography scan compared with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in adults with bronchiectasis. Alternative multiple-breath washout parameters have not been systematically studied in bronchiectasis. Objectives: To determine the validity, repeatability, sensitivity, specificity, and feasibility of standard LCI (LCI2.5), shortened LCI (LCI5.0), ventilation heterogeneity arising within proximal conducting airways (ScondVT), and ventilation heterogeneity arising within the acinar airways (SacinVT) in a cross-sectional observational cohort of adults with bronchiectasis. Methods: Cross-sectional multiple-breath nitrogen washout data (Exhalyzer D; Eco Medics AG) from 132 patients with bronchiectasis across five United Kingdom centers (BronchUK Clinimetrics study) and 88 healthy control subjects were analyzed. Results: Within-test repeatability (mean coefficient of variation) was <5% for both LCI2.5 and LCI5.0 in patients with bronchiectasis, and there was no difference in mean coefficient of variation for LCI2.5 and LCI5.0 in patients with bronchiectasis compared with healthy volunteers. Moderate-strength correlations were seen between FEV1 and LCI2.5 (r = -0.54), LCI5.0 (r = -0.53), ScondVT (r = -0.35), and SacinVT (r = -0.38) z-scores. The proportion of subjects with abnormal multiple-breath washout (z-score > 2) but in normal FEV1 (z-score < -2) was 42% (LCI2.5) and 36% (LCI5.0). Overall results from the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that LCI2.5 had the greatest combined sensitivity and specificity to discriminate between bronchiectasis and control subjects, followed by LCI5.0, FEV1, and ScondVT z-scores. There was a 57% time saving with LCI5.0. Conclusions: LCI2.5 and LCI5.0 had good within-test repeatability and superior sensitivity compared with spirometry measures in differentiating between health and bronchiectasis disease. LCI5.0 is quicker and more feasible than LCI2.5. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02468271).

IMPACT OF RETINAL ISCHEMIA ON FUNCTIONAL AND ANATOMICAL OUTCOMES AFTER ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION.

PURPOSE: To compare the impact of the classification of retinal vein occlusion (RVO) into ischemic or nonischemic forms on outcomes after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients with RVO evaluated at the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust between July 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Outcomes, including gain of ≥10 and ≥15 letters at 12 months, mean change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline to 12 months, resolution of macular edema at 12 months, and development of neovascular complications and epiretinal membrane after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, were compared between ischemic and nonischemic eyes using regression models. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen eyes (115 patients), 58 with central RVO and 59 with branch RVO, were included. A greater proportion of eyes with ischemic branch RVO gained ≥10 and ≥15 letters at 12 months than those with nonischemic branch RVO (P = 0.005 and P = 0.016, respectively). No statistically significant differences in visual outcomes were observed between ischemic and nonischemic central RVO. Retinal vein occlusion classification was not associated with anatomical outcomes after treatment. CONCLUSION: Findings support the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors in ischemic and nonischemic forms of RVO.

Quality control for multiple breath washout tests in multicentre bronchiectasis studies: Experiences from the BRONCH-UK clinimetrics study.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple Breath Washout (MBW) to measure Lung Clearance Index (LCI) is increasingly being used as a secondary endpoint in multicentre bronchiectasis studies. LCI data quality control or "over-reading" is resource intensive and the impact is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the proportion of MBW tests deemed unacceptable with over-reading, and to assess the change in LCI (number of turnovers), LCI coefficient of variation (CV%) and tidal volume (VT) CV% results after over-reading. METHODS: Data were analysed from 250 MBW tests (from 98 adult bronchiectasis patients) collected as part of the Bronch-UK Clinimetrics study in 5 UK centres. Each MBW test was over-read centrally using pre-defined criteria. MBW tests with <2 technically valid and repeatable trials were deemed unacceptable to include in analysis. In accepted tests, values for LCI, LCI CV% and VT CV% before and after over-reading, were compared. RESULTS: Insufficient data was collected in 10/250 tests. With over-reading, 30/240 (12%) were deemed unacceptable to include in analysis. In those accepted tests, overall the change in LCI, LCI CV% and VT CV% with over-reading was not statistically significant. When MBW new sites were compared to MBW expert sites, the change in LCI with over-reading was significantly greater in MBW new sites (p = 0.047). Data suggests that over-reading could be important up to at least 12 months post initiation of MBW activity. CONCLUSION: MBW over-reading was important in this study as 12% of tests were considered unacceptable. Over-reading improved test result accuracy in sites new to MBW.