Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations

From the creation of the European research area in 2000 to a Mission on cancer in Europe in 2021-lessons learned and implications

In the year 2000, cancer research in Europe had the potential to make a difference as it had several unique strengths, such as a strong foundation in biomedical science, good patient registries, infrastructures that spanned from biological repositories to bioinformatic hubs as well as thriving Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) and basic/preclinical cancer research institutions of high international standing. Research, however, was fragmented and lacked coordination. As a result, Europe could not harness its potential for translating basic research discoveries into a clinical setting for the patients' benefit. What was needed was a paradigm shift in cancer research that addressed the translational research continuum. Along these lines, in 2000, European Union (EU) Commissioner Philippe Busquin established the European Research Area (ERA) and in 2002 the European Cancer Research Area (ECRA), and their political approval was a powerful catalyst for the increased involvement of scientists in science policy in the EU. In this report, we briefly describe the actions embraced by the cancer community and cancer organizations in response to Busquin's proposals that led to the creation of the EU Mission on Cancer (MoC) in Horizon 2020 in 2021.

Strategies to decrease inequalities in cancer therapeutics, care and prevention: Proceedings on a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the European Academy of Cancer Sciences, Vatican City, February 23-24, 2023

Analyses of inequalities related to prevention and cancer therapeutics/care show disparities between countries with different economic standing, and within countries with high Gross Domestic Product. The development of basic technological and biological research provides clinical and prevention opportunities that make their implementation into healthcare systems more complex, mainly due to the growth of Personalized/Precision Cancer Medicine (PCM). Initiatives like the USA-Cancer Moonshot and the EU-Mission on Cancer and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan are initiated to boost cancer prevention and therapeutics/care innovation and to mitigate present inequalities. The conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the European Academy of Cancer Sciences discussed the inequality problem, dependent on the economic status of a country, the increasing demands for infrastructure supportive of innovative research and its implementation in healthcare and prevention programs. Establishing translational research defined as a coherent cancer research continuum is still a challenge. Research has to cover the entire continuum from basic to outcomes research for clinical and prevention modalities. Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) are of critical importance for integrating research innovations to preclinical and clinical research, as for ensuring state-of-the-art patient care within healthcare systems. International collaborative networks between CCCs are necessary to reach the critical mass of infrastructures and patients for PCM research, and for introducing prevention modalities and new treatments effectively. Outcomes and health economics research are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of new interventions, currently a missing element in the research portfolio. Data sharing and critical mass are essential for innovative research to develop PCM. Despite advances in cancer research, cancer incidence and prevalence is growing. Making cancer research infrastructures accessible for all patients, considering the increasing inequalities, requires science policy actions incentivizing research aimed at prevention and cancer therapeutics/care with an increased focus on patients' needs and cost-effective healthcare.

Mapping the European cancer prevention research landscape: A case for more prevention research funding

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.

Engaging European society at the forefront of cancer research and care: How discussions at the 5th Gago Conference on European Science policy led to the Heidelberg Manifesto

European cancer research stakeholders met in October 2022 in Heidelberg, Germany, at the 5th Gago conference on European Cancer Policy, to discuss the current cancer research and cancer care policy landscape in Europe. Meeting participants highlighted gaps in the existing European programmes focusing on cancer research, including Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP), the Mission on Cancer (MoC), Understanding Cancer (UNCAN.eu), and the joint action CRANE, and put forward the next priorities, in the form of the Heidelberg Manifesto for cancer research. This meeting report presents all discussions that shed light on how infrastructures can be effectively shaped for translational, prevention, clinical and outcomes cancer research, with a focus on implementation and sustainability and while engaging patients and the public. In addition, we summarize recommendations on how to introduce frameworks for the digitalization of European cancer research. Finally, we discuss what structures, commitment, and resources are needed to establish a collaborative cancer research environment in Europe to achieve the scale required for innovation.

Profile of the multicenter cohort of the German Cancer Consortium's Clinical Communication Platform

Treatment concepts in oncology are becoming increasingly personalized and diverse. Successively, changes in standards of care mandate continuous monitoring of patient pathways and clinical outcomes based on large, representative real-world data. The German Cancer Consortium's (DKTK) Clinical Communication Platform (CCP) provides such opportunity. Connecting fourteen university hospital-based cancer centers, the CCP relies on a federated IT-infrastructure sourcing data from facility-based cancer registry units and biobanks. Federated analyses resulted in a cohort of 600,915 patients, out of which 232,991 were incident since 2013 and for which a comprehensive documentation is available. Next to demographic data (i.e., age at diagnosis: 2.0% 0-20 years, 8.3% 21-40 years, 30.9% 41-60 years, 50.1% 61-80 years, 8.8% 81+ years; and gender: 45.2% female, 54.7% male, 0.1% other) and diagnoses (five most frequent tumor origins: 22,523 prostate, 18,409 breast, 15,575 lung, 13,964 skin/malignant melanoma, 9005 brain), the cohort dataset contains information about therapeutic interventions and response assessments and is connected to 287,883 liquid and tissue biosamples. Focusing on diagnoses and therapy-sequences, showcase analyses of diagnosis-specific sub-cohorts (pancreas, larynx, kidney, thyroid gland) demonstrate the analytical opportunities offered by the cohort's data. Due to its data granularity and size, the cohort is a potential catalyst for translational cancer research. It provides rapid access to comprehensive patient groups and may improve the understanding of the clinical course of various (even rare) malignancies. Therefore, the cohort may serve as a decisions-making tool for clinical trial design and contributes to the evaluation of scientific findings under real-world conditions.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission

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.

