Latest news with #NCI
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Actress reveals how cancer test that saved her life led to surprising family discovery
Olivia Munn, who previously claimed that a breast cancer risk assessment test saved her life, announced on social media this week that it also saved her mother's life. "My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer," the actress, 45, wrote in her caption. "You may know that when I talk about my own battle with cancer, I bring up the Lifetime Risk Assessment test that saved my life. I never would've predicted it would save my mom's life as well." Cancer Could Be Detected Three Years Before Diagnosis With Experimental Blood Test While there are several risk assessment tools available to patients and physicians, the breast cancer risk assessment tool (BCRAT) is one of the most common, Fox News Digital previously reported. The BCRAT is based on a statistical model known as the Gail Model. Read On The Fox News App It's named after Dr. Mitchell Gail, an NIH distinguished investigator at the National Cancer Institute, according to a National Cancer Institute (NCI) spokesperson. Fda Approves First Ai Tool To Predict Breast Cancer Risk The five-minute test helps predict a woman's risk of developing invasive breast cancer within the next five years, and up to 90 years of age, according to the NCI. Just one year ago, Munn credited the test with prompting her to get a biopsy – even after mammograms and genetic testing came back negative. The biopsy showed she had Luminal B cancer in both breasts. Luminal B is an aggressive, fast-moving cancer. The BCRAT calculates a woman's "absolute breast cancer risk." Cancer Report Reveals Surprising New Data On Deaths, Diagnoses On its website, the organization defines this as the "chance or probability of developing invasive breast cancer in a defined age interval." The risk calculator considers factors including age, race, medical history and reproductive history. It also looks at the family history of breast cancer among relatives like mothers, sisters and daughters. Once the information is calculated, users are provided with a score. Fox News Digital previously reported that a five-year risk score of 1.67% or more is considered high-risk. A healthcare provider may recommend certain medications to decrease the chances of developing cancer, according to Cleveland Clinic's website. For more Health articles, visit Dr. Nicole Saphier, M.D., board-certified breast imaging radiologist and associate professor at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, recommends individual risk assessments to her referring clinicians and patients. "Olivia Munn's doctor may have saved her life by doing so," Saphier previously said in a statement to Fox News Digital when news of Munn's diagnosis first broke in 2024. "While a standard mammogram is sufficient for nearly half of all women, many others will benefit from adding an ultrasound or MRI based on breast density and various other factors that may make someone [a] higher risk [candidate]." Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter Less than 5% of all women diagnosed with breast cancer will have cancer in the contralateral (opposite) breast, according to Saphier. "Olivia Munn was one of those rare cases," she article source: Actress reveals how cancer test that saved her life led to surprising family discovery
Business Wire
13 hours ago
- Business
- Business Wire
First Patient Enrolled in National Cancer Institute's Vanguard Study Evaluating Guardant Health's Shield Multi-Cancer Detection Test
PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Guardant Health, Inc. (Nasdaq: GH), a leading precision oncology company, today announced that patient enrollment has begun in the National Cancer Institute (NCI)'s Vanguard Study to evaluate emerging multi-cancer detection (MCD) technology. Guardant's Shield™ MCD test was selected for use in the four-year study, which aims to enroll up to 24,000 patients and evaluate the use of MCD tests—blood tests that can screen for several types of cancer simultaneously—in future randomized controlled trials. Guardant's Shield MCD test was chosen for the study based on the overall performance of its Shield platform in detecting 10 cancer types, including lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, bladder, ovarian, pancreatic, esophageal, liver and gastric. The data were presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago. The Vanguard study was initiated following review and approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of the NCI's submission for an investigational device exemption (IDE). 'New screening technology like the Shield MCD test has the potential to detect multiple cancers earlier through a simple blood draw,' said Craig Eagle, MD, Guardant Health Global Chief Medical Officer. 'The earlier we can screen and diagnose cancers, the more options we can bring to patients and ultimately the more lives we can save. The Vanguard Study is a critical step in research to evaluate the role of this breakthrough technology in helping reduce cancer deaths.' The Vanguard Study, conducted by the Cancer Screening Research, a new NCI-sponsored clinical trials network, is enrolling individuals ages 45-75 who do not currently have cancer and who have not received a cancer diagnosis in the past five years. All participants will be offered standard cancer screenings as part of their care. Results from the study will inform the design of a much larger randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of MCD tests for cancer screening. 