As we mark the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 60th anniversary, this is an opportunity to reflect on our contribution to cancer evidence and action. Global cancer incidence continues to rise, with the largest proportional increases projected in countries that are the least equipped to respond. However, the central challenge is no longer only to produce evidence, but to understand why evidence is translated into policy and practice in some settings more effectively than in others. Drawing on the International Agency for Research on Cancer Impact in Practice series-30 country reports co-produced with national partners across IARC participating states-we examine how shared international cancer science influences policy and practice in national settings. Four recurrent pathways help explain that translation: (1) independent assessment that makes evidence usable under contestation; (2) surveillance that makes burden actionable; (3) sustained technical support that builds durable institutional capacity; and (4) co-governance through which countries can help to shape the science that they later apply. Across countries, IARC evidence is widely available and frequently cited, but citation alone does not ensure use. What determines whether evidence becomes embedded in policy and implementation is an enabling layer of registries, training platforms, expert participation, and governance relationships. This enabling layer is cumulative, slow to build, and most fragile in settings where the dependence on shared infrastructure is greatest. For IARC's next phase, we identify three priorities: (1) securing predictable, multiyear support for the shared scientific functions that participating states collectively rely upon; (2) evaluating the IARC medium-term strategy 2026-30 not only by output, but also by the extent to which evidence is translated into and embedded within national policy and practice; and (3) broadening meaningful participation in IARC's scientific and governance processes, so that a wide range of countries can help to shape the science they rely upon. Without renewed investment in that enabling layer, the risk is not abrupt failure but gradual erosion of the conditions that allow evidence to become action.

Despite the strong evidence of prevention as a prime defence against the disease, the majority of cancer research investment continues to be made in basic science and clinical translational research. Little quantitative data is available to guide decisions on the choice of research priorities or the allocation of research resources. The primary aim of the mapping of the European cancer prevention research landscape presented in this paper is to provide the evidence-base to inform future investments in cancer research. Using bibliometric data to identify funders that are active in prevention research in Europe and in the world, we have identified that 14% of cancer research papers had a focus on prevention research and those were funded by 16% of all the European cancer research funders. An important finding of our study is the lack of research on primary prevention with primary prevention funders accounting for 25% of European cancer prevention funders, meaning that less than 4% of all European cancer research funders identified show an interest in primary prevention. An additional analysis revealed that 7% of European cancer prevention research papers are categorised as implementation projects, meaning that only 1% of all cancer research publications are implementation research in cancer prevention. This paper highlights that the narrow focus on biology and treatment in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as primary prevention and secondary prevention and a larger concentration on implementation research. These data can help support a more policy-focused cancer research agenda for individual European governments and charitable and philanthropic organisations and stimulate joining efforts across Europe to create a more systematic and structured approach to cancer prevention.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

BACKGROUND:Global investment in research on noncommunicable diseases is on the rise. Cancer as primus inter pares draws particular interest from a wide spectrum of research funders. Next to the private, governmental, and academic sectors, philanthropy has carved out a sizeable area in the funding landscape over the last 25 years. Previous reports describing cancer research funding have looked at the volume of investment in cancer research but have paid little attention to building strategic intelligence on funders. Moreover, these efforts have focused primarily on well-resourced organizations, neglecting a large number of players with less-developed finances. METHODS:In this article, we combined gnostic data acquisition with agnostic bibliometrics to establish a comprehensive map of the global cancer research funding landscape. The analysis of funding acknowledgments from cancer research papers used in this exercise is a "bottom-up" method that provides a broader perspective on the variety of actors involved. It does not rely on a priori knowledge, nor does it require funders' support for access to the data. RESULTS:Using this approach, we have identified a total of 4693 organizations from 107 countries engaged in funding cancer research today. CONCLUSIONS:This is the largest mapping exercise performed to date and should serve as a knowledge base for future analyses and comparisons aimed at understanding the dynamics and priorities of global cancer research funding.