Priority-Setting Data: Innovation Program Goal DRAFT 10/03/14 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Priority-Setting Data: Innovation Program Goal DRAFT 10/03/14

Overview of 2015 Priority-Setting Process

• 1. Review the CBCRP mission statement and reaffirm the

program’s foundation of long-term outcomes.

• 2. Review and revise the priority criteria and generate data

collection questions.

• 3. Gather and analyze pertinent data as indicated by

the priority criteria and data collection questions.

• 4. Identify and make decisions on long-term (5 years) priorities

through a data-driven, group decision-making process.

• 5. Incorporate priority decisions into CBCRP operational plans

and award cycles.

Timeline for the 2015 Priority-Setting Process

6/13 10/13 1/14 4/14 6/14 9/14 12/14 3/15 Responsive X Translation X Capacity Building X Public Health Outcomes X Disparities X California Specific X

Innovation X Policy X

Non-Duplicative X

Collaboration

X Decision-making Retreat X

Program Goal

• Program Goal for Innovation: Fund

innovative research (e.g., new drugs, new strategies, new paradigms, new technologies, new applications of tested strategies in new populations and contexts).

Information Questions

Question 1. How does CBCRP currently support innovation? Question 2. How do other breast cancer research funders support innovation? Question 3. Should the CBCRP increase the award cap and/or duration for IDEAs? Question 4. How many IDEA grantees have produced publications resulting from their awards? Question 5.How many IDEA grantees have been able to leverage additional research funds based (at least partially)

• n their work resulting from their IDEA?

CBCRP SUPPORT OF INNOVATION

Question 1:

Innovative, Exploratory, Developmental Awards (IDEAs)

• $100K or $150K
• 18 months
• Invested over $37M
• 228 IDEAs since 1995
• Review Process

– LOIs reviewed by Council – Reviewers selected with support of innovation in mind – Individual component scores

Community Impact, 17, 7% Etiology and Prevention, 45, 19% Detection, Prognosis and Treatment, 88, 38% Biology of the Breast Cell, 84, 36%

Priority Area Distribution of Funded IDEAs Cycles 1-19

Other CBCRP Support for Innovation

• Special Research Initiatives(SRI)/California

Breast Cancer Prevention Initiatives(CBCPI)

– Innovative approach to funding – Input from a wide variety of stakeholders – Flexibility in mechanism and timing – Able to fund projects that would not have previously “fit” in CBCRP grant mechanisms

• larger grants to cohorts e.g. Teacher’s Study and 3G’s

OTHER BREAST CANCER FUNDER SUPPORT OF INNOVATION

Question 2:

Other Funder Support for Innovation

• None of the programs most similar to CBCRP fund small

innovation awards that do not require pilot data.

• Other awards supporting innovation –large awards requiring pilot

data.

– NIH: Pioneer, New Innovator, Transformative Research Award, and Early Independence Award. – ACS: Pilot and Exploratory Projects in Palliative Care of Cancer Patients and their Families – AHA: National Innovation Award – CDMRP: Innovator Award, Breakthrough Award – Damon Runyon Cancer Research: Innovation Award.

• Two strategies to funding innovation:

– funding innovative proposals vs. funding innovative researchers.

INCREASE AMOUNT AND/OR DURATION OF IDEA?

Question 3:

Increase IDEA Amount and/or Duration?

• Reviewers become more risk averse as the

amount of the grant increases.

• Increasing award amounts would impact the

number of IDEAs the Program can fund.

• Council felt the current award amounts are

adequate to meet the goals of the IDEA mechanism.

PUBLICATIONS PRODUCED BY IDEA GRANTEES

Question 4:

2013 Survey of CBCRP Investigators

• 35 IDEAs/33 PIs from cycles 14-16 eligible for survey

Response rate:

– 15 grants (43%) awarded to 13 PIs (40%)

• 10/13 PIs (77%) responding to the survey published at

least one paper

• Total number of citations to date (via Google Scholar)

– 385. – Range of citations: 0-112

GRANTS LEVERAGED BY IDEA GRANTEES

Question 5:

Leverage Additional Funds?

• 5/13 respondents (39%) leveraged at least one

grant

– $3,369,425 total leveraged including 2 RO1s – $650,000 total pending grants

Case Study– Most Impactful

PI: Shizhen Emily Wang , Ph.D. from the Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope

• Received two IDEAs—one each in Cycles 16 and 17

– 1. Breast Cancer Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response with miRNA – 2. Breast Cancer-secreted MicroRNAs in the Pre-metastatic Niche

• Published 3 papers in the following journals: Molecular Cancer Research,

Oncogene, Journal of Translational Medicine

• Leveraged an RO1 grant for $1,743,000
• Impact on Field: This grant led to a more general acceptance on the use of

microRNA as new biomarkers for breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

• Impact on Career: I received an R01 grant from NIH/NCI because of the

CBCRP grants. I also have greater standing and access to people in my community than I did before.

Conclusions (DRAFT)

• The most significant way that CBCRP supports innovative

research is through the IDEA mechanism.

– To date, the Program has invested over $37million for 228 IDEAs which comprises almost ¼ of all grants funded to date and 16%

• f all funds invested.
• The Program also supports innovation through steps in the

review process, which aim to ensure that truly innovative proposals are given full consideration.

• The set-aside funding—SRI/CBCPI—is an innovative

approach to funding breast cancer research and has enabled the Program to fund innovative research that was not possible prior to the Council deciding to set-aside funds for program directed research.

Conclusions (DRAFT)

• Program experience regarding the review process as

well as expertise of the Council members does not support increasing the IDEA amount or duration at this

• time. In addition, increasing the award amount would

significantly decrease the number of IDEAs the Program can fund in any given year.

• A sub-sample analysis of IDEA grantees revealed that

IDEA investigators have produced publications (77% published at least one paper) and some have leveraged significant grants to continue their work (including 2 RO1s).

Recommendations

1. Continue funding IDEAs for $100K or $150K (animal and human participants) with an 18-month duration. 1. Add a formal step to the programmatic review again to ensure the Program is not passing up funding to the most promising proposals.

– At programmatic review, conduct a final review examine the grants with the highest component scores for each award type (e.g. Innovation for IDEAs, Translational Potential for Translation, and Partnership for CRCs). – If there are any grants NOT selected for funding that have the highest relevant component score, consider those grants again.

2. Request updated publication and grant leverage information from grantees who apply for new grants. 1. Continue efforts to develop standard evaluation metrics and data collection for all CBCRP grants. 1. Continue the SRI/CBCPI set-aside, which is an innovative approach to research funding.