'Initiation of the Vanguard Study is an exciting milestone, as we look to evaluate a new way to screen for cancer,' said Scott Ramsey, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and principal investigator for the Vanguard Study. 'The study will help us learn more about multi-cancer detection tests and assess whether they can help people from all backgrounds find cancer early, when it may be easier to treat.' The Shield MCD test recently received Breakthrough Device Designation from the FDA for the multi-cancer screening of multiple cancer types including bladder, colorectal, esophageal, gastric, liver, lung, ovarian and pancreas cancer in individuals aged 45 or older who are at typical average risk for cancer. The FDA grants Breakthrough Device designation to a limited set of qualifying devices that have the potential to provide more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, than current options. The goal of the FDA's Breakthrough Devices Program is to provide patients and healthcare providers with timely access to medical devices by speeding up their development, assessment and review. For more information, please visit the Fred Hutch Cancer Center Vanguard Study website. About Guardant Health Guardant Health is a leading precision oncology company focused on guarding wellness and giving every person more time free from cancer. Founded in 2012, Guardant is transforming patient care and accelerating new cancer therapies by providing critical insights into what drives disease through its advanced blood and tissue tests, real-world data and AI analytics. Guardant tests help improve outcomes across all stages of care, including screening to find cancer early, monitoring for recurrence in early-stage cancer, and treatment selection for patients with advanced cancer. For more information, visit and follow the company on LinkedIn, X (Twitter) and Facebook. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of federal securities laws, including statements regarding the potential utilities, values, benefits and advantages of Guardant Health's liquid biopsy tests or assays, which involve risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially from the anticipated results and expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations, forecasts and assumptions, and actual outcomes and results could differ materially from these statements due to a number of factors. These and additional risks and uncertainties that could affect Guardant Health's financial and operating results and cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements made in this press release include those discussed under the captions 'Risk Factors' and 'Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation' and elsewhere in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, and in its other reports filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission thereafter. The forward-looking statements in this press release are based on information available to Guardant Health as of the date hereof, and Guardant Health disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements provided to reflect any change in its expectations or any change in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statement is based, except as required by law. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing Guardant Health's views as of any date subsequent to the date of this press release.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Cancer experts alarmed over ‘gut-wrenching' Trump plan to cut research spending by billions
More patients may die as a result of plans drawn up by the Trump administration to cut billions of dollars from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), veteran federal government workers and experts have warned. Nearly $2.7bn would be cut from the agency, which is the largest funder of cancer research in the world – a decline of 37.2% from the previous year – under a budget proposal for 2026, in the latest effort to cut staff and funding. 'These cuts are absolutely gut wrenching,' Erin Lavik, former deputy director and chief technology officer at the NCI's division of cancer prevention, told the Guardian. Lavik was fired along with a swath of probationary workers at the institute in February; put on administrative leave in response to a judge's ruling to halt the firings in March; and then terminated again in April. 'We're not making things more efficient or better,' she said. 