Marissa M Shams-White1, Rolando Barajas2, Roxanne E Jensen3, Melissa Rotunno2, Hannah Dueck4, Elizabeth M Ginexi5, Scott D Rogers6, Elizabeth M Gillanders2, Leah E Mechanic2. 1. Risk Factor Assessment Branch, Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America. 2. Genomics Epidemiology Branch, Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America. 3. Outcomes Research Branch, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America. 4. Tumor Biology and Microenvironment Branch, Division of Cancer Biology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America. 5. Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America. 6. Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Systems epidemiology approaches may lead to a better understanding of the complex and dynamic multi-level constellation of contributors to cancer risk and outcomes and help target interventions. This grant portfolio analysis aimed to describe the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) investments in systems epidemiology and to identify gaps in the cancer systems epidemiology portfolio. METHODS: The analysis examined grants funded (2013-2018) through seven NIH systems science Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) as well as cancer-specific systems epidemiology grants funded by NCI during that same time. Study characteristics were extracted from the grant abstracts and specific aims and coded. RESULTS: Of the 137 grants awarded under the NIH FOAs, 52 (38%) included systems epidemiology. Only five (4%) were focused on cancer systems epidemiology. The NCI-wide search (N = 453 grants) identified 35 grants (8%) that included cancer systems epidemiology in their specific aims. Most of these grants examined epidemiology and surveillance-based questions (60%); fewer addressed clinical care or clinical trials (37%). Fifty-four percent looked at multiple scales within the individual (e.g., cell, tissue, organ), 49% looked beyond the individual (e.g., individual, community, population), and few (9%) included both. Across all grants examined, the systems epidemiology grants primarily focused on discovery or prediction, rather than on impacts of intervention or policy. CONCLUSIONS: The most notable finding was that grants focused on cancer versus other diseases reflected a small percentage of the portfolio, highlighting the need to encourage more cancer systems epidemiology research. Opportunities include encouraging more multiscale research and continuing the support for broad examination of domains in these studies. Finally, the nascent discipline of systems epidemiology could benefit from the creation of standard terminology and definitions to guide future progress.
OBJECTIVES: Systems epidemiology approaches may lead to a better understanding of the complex and dynamic multi-level constellation of contributors to cancer risk and outcomes and help target interventions. This grant portfolio analysis aimed to describe the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) investments in systems epidemiology and to identify gaps in the cancer systems epidemiology portfolio. METHODS: The analysis examined grants funded (2013-2018) through seven NIH systems science Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) as well as cancer-specific systems epidemiology grants funded by NCI during that same time. Study characteristics were extracted from the grant abstracts and specific aims and coded. RESULTS: Of the 137 grants awarded under the NIH FOAs, 52 (38%) included systems epidemiology. Only five (4%) were focused on cancer systems epidemiology. The NCI-wide search (N = 453 grants) identified 35 grants (8%) that included cancer systems epidemiology in their specific aims. Most of these grants examined epidemiology and surveillance-based questions (60%); fewer addressed clinical care or clinical trials (37%). Fifty-four percent looked at multiple scales within the individual (e.g., cell, tissue, organ), 49% looked beyond the individual (e.g., individual, community, population), and few (9%) included both. Across all grants examined, the systems epidemiology grants primarily focused on discovery or prediction, rather than on impacts of intervention or policy. CONCLUSIONS: The most notable finding was that grants focused on cancer versus other diseases reflected a small percentage of the portfolio, highlighting the need to encourage more cancer systems epidemiology research. Opportunities include encouraging more multiscale research and continuing the support for broad examination of domains in these studies. Finally, the nascent discipline of systems epidemiology could benefit from the creation of standard terminology and definitions to guide future progress.
Authors: Rolando Barajas; Brionna Hair; Gabriel Lai; Melissa Rotunno; Marissa M Shams-White; Elizabeth M Gillanders; Leah E Mechanic Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Patricia L Mabry; Nicolaas P Pronk; Christopher I Amos; John S Witte; Patrick T Wedlock; Sarah M Bartsch; Bruce Y Lee Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 11.613