Health
Precision prevention: how to take the next step in preventing cancer – Cancer Research UK
Over recent years the number of clinician academics in the UK has declined. Even beyond precision prevention, working to reverse this trend (by, for example, giving more doctors the opportunities to take part in research) will help ensure that NHS patients continue to have access to the most cutting-edge technologies and that the UK remains at the forefront of life sciences research. Government funders supporting more clinician academics to step into precision prevention is therefore doubly beneficial.
“Precision prevention is really exciting,” says Blagden. “You’re developing interventions that you can see changing people’s futures. Clinician academics are in danger of extinction, but precision prevention research could rescue the discipline.”
Creating the right conditions: research funding and regulation
But the next generation of precision prevention researchers can’t drive forward progress in disease prevention if the wider research environment is against them.
Again, that starts with funding. When funders prioritise certain research types in their funding strategies, or offer funding in specific areas, they help spark new research ideas, leading to more potential projects.
“You can see what a difference the Cancer Research UK push towards biology-based prevention has made to applications,” Brown says. “Ultimately people will go where the funding is – we need more funding from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).”
These government research funders are particularly key because their resources and reach can help embed precision prevention work in the UK research environment, giving it the chance to grow sustainably.
Still, on its own, research funding doesn’t translate directly to cancers prevented. The UK’s health regulators also need to adapt to make sure they’re prepared to support a new era of prevention research.
Our researchers highlighted that the processes and standards of bodies like the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA) are generally geared towards treatment. This creates barriers for all types of prevention research, but they’re especially acute in precision prevention studies. These trials can be especially complex to set up, and because the field is new, regulators might not be familiar with the nature of the studies and the patients involved.
Currently, the MHRA assesses issues around designing and delivering precision prevention studies on a case-by-case basis. Blagden explains that this means researchers have to play a “guessing game” before launching a study. “You have to go back and forth to MHRA to understand how to build the trial to generate the right evidence, so there’s no consistency,” she says.
We’re calling on the MHRA to engage with research funders, academics, and experts to develop guidance around precision prevention trial design that could put a stop to the guesswork and unblock research. Researchers also need to be given a direct line of communication with assessors at MHRA so they can seek advice on how best to develop their precision prevention research projects.
The MHRA’s Innovative Licencing and Access Pathway (ILAP) for new medicines shows how it can offer joined-up, consistent support for research teams. Now it’s time to apply that thinking to precision prevention studies, too.
“Something similar to the ILAP for precision prevention – a joined-up committee which sits at the start of the project and follows it through to offer that support – would be fantastic,” says Blagden.
Creating the right conditions to accelerate the growth of this novel field would pave the way to a future where disease prevention is more precise and impactful, and where fewer people hear the words “You have cancer”.