'What's being left is sort of the non-impactful iterative work, and we're pruning all of the potential for transformative science.' Related: NIH scientists go public to denounce Trump's deep cuts in health research The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network has cautioned that the proposed cuts 'will set this nation back dramatically in our ability to reduce death and suffering' and noted that cancer is expected to kill more than 618,000 Americans this year. Julie Nickson, vice-president of Federal Advocacy and Coalitions, said: 'This wouldn't just be a blow to science, it's a blow to families, communities, and our economy. Every day counts in the fight against cancer and with more than 2 million Americans expected to be diagnosed with this horrible disease in 2025 alone, now is not the time to go backwards.' Jennifer R Brown, secretary of the American Society of Hematology and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, told the Guardian that cuts under Donald Trump have 'already been devastating', with key research halted that can't easily be restarted. 'What the public needs to know is that the science that may not sound so obvious, or that they may not know that much about, is really what drives our cancer treatments and our cancer cures. And so if we cut that, we're going to lose it,' said Brown. Cancer research historically funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which houses the NCI, 'is the basic science that figures out what to target in the cancer cell', she said. 'Then a drug may be developed that may be from an academic, it may be from a pharma company, but the trials are then also run by academics and pharma in collaboration, and academics who are funded by NIH, who do the legwork to figure out how the drug is working in patients. 'Pharma companies take the drug to the finish line. And so if we don't have this basic research, we're not going to be able to identify new targets, and that means we're not going to have new therapies, and ultimately more patients may die.' Brown sees a direct link between NIH-funded academic research and cancer drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia that helped patients live longer. 'People who would have died in a few months, lived for years with the first version of this drug,' she said. Hundreds of staff have been terminated from the NCI in recent months, including dozens of communications workers. 'Our website, is used worldwide and is the ground truth for cancer information,' said one fired communications employee at the institute, who requested to remain anonymous. 'Science isn't finished until it's communicated.' Between 28 February and 8 April, more than $180m in NCI grants were cancelled by the Trump administration. NIH declined to comment, deferring to comments on the budget proposal cuts to the office of management and budget, which did not respond to requests for comment. NIH did not comment on how many employees at the agency remain after several rounds of cuts and layoffs. Related: Trump's safety research cuts heighten workplace risks, federal workers warn Lavik said the cuts are likely to threaten large-scale research programs, such as the National Community Oncology Research program, which covers community hospitals all over the US and ensures patients have access to clinical trials, cutting edge cancer care, prevention and screenings. 'I am deeply concerned about the future of these really important clinical trials programs that are really hard to rebuild if you stop them,' she said. 'In the prevention program, there are large scale screening trials, and they have large data sets. We were working really hard on policies to make those data sets more accessible and available to the research community. And we're all gone.' Drastic cuts across federal science funding is causing scientists to consider leaving science and eliminating opportunities for younger scientists to enter training pipelines as undergraduate researchers, graduate researchers and postdocs, according to Lavik. 'The things that are transformative are fundamentally high-risk, high-reward research,' she said. 'We start to move into the clinic, and that's what leads to the new kinds of treatments that don't just help a little bit, but really change the face of how we treat patients, how we prevent cancers, how we treat other conditions. 'You have to be willing to do lots and lots of things that don't work. There are so many ways we should be more efficient about what we do. But to do that, you really need those young scientists, those new people in the field; you need the people who've come into the NIH and the NCI, who are thinking differently about doing things and willing to take those big swings.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
PDS Biotechnology completes recruitment for stage one of colorectal cancer trial
PDS Biotechnology has completed subject recruitment for stage one of its open-label Phase II trial, evaluating the systemic administration of fused antibody drug conjugate (ADC) PDS01ADC in conjunction with floxuridine given via hepatic artery infusion pump for metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Spearheaded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)'s surgical oncology section chief Dr Jonathan Hernandez, the single-centre, non-randomised trial includes three cohorts of metastatic colorectal cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, and adrenocortical cancer. Each cohort leverages a Simon two-stage trial design. For the colorectal cancer cohort, the continuation to enrol up to a total of 22 subjects was contingent on at least six out of nine participants showing an objective response by response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 criteria. The trial has met the pre-set RECIST v1.1 criteria for expansion into stage two. The other two cohorts are still recruiting in stage one. The trial is part of a collaborative research and development agreement with the NCI. PDS Biotechnology noted that the ADC is composed of two interleukin-12 (IL-12) heterodimers. Each of these is fused to the NHS76 antibody, which attaches to single-stranded and double-stranded DNA and targets areas of tumour necrosis, where there is DNA exposure. PDS Biotechnology CEO and president Frank Bedu-Addo said: 'This novel investigational approach to the targeting and use of IL-12 results in little or no systemic exposure to IL-12, and may allow patients to reap the benefits of cytokine therapy without the typical treatment-limiting toxicities. 