What impact did the 2006-2018 ICRP cancer survivorship portfolio have on research, policy, and/or practice: a multi-funder portfolio research impact assessment

Cancer survivorship is the study of life after a cancer diagnosis. It begins the moment a person is told they have cancer and continues long after treatment ends. This field looks at the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that patients and their families face as they navigate a new normal. While medical advances have allowed more people to live longer with or beyond cancer, the number of survivors is projected to rise dramatically in the coming decades. With this growth comes an urgent need to understand how to support these millions of people. Researchers and policymakers must determine what works best to improve daily life, manage lingering side effects, and ensure fair access to care. Without a clear picture of what research is actually achieving, it is difficult to know where to direct resources or how to shape laws that protect survivors.

To answer these questions, a team of researchers recently conducted a massive review of research funding from a global partnership of cancer organizations. They focused on grants given between 2006 and 2018 that specifically targeted cancer survivorship. The goal was not just to count how much money was spent, but to trace exactly what happened because of that spending. The team used powerful digital tools to follow the trail of these grants, looking for the papers scientists wrote, the policies governments created, and the new treatments or guidelines that emerged. They wanted to see if the money invested in understanding life after cancer was translating into real-world changes for patients.

The researchers examined a portfolio of over 3,100 grants from 99 different funding organizations across eight wealthy nations. These organizations, including major institutes in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, had collectively invested billions of dollars into cancer research. The team linked each grant to its downstream results, searching through vast databases of scientific publications, government documents, and clinical trials. They found that the grants produced a significant amount of new knowledge. Roughly half of the grants were connected to at least one scientific paper, resulting in nearly 14,000 publications. These papers were read and cited by other scientists thousands of times, indicating that the research was actively contributing to the global conversation about cancer care.

Beyond the laboratory, the study found that this research was reaching the people who make decisions about healthcare. About 27 percent of the grants were linked to policy documents, such as clinical guidelines, government reports, and health strategies. These documents often focused on practical issues like the cost of care, how to deliver services, and how to communicate with patients. The researchers noticed that the research influenced policy in many different countries, not just where the money originated. For instance, a single report on the barriers facing young cancer survivors was linked to dozens of different grants and hundreds of scientific papers, showing how a wide range of research efforts can converge to shape a single piece of guidance.

However, the trail of impact did not lead everywhere the researchers hoped. While the grants generated many papers and policy documents, they rarely resulted in new drugs or medical devices. The study found no approved new medicines directly tied to these grants, and only a small number of patents were granted. Most of the patents that did appear focused on managing side effects, such as treatments to restore saliva glands or prevent hearing loss, rather than curing the disease itself. Similarly, while the research informed some clinical trials, the vast majority of the grants did not lead to new treatments being tested in patients. The team also found that very few of the grants were dedicated to training the next generation of researchers in this specific field, suggesting that the workforce of survivorship experts might not be growing fast enough to meet future needs.

One of the most striking findings was the time it took for the research to make a difference. It took an average of two years for a grant to produce its first scientific paper. But the journey to policy was much longer. On average, it took seven years for a grant to be cited in a policy document, and nearly eight and a half years for it to result in a granted patent. This delay highlights that turning research into real-world change is a slow process. The researchers also noted that while the grants covered a wide variety of cancer types, they often overlooked specific groups. Research focused on children, older adults, and people living with multiple types of cancer was relatively rare. Furthermore, the topics that patients themselves said were most important, such as financial hardship and emotional distress, were not always the primary focus of the research outputs.

The study concludes that the global investment in cancer survivorship has successfully built a strong foundation of knowledge and has begun to influence how healthcare is delivered. The research has produced thousands of papers and informed hundreds of policy documents, proving that the field is active and productive. Yet, the path from a research grant to a tangible improvement in a patient's life is long and uneven. The findings suggest that while the scientific community is generating valuable evidence, more work is needed to ensure that this evidence reaches the people who need it most, and that the research priorities align more closely with the daily struggles faced by survivors. The data shows that the money is being spent, but the full potential of that spending to transform the lives of millions of survivors has not yet been fully realized.