Advertisement

Disparities in the allocation of research funding to gynecologic cancers by Funding to Lethality scores

Published:November 04, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.021

      Highlights

      • There are disparities across cancer sites when NCI funding is measured using the Funding to Lethality score.
      • The three major GYN cancers show consistently decreasing Funding to Lethality scores over time.
      • Increased funding for GYN cancers is needed to keep pace with laboratory and clinical discoveries of other cancer sites.

      Abstract

      Purpose

      To analyze National Cancer Institute (NCI) funding distributions to gynecologic cancers compared to other cancers from 2007 to 2014.

      Methods

      The NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER), Cancer Trends Progress Report, and Funding Statistics were used to analyze 18 cancer sites. Site-specific mortality to incidence ratios (MIR) were normalized per 100 cases and multiplied by person-years of life lost to derive cancer-specific lethality. NCI funding was divided by its lethality to calculate Funding to Lethality scores for gynecologic malignancies and compared to 15 other cancer sites.

      Results

      Ovarian, cervical, and uterine cancers ranked 10th (score 0.097, SD 0.008), 12th (0.087, SD 0.009), and 14th (0.057, SD 0.006) for average Funding to Lethality scores. The highest average score was for prostate cancer (score 1.182, SD 0.364). In U.S. dollars per 100 incident cases, prostate cancer received an average of $1,821,000 per person-years of life lost, while ovarian cancer received $97,000, cervical cancer $87,000, and uterine cancer $57,000. Ovarian and cervical cancers had lower average Funding to Lethality scores compared to nine other cancers, while uterine cancer was lower than 13 other cancers (p < 0.01 for all comparisons). Analyses of eight-, five-, and three-year trends for gynecologic cancers showed nearly universal decreasing Funding to Lethality scores.

      Conclusion

      Funding to Lethality scores for gynecologic cancers are significantly lower than other cancer sites, indicating a disparity in funding allocation that persists over the most recent eight years of available data. Prompt correction is required to ensure critical discoveries for women with gynecologic cancers.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gynecologic Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Cancer Moonshot [Internet]. National Cancer Institute [cited 2018 Mar 29] Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancer-initiative

        • Upton F.
        21st Century Cures Act [Internet].
        (Available from:)
        https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6
        Date: 2015
        Date accessed: March 29, 2018
      2. National Institutes of Health. Office of Budget [cited 2018 Jun 12] Available from: https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/.

      3. Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC). NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools [cited 2018 Jun 12]. Available from: https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

        • Carter A.J.R.
        • Nguyen C.N.
        A comparison of cancer burden and research spending reveals discrepancies in the distribution of research funding.
        BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 526
        • Burnet N.G.
        • Jefferies S.J.
        • Benson R.J.
        • Hunt D.P.
        • Treasure F.P.
        Years of life lost (YLL) from cancer is an important measure of population burden — and should be considered when allocating research funds.
        Br. J. Cancer. 2005; 92: 241-255
      4. Fast Stats [Internet] [cited 2017 Apr 18] Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php

      5. National Cancer Institute: Cancer Trends Progress Report. Person-years of life lost. [Internet] [cited 2018 Mar 23]. Available from: https://progressreport.cancer.gov/end/life_lost

      6. Research funding statistics for FY 2014 cancer type [Internet] [cited 2018 Mar 23] Available from: https://fundedresearch.cancer.gov/nciportfolio/search/funded?fy=PUB2014&type=site

        • Ferlay J.
        • Soerjomataram I.
        • Dikshit R.
        • et al.
        Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.
        Int. J. Cancer. 2015; 136: E359-E386
        • Vostakolaei F.A.
        • Karim-Kos H.E.
        • Janssen-Heignen M.L.G.
        • Visser O.
        • Verbeek A.L.M.
        • Kiemeney L.A.L.M.
        The validity of the mortality to incidence ratio as a proxy for site-specific cancer survival.
        Eur. J. Pub. Health. 2010; 21: 573-577
      7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2014. Cancer in Australia: an overview 2014. Cancer series No 90. Cat no CAN 88. Canberra: AIHW.

        • United States Cancer Mortality Incidence Rate Ratios 1999-2011
        WONDER Online Database.
        United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014
      8. About the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) [Internet] [cited 2018 Jul 10] Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/default.aspx

      9. The NIH Alamanac [Internet]. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 2015[cited 2017 Mar 29] Available from: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/appropriations-section-1

      10. SGO clinical trial crisis 1.9.17 [Internet] [cited 2018 16 Mar] Available from: https://www.sgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SGO-Clinical-Trial-Crisis-FINAL.pdf

      11. Federally Funded Cancer Research [Internet]. ASCO, 2016 [cited 2017 Apr 18] Available from: https://www.asco.org/advocacy-policy/policies-positions-guidance/federally-funded-cancer-research

        • Long G.V.
        • Stroyakovskiy D.
        • Gogas H.
        • et al.
        Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2015; 386: 444-451
        • Robert C.
        • Karaszewska B.
        • Schachter J.
        • et al.
        Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 372: 30-39
        • Larkin J.
        • Ascierto P.A.
        • Dréno B.
        • et al.
        Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2014; 371: 1867-1876
        • Maio M.
        • Grob J.-J.
        • Aamdal S.
        • et al.
        Five-year survival rates for treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma who received ipilimumab plus dacarbazine in a phase III trial.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2015; 33: 1191-1196