'We are delighted that the NCI has achieved this milestone and anticipate completion of patient recruitment for the metastatic colorectal cancer cohort of the study by the fourth quarter of 2025.' The company is also commencing a pivotal trial to progress its lead programme in advanced human papillomavirus (HPV)16-positive head and neck squamous cell cancers. Versamune HPV, the company's lead investigational targeted immunotherapy, is under development in conjunction with a standard-of-care immune checkpoint inhibitor and in a triple combo that includes PDS01ADC. "PDS Biotechnology completes recruitment for stage one of colorectal cancer trial" was originally created and published by Clinical Trials Arena, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
6 days ago
- Health
- San Francisco Chronicle
World's premier cancer institute faces crippling cuts and chaos under Trump administration
The Trump administration's broadsides against scientific research have caused unprecedented upheaval at the National Cancer Institute, the storied federal government research hub that has spearheaded advances against the disease for decades. NCI, which has long benefited from enthusiastic bipartisan support, now faces an exodus of clinicians, scientists, and other staffers — some fired, others leaving in exasperation. After years of accelerating progress that has reduced cancer deaths by a third since the 1990s, the institute has terminated funds nationwide for research to fight the disease, expand care and train new oncologists. 'We use the word 'drone attack' now regularly,' one worker said of grant terminations. 'It just happens from above.' The assault could well result in a perceptible slowing of progress in the fight against cancer. Nearly 2 million Americans are diagnosed with malignancies every year. In 2023, cancer killed more than 613,000 people, making it the second-leading cause of death after heart disease. But the cancer fight has also made enormous progress. Cancer mortality in the U.S. has fallen by 34% since 1991, according to the American Cancer Society. There are roughly 18 million cancer survivors in the country. That trend 'we can very, very closely tie to the enhanced investment in cancer science by the U.S. government,' said Karen Knudsen, CEO of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy and a globally recognized expert on prostate cancer. 'We're winning,' Knudsen said. 'Why we would let up, I really don't understand.' 'It's horrible. It's a crap show. It really, really is,' said an NCI laboratory chief who has worked at the institute for three decades. He's lost six of the 30 people in his lab this year: four scientists, a secretary, and an administrator. 'If we survive I will be somewhat surprised,' he said. After a mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Government Efficiency to slash contract spending by more than a third, the cancer institute is cutting contracts to maintain precious biological specimens used in its research, according to three scientists. 'The required contract cuts are going to be devastating,' a senior scientist said. On the NCI campus in Bethesda, Maryland, scientists describe delays in getting essential supplies — 'literally anything that goes into a test tube or a petri dish,' a recently departed clinician said — because of staffing cuts and constant changes in policies about what they can order. Even the websites that publish new evidence on cancer treatment and diagnosis aren't being updated, because HHS fired workers who managed them. And when NCI scientists do communicate with outsiders, what they say has been severely restricted, according to documents viewed by KFF Health News. Forbidden topics include mass firings, President Donald Trump's executive orders, and 'DEIA' – diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The turmoil at the National Institutes of Health's largest arm could haunt the country and the world for years to come. 'I really, really don't understand what they're trying to achieve,' said Sarah Kobrin, chief of NCI's health systems and interventions research branch. 'It just doesn't make sense.' 'Efforts that are lifesaving now are being curtailed,' one scientist said. 'People will die.' Years of bipartisan support Initially, some workers said, they thought the cancer institute might be spared. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called chronic disease — cancer is one — ' an existential threat ' to the country. Cancer research, with multiple NCI-funded breakthroughs in genetics and immunotherapy, has sidestepped the political minefields around other public health issues, like vaccination. 