Global trends in psycho-oncology research investments 2016-2020: A content analysis.

OBJECTIVE: An estimated one-third of cancer patients experience a clinically significant psychological disorder, however it is unclear to what extent this is reflected in research funding. To address this a systematic analysis the allocation of psycho-oncology research funding globally between 2016 and 2020 was conducted. METHODS: A global dataset of 66,388 cancer research awards, from 2016 to 2020 inclusive and totalling $24.5 billion USD was assembled from public and philanthropic funders. Each award was previously categorised by cancer site type and research theme, including psychosocial research and these awards were further sub-categorised for this analysis. RESULTS: There was $523m of funding awarded for psychological research across 1122 studies: 2.14% of all cancer research funding during this period ($24.5 billion). Median funding per award was $97,473 (IQR $36,864 - $453,051). Within psychological research, mental health received most funding ($174m, 33.5% of psychological funding). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) focused research was the specific psychological support with the highest proportion of funding at $14 million. By country of funder, the USA provided most investment ($375.5 m, 71.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Psycho-oncology research received relatively little funding, for example, when compared with pre-clinical cancer research. There needs to be a shift from pre-clinical science to research that benefits cancer patients in the shorter-term. Low- and middle-income countries, and ethnic minorities in higher-income settings, were underrepresented despite having a large cancer burden, indicating inequities that need to be addressed.

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.

A rapid microtiter plate method to measure carbon dioxide evolved from carbon substrate amendments so as to determine the physiological profiles of soil microbial communities by using whole soil.

Sole-carbon-source tests (Biolog), designed to identify bacteria, have become very popular for metabolically fingerprinting soil microbial communities, despite disadvantages associated with the use of carbon source profiles that primarily select for fast-growing bacteria. In this paper we describe the use of an alternative method that combines the advantages of the Biolog community-level physiological profile (CLPP) method, in which microtiter-based detection plates are used, with the ability to measure carbon dioxide evolution from whole soil. This method facilitates measurement over short periods of time (4 to 6 h) and does not require the extraction and culturing of organisms. Deep-well microtiter plates are used as test wells into which soil is placed. The apparatus to fill the deep-well plates and interface it with a second removable detection plate is described. Two detection systems, a simple colorimetric reaction in absorbent alkali and scintillation counting with radioactive carbon sources, are described. The methods were compared to the Biolog-CLPP system by using soils under different vegetation types and soil treated with wastewater sludge. We aimed to test the hypothesis that using whole soil would have specific advantages over using extracts in that more immediate responses to substrates could be obtained that would reflect activity rather than growth. The whole-soil method was more rapid and gave earlier detection of C source use. Also, the metabolic fingerprints obtained could discriminate between sludge treatments.