Cancer Funding Disparity | High Mortality Rates
- A recent analysis has revealed meaningful disparities in how cancer research is funded, with some of the deadliest cancers receiving disproportionately less support.The study, presented at the ASCO...
- Dr.Kamath, who led the research, assessed funding disparities based on cancer incidence, mortality rates and impact on racial groups.
- The study found that breast cancer research received the most funding, totaling $8.36 billion, followed by lung cancer ($3.83 billion) and prostate cancer ($3.61 billion).
A new study reveals stark disparities in cancer research funding, directly impacting mortality rates. Teh findings demonstrate that while breast cancer receives significant funding, other lethal cancers, like those affecting the liver and uterine areas, are drastically underfunded. This discrepancy, analyzed in detail by News Directory 3, highlights how current funding models may not align with the severity of the diseases or their impact on diverse populations. Examine how lobbying and advocacy influence funding decisions, and the critical correlation between financial support and availability of clinical trials. Discover what’s next in the fight against underfunded cancers.
Study Exposes Disparities in Cancer Research Funding
Updated June 1, 2025
A recent analysis has revealed meaningful disparities in how cancer research is funded, with some of the deadliest cancers receiving disproportionately less support.The study, presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting, examined funding allocations from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP).
Dr.Kamath, who led the research, assessed funding disparities based on cancer incidence, mortality rates and impact on racial groups. He also explored the link between underfunding and the availability of clinical trials. The analysis included cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma.
The study found that breast cancer research received the most funding, totaling $8.36 billion, followed by lung cancer ($3.83 billion) and prostate cancer ($3.61 billion). In contrast, uterine cancer ($435 million), cervical cancer ($1.12 billion) and hepatobiliary cancer ($1.13 billion) received the least.
While cancer-specific funding correlated with incidence (0.85 Pearson correlation coefficient),the alignment with mortality was weaker (0.36 Pearson correlation coefficient). Breast, cervical and ovarian cancers, along with leukemia and lymphoma, were consistently well-funded relative to incidence and mortality. However, colorectal, liver, lung and uterine cancers appeared consistently underfunded.
Kamath noted the disproportionate underfunding of cancers with higher incidence among Black individuals and emphasized the need for more equitable research funding policies to support research into the most lethal cancers.
According to Kamath, current funding decisions are influenced by lobbying and advocacy efforts rather than a rational assessment of need. He suggests developing a scoring system or algorithm that considers factors such as incidence, mortality, costs and impact on specific populations to guide funding decisions.
The study also revealed a strong correlation between funding and the number of clinical trials available for a specific cancer type (0.76 Pearson correlation coefficient).
Kamath characterized that finding as “a little surprising” given federal money typically funds a greater proportion of basic science research.
“I knew the [breast cancer funding total] would be big, but I didn’t expect it to be almost a billion dollars every year,” Kamath said. “I didn’t expect the next-closest cancer type would be so much further down. I also was surprised to see how many vrey common and highly lethal diseases — like colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver tumors and uterine cancer — get very little funding.”
“Right now, we have a lobbying- and advocacy-based way of choosing where federal dollars go. It’s about who came to Capitol Hill, how often they come, or how much they bother their senators or members of Congress,” Kamath said. “That’s not a rational way to choose where our funding allocation go. Now that the pool of money is dwindling, we need to be smarter about where those dollars go.”
“I don’t care about any particular tumor type, and nobody else should,” Kamath said. “It should be about which ones affect the most people and cause the most deaths. The funding cuts we’re facing now, for better or worse, are designed to improve efficiency. They’re not really achieving that but, if we had a score of some type, we actually could do more with less dollars because they’d be going to the right places.”
“A lot of the pathways that are identified and become drug targets for [industry-supported trials] later on are found in federally funded labs and universities,” Kamath said. “The targets that drug companies will get us in 2040 and 2050 really will come from federally funded research that happens in labs today.If we don’t have that pipeline,we’re not going to get those results.”
What’s next
The findings suggest a need to re-evaluate cancer research funding allocation to ensure resources are directed toward the most lethal cancers and those disproportionately affecting specific populations.A more rational, data-driven approach could lead to more effective research and improved outcomes.