'People who care about cancer might be the biggest lobby in the country,' said Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter, which has monitored oncology science and policy since 1973. Count Mike Etchamendy, 69, of Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County as part of that lobby. Since 2013 he's flown to the East Coast scores of times to participate in five clinical trials at the cancer wing of NIH's Clinical Center. 'They call it the House of Hope,' Etchamendy said. Between drugs, therapeutic vaccines, and expert treatment for his rare bone cancer, called chordoma, he said, he believes he's gained at least 10 years of life. He's proud to have served as a 'lab rat for science' and worries about NCI's future. 'People come from all over the world to learn there,' Etchamendy said. 'You cut funding there, you're going to cut major research on cancer.' In response to a list of detailed questions from KFF Health News about the cuts and chaos at NCI, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the reporting amounted to a 'biased narrative' that 'misrepresents a necessary transformation at the National Cancer Institute.' Nixon declined to elaborate but said research into cancer and other health conditions continues to be a high priority 'for both NIH and HHS.' 'We are refocusing resources on high-impact, evidence-based research — free from ideological bias or institutional complacency. While change can be uncomfortable for those invested in the status quo, it is essential to ensure that NCI delivers on its core mission,' he said. Much of NCI's work is authorized by the National Cancer Act of 1971, which expanded its mandate as part of President Richard Nixon's 'War on Cancer.' Three of four of the cancer institute's research dollars go to outside scientists, with most of the remainder funding more than 300 scientists on campus. And Congress was generous. Harold Varmus, one of more than 40 Nobel laureates whose work was funded by NCI, said budgets were usually handsome when he was NIH director from 1993 through 1999. President Bill Clinton 'would say to me, 'I'd like to give you a bigger increase, Harold, but your friends in Congress will bring it up.' He'd offer me a 5% increase,' Varmus recalled, but 'I'd end up getting more like 10%' from Congress. Congress appropriated $2 billion to NCI in fiscal 1993. By 2025, funding had risen to $7.22 billion. 'Scrubbing of science' During a May 19 town hall meeting with NIH staff members, Jay Bhattacharya, the institute's new director, equivocated when asked about funding cuts for research into improving the health of racial and ethnic minorities — cuts made under the guise of purging DEI from the government. According to a recording of the meeting obtained by KFF Health News, Bhattacharya said the agency remained 'absolutely committed to advancing the health and well-being of every population, including minority populations, LGBTQ populations, and every population.' Research addressing the health needs of women and minorities is 'an absolute priority of mine,' he said. 'We're going to keep funding that.' But a study considering whether 'structural racism causes poor health in minority populations' is 'not a scientific hypothesis.' 'We need scientific ideas that are actionable, that improve the health and well-being of people, not ideological ideas that don't have any chance of improving the health and well-being of people,' he said. That comment angered many staffers, several said in interviews. Many got up and walked out during the speech, while others, watching remotely, scoffed or jeered. Several current and former NCI scientists questioned Bhattacharya's commitment to young scientists and minorities. Staffing cuts early in the year eliminated many recently hired NCI scientists. At least 172 National Cancer Institute grants, including for research aimed at minimizing health disparities among racial minorities or LGBTQ+ people, were terminated and hadn't been reinstated as of June 16, according to a KFF Health News analysis of HHS documents and a list of grant terminations by outside researchers. Those populations have higher rates of certain cancer diagnoses and are more likely to receive diagnoses later than white or heterosexual people. Black people are also more likely to die of many cancer types than all other racial and ethnic groups. Jennifer Guida, a researcher who focuses on accelerated aging in cancer survivors, said she recently left NCI after a decade in part because of the administration's DEI orders. According to several workers and internal emails viewed by KFF Health News, those included an HHS edict in January to report their colleagues who worked on such issues, and flagging grants that included DEI-related terms because they didn't align with Trump's priorities. 'I'm not going to put my name attached to that. I don't stand for that. It's not OK,' said Guida, who added that it amounted to a 'scrubbing of science.' Racial discrimination is one factor that contributes to accelerated aging. 'There are a growing number of cancer survivors in the U.S.,' Guida said, and 'a significant number of those people who will become cancer survivors are racial and ethnic minorities.' 'Those people deserve to be studied,' she said. 