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.

The effects of physical activity, fast-mimicking diet and psychological interventions on cancer survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals are often asked if non-pharmacological interventions prolong life. This review aims to evaluate the effects of physical activity, fast-mimicking diet (FMD) and psychological interventions on survival in all cancers. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only RCTs of physical activity, FMD and psychological interventions (including counselling, cognitive and other psychotherapies) in cancer patients that reported survival outcomes were included. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020 were searched without language restrictions. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42019160944). RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs (9 on physical activity and 22 on psychological interventions) were included in the final analysis after evaluation of 60,207 records from our initial search. No eligible RCT on FMD was reported. RCTs on group psychological interventions (41.9 %) and in patients with breast cancer (38.7 %) were the most common. Most evaluated short-term interventions and in primary or adjuvant settings. Only one of 9 (11 %) RCTs on physical activity and 8 of 22 (36 %) RCTs on psychological interventions were associated with improved overall survival. Only group psychological interventions in breast cancer had adequate number of RCTs to allow a meta-analysis to be performed. It demonstrated a trend towards improved overall survival (HR -0.20, 95 %CI -0.49 to 0.10), particularly in RCTs that evaluated long-term (>6 months) therapies (HR -0.29, 95 %CI -0.59 to 0.01). CONCLUSION: Longer term interventions starting early in the patients' care journey in primary and adjuvant settings have shown the most promise for improving survival. Better designed RCTs including survival outcomes are particularly needed in non-breast cancers.