ESMO Expert Consensus Statements on Cancer Survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe

BACKGROUND

The increased number of cancer survivors and the recognition of physical and psychosocial challenges, present from cancer diagnosis through active treatment and beyond, led to the discipline of cancer survivorship.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Herein, we reflected on the different components of survivorship care, existing models and priorities, in order to facilitate the promotion of high-quality European survivorship care and research.

RESULTS

We identified five main components of survivorship care: (i) physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; (ii) psychological effects of cancer; (iii) social, work and financial effects of cancer; (iv) surveillance for recurrences and second cancers; and (v) cancer prevention and overall health and well-being promotion. Survivorship care can be delivered by structured care models including but not limited to shared models integrating primary care and oncology services. The choice of the care model to be implemented has to be adapted to local realities. High-quality care should be expedited by the generation of: (i) focused and shared European recommendations, (ii) creation of tools to facilitate implementation of coordinated care and (iii) survivorship educational programs for health care teams and patients. The research agenda should be defined with the participation of health care providers, researchers, policy makers, patients and caregivers. The following patient-centered survivorship research areas were highlighted: (i) generation of a big data platform to collect long-term real-world data in survivors and healthy controls to (a) understand the resources, needs and preferences of patients with cancer, and (b) understand biological determinants of survivorship issues, and (ii) develop innovative effective interventions focused on the main components of survivorship care.

CONCLUSIONS

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) can actively contribute in the efforts of the oncology community toward (a) promoting the development of high-quality survivorship care programs, (b) providing educational material and (c) aiding groundbreaking research by reflecting on priorities and by supporting research networking.

Brachytherapy for Pediatric Patients at Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus: A Model of International Cooperation for Highly Specialized Treatments

PURPOSE

Childhood cancer is rare, and treatment is frequently associated with long-term morbidity. Disparities in survival and long-term side effects encourage the establishment of networks to increase access to complex organ-conservative strategies, such as brachytherapy. We report our experience of an international cooperation model in childhood cancers.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We examined the outcome of all children referred to our center from national or international networks to be treated according to a multimodal organ-conservative approach, including brachytherapy.

RESULTS

We identified 305 patients whose median age at diagnosis was 2.2 years (range, 1.4 months to 17.2 years). Among these patients, 99 (32.4%) were treated between 2015 and 2020; 172 (56.4%) were referred from national centers; and 133 (43.6%) were international patients from 31 countries (mainly Europe). Also, 263 patients were referred for primary treatment and 42 patients were referred for salvage treatment. Genitourinary tumors were the most frequent sites, with 56.4% bladder/prostate rhabdomyosarcoma and 28.5% gynecologic tumors. In addition to brachytherapy, local treatment consisted of partial tumor resection in 207 patients (67.9%), and 39 patients (13%) had additional external radiation therapy. Median follow-up was 58 months (range, 1 month to 48 years), 93 months for national patients, and 37 months for international patients (P < .0001). Five-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.3%-94.4%), 84.4% (95% CI, 80.1%-89.0%), and 93.3% (95% CI, 90.1%-96.5%), respectively. Patients referred for salvage treatment had poorer disease-free survival (P < .01). Implementation of image guided pulse-dose-rate brachytherapy was associated with better local control among patients with rhabdomyosarcoma referred for primary treatment (hazard ratio, 9.72; 95% CI, 1.24-71.0). At last follow-up, 16.7% patients had long-term severe treatment-related complications, and 2 patients (0.7%) had developed second malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective series shows the feasibility of a multinational referral network for brachytherapy allowing high patient numbers in rare pediatric cancers. High local control probability and acceptable late severe complication probability could be achieved despite very challenging situations. This cooperation model could serve as a basis for generating international reference networks for high-tech radiation such as brachytherapy to increase treatment care opportunities and cure probability.

Identifying the Steps Required to Effectively Implement Next-Generation Sequencing in Oncology at a National Level in Europe

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) may enable more focused and highly personalized cancer treatment, with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines now recommending NGS for daily clinical practice for several tumor types. However, NGS implementation, and therefore patient access, varies across Europe; a multi-stakeholder collaboration is needed to establish the conditions required to improve this discrepancy. In that regard, we set up European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM)-led expert panels during the first half of 2021, including key stakeholders from across 10 European countries covering medical, economic, patient, industry, and governmental expertise. We describe the outcomes of these panels in order to define and explore the necessary conditions for NGS implementation into routine clinical care to enable patient access, identify specific challenges in achieving them, and make short- and long-term recommendations. The main challenges identified relate to the demand for NGS tests (governance, clinical standardization, and awareness and education) and supply of tests (equitable reimbursement, infrastructure for conducting and validating tests, and testing access driven by evidence generation). Recommendations made to resolve each of these challenges should aid multi-stakeholder collaboration between national and European initiatives, to complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve patient care.