'How can you help those people if you're not even studying them?' In May, NCI informed leaders of the Comprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity, a program that links 14 large U.S. cancer centers with minority-serving colleges and universities, that their funding would be cut. The project's Notice of Funding Opportunity — the mechanism the government uses to award grants — had been suddenly taken offline, meaning NCI staffers couldn't award future funding, according to three sources and internal communications viewed by KFF Health News. These 'unpublishings' have often occurred without warning, explanation, or even notification of the grantee that no more money would be coming. The cancer partnerships have trained more than 8,500 scientists. They're designed to address widely documented disparities in cancer care by having top medical schools place students from rural, poor, and minority-serving schools and community clinics in research, training, and outreach. Research shows that patients from racial and ethnic minorities receive better medical care and have improved outcomes when their clinicians share their background. 'I'm from an immigrant family, the first to graduate in my family,' said Elena Martinez, a professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California-San Diego, who leads one of the partnerships with colleagues at largely Hispanic Cal State-San Diego. 'I wouldn't be here without this kind of program, and there won't be people like me here in the future if we cut these programs.' Silencing the science communicators In early April, when the dust settled after mass firings across HHS, workers in NCI's communications office were relieved they still had their jobs. It didn't last. A month later, HHS fired nearly all of them, three former workers said. Combined with retirements and other departures, a skeleton crew of six or seven remain of about 75 people. 'We were all completely blindsided,' a fired worker said. NCI leadership 'had no idea that this was happening.' As a result, websites, newsletters, and other resources for patients and doctors about the latest evidence in cancer treatment aren't being updated. They include and NCI's widely used Physician Data Query, which compile research findings that doctors turn to when caring for cancer patients. Gary Kreps, founding director of the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University, said he relied on Physician Data Query when his father was diagnosed with advanced stomach cancer, taking PDQ printouts when he met with his dad's doctors. 'It made a huge difference,' Kreps said. 'He ended up living, like, another three years' — longer than expected — 'and enjoyed the rest of his life.' As of May 30, banners at the top of the and PDQ websites said, 'Due to HHS restructuring and reduction in workforce efforts, the information on this website may not be up to date and pages will indicate as such.' The banners are gone, but neither website was being updated, according to a fired worker with knowledge of the situation. Outdated PDQ information is 'really very dangerous,' Kreps said. Wiping out NCI's communications staff makes it harder to share complex and ever-changing information that doctors and patients need, said Peter Garrett, who headed NCI's communications before retiring in May. Garrett said he left because of concerns about political interference. 'The science isn't finished until it's communicated,' he said. 'Without the government playing that role, who's going to step in?' A budget to 'destroy clinical research' Following court decisions that blocked some NIH grant cancellations or rendered them 'void' and 'illegal,' NIH official Michelle Bulls in late June told staffers to stop terminating grants. However, NCI workers told KFF Health News they continue to review grants flagged by NIH to assess whether they align with Trump administration priorities. Courts have ordered NIH to reinstate some terminated grants, but not all of them. At NCI and across NIH, staffers remain anxious. The White House wants Congress to slash the cancer institute's budget by nearly 40%, to $4.53 billion, as part of a larger proposal to sharply reduce NIH's fiscal 2026 coffers. Bhattacharya has said he wants NIH to fund more big, breakthrough research. Major cuts could have the opposite effect, Knudsen said. When NCI funding shrinks, 'it's the safe science that tends to get funded, not the science that is game changing and has the potential to be transformative for cures.' Usually the president's budget is dead on arrival in Congress, and members of both parties have expressed doubt about Trump's 2026 proposal. But agency workers, outside scientists, and patients fear this one may stick, with devastating impact. It would force NCI to suspend all new grants or cut existing grants so severely that the gaps will close many labs, said Varmus, who ran NCI from 2010 to 2015. Add that to the impact on NCI's contracts, clinical trials, internal research, and salaries, he said, and 'you can reliably say that NCI will be unable to keep up in any way with the promise of science that's currently underway.' The NCI laboratory chief, who has worked at the institute for decades, put it this way: 'If the 40% budget cut passes in Congress, it will destroy clinical research at NCI.'
