The oncology community has enjoyed success to a large degree through the existing NIH and NCI mechanisms. Will they ask how can they work with us in a concerted fashion to benefit new discoveries, novel translation in well-designed clinical trials, and eventual development of exciting, more effective cancer therapies for patients?
Recently, many academic US oncologists returned from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2022 and turned their attention to developments at the national level in the American oncology structure, funding, and governance. With the resignation of Ned Sharpless, MD, as National Cancer Institute (NCI) director several months ago, 2 ongoing, major developments raise enthusiasm as well as uncertainty.
First, although I very much appreciated having a fellow cancer center director as leader of the NCI in Dr Sharpless, the appointment and imminent confi rmation of the fi rst female and surgeon NCI director, Monica Bertagnolli, MD, has created palpable buzz and anticipation in the oncology community. We await her new leadership efforts and priorities and will assist her in any way we can.
However, the uncertainty at this stage also comes from President Joseph R. Biden’s proposal and initiation of a completely new structure for developing and translating new therapies, many of which will be in oncology. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) will not report to the National Institutes of Health director but is envisioned to receive funding similar in level to the NCI, approximately $6 billion for 3 years, with a reported $1 billion currently allocated in the most recent continuing resolution in Congress.
Although ARPA-H has the potential to be exciting and transformative, the possibility of creating an entirely parallel bureaucracy raises a concern that this could detract or divert resources from the tremendous progress that the fi eld of oncology has experienced from the NCI and its intramural and extramural funding.
The stated goal is to create an accelerator of empowered and funded program experts to drive progress with more of a contract-like mechanism using milestones, rather than the peer-review process, which can be cumbersome.
We hope clinical trial advances will accelerate but will funds go towards the right agents or classes of therapies by the right individuals at the right time, as we are told is the goal of ARPA-H? The oncology community has enjoyed success to a large degree through the existing NIH and NCI mechanisms. Will they ask how can they work with us in a concerted fashion to benefi t new discoveries, novel translation in well-designed clinical trials, and eventual development of exciting, more effective cancer therapies for patients? Many questions still remain.
Gholam Contrasts Lenvatinib With Other Options in Child-Pugh B HCC
December 21st 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Pierre Gholam, MD, discussed how post hoc and real-world analyses build upon the limited available trial data for treating patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh B status.
Read More
Ilson Examines Chemoimmunotherapy Regimens for Metastatic Gastroesophageal Cancers
December 20th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, David H. Ilson, MD, PhD, discussed the outcomes of the CheckMate 649, CheckMate 648, and KEYNOTE-859 trials of chemoimmunotherapy regimens in patients with upper GI cancers.
Read More
Participants Discuss Frontline Immunotherapy Followed by ADC for Metastatic Cervical Cancer
December 19th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Ramez N. Eskander, MD, and participants discussed first and second-line therapy decisions for a patient with PD-L1–positive cervical cancer in the frontline metastatic setting.
Read More
Oncologists Discuss a Second-Generation BTK for Relapsed/Refractory CLL
December 18th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Daniel A. Ermann, MD, discussed evaluation and treatment for a patient with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia after receiving venetoclax and obinutuzumab.
Read More