Future care for long-term cancer survivors: towards a new model

Purpose

The increase in the prevalence "long-term cancer survivor” (LCS) patients is expected to increase the cost of LCS care. The aim of this study was to obtain information that would allow to optimise the current model of health management in Spain to adapt it to one of efficient LCS patient care.

Methods

This qualitative study was carried out using Delphi methodology. An advisory committee defined the criteria for participation, select the panel of experts, prepare the questionnaire, interpret the results and draft the final report.

Results

232 people took part in the study (48 oncologists). Absolute consensus was reached in three of the proposed sections: oncological epidemiology, training of health professionals and ICT functions.

Conclusion

The role of primary care in the clinical management of LCS patients needs to be upgraded, coordination with the oncologist and hospital care is essential. The funding model needs to be adapted to determine the funding conditions for new drugs and technologies.

The Porto European Cancer Research Summit 2021

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures - namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research - were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost.

Challenges and solutions to embed cancer survivorship research and innovation within the EU Cancer Mission

We have reached a watershed moment in Europe in our efforts to ensure increased survival and better outcomes for cancer patients. The EU Cancer Mission and the European Beating Cancer Plan together provide an unrivalled opportunity to make significant inroads into a disease that kills over 1.7 million European citizens annually. Harnessing these twin pillars of cancer research and cancer control can be transformative for the European cancer community and in particular for the European cancer patient. However, from a research perspective, in order to fully realise these benefits, we need to ensure that all aspects of the cancer continuum are addressed. Previous research efforts have focussed more on the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, whereas cancer survivorship, to date, has been overlooked. Here, we aim to redress this balance, by identifying the key challenges in cancer survivorship research that need to be addressed and proposing a series of recommended solutions, which, if acted upon, would deliver significant benefits for the nearly 20 million cancer survivors in Europe. To achieve this, we propose the development of a clearly articulated and sustainably funded European Cancer Survivorship Research and Innovation Plan. Embedding this plan within the framework of the EU Cancer Mission would be transformative for cancer survivors and society.

Sustainability and monitoring of the European Code Against Cancer: Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

As part of the third European Commission's Joint Action on Cancer (Innovative Partnership for Action Against Cancer, iPAAC), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was commissioned to produce a report on recommendations to sustain and monitor future updates of the European Code Against Cancer (ECAC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A co-creational consultation process, including a virtual workshop, was carried out. More than 100 experts in cancer prevention, public health, communication and representatives of European authorities provided input on the scope of future editions of the ECAC, including updating the scientific evidence and its maintenance, and on strategies for its implementation and dissemination across Europe.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Overwhelming support for the need of the ECAC and its continuous updating, optimization and wider dissemination was expressed by all the stakeholders. Eight recommendations and four research needs summarise the assessment and pave the way for the future of the ECAC.

Cancer: New Needs, New Models. Is It Time for a Community Oncologist? Another Brick in the Wall

Simple Summary

Community care activity in the oncology field does not exist. This unmet need contrasts with the increasing number of patients with a previous diagnosis of cancer.

Abstract

Over the last few decades, thanks to early detection, effective drugs, and personalized treatments, the natural history of cancer has radically changed. Thanks to these advances, we have observed how survival of cancer patients has increased, becoming an ever more important goal in cancer care. Effective clinical governance of survivorship care is essential to ensure a successful transition between active and post-treatment life, identifying optimization of healthcare outcomes and quality of life for patients as the primary objectives. For these reasons, potential intervention models must consider these differences to rationalize the available resources, including economic aspects. In this perspective, analyzing the different models proposed in the literature to manage this type of patients, we focus on the possible role of the so-called “community oncologist”. As a trained health professional, also focused on longevity, he could represent the right management solution in all those “intermediate” clinical conditions that arise between the hospital specialist, frequently overworked, and the general practitioner, often biased by the lack of specific expertise.

Analysing the attributes of Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres across Europe to identify key hallmarks

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high‐quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission‐oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes’ Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high‐impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals.

Repurposing approved drugs for cancer therapy

BACKGROUND

Many drugs approved for other indications can control the growth of tumor cells and limit adverse events (AE).

DATA SOURCES

Literature searches with keywords 'repurposing and cancer' books, websites: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, for drug structures: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Introducing approved drugs, such as those developed to treat diabetes (Metformin) or inflammation (Thalidomide), identified to have cytostatic activity, can enhance chemotherapy or even replace more cytotoxic drugs. Also, anti-inflammatory compounds, cytokines and inhibitors of proteolysis can be