02940nas a2200325   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260000900043653002400052653002500076653001100101653004100112653001400153653003000167653001800197100002700215700002000242700002200262700002000284700001700304700002400321700002000345700002800365700002100393245012000414300001300534490000700547520204600554022001402600       2021                            d  c202110aBiomedical Research10aFinancing, Organized10aHumans10aNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)10aNeoplasms10aResearch Support as Topic10aUnited States1 aMarissa M. Shams-White1 aRolando Barajas1 aRoxanne E. Jensen1 aMelissa Rotunno1 aHannah Dueck1 aElizabeth M. Ginexi1 aScott D. Rogers1 aElizabeth M. Gillanders1 aLeah E. Mechanic00aSystems epidemiology and cancer: A review of the National Institutes of Health extramural grant portfolio 2013-2018  ae02500610 v163 aOBJECTIVES: 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.  a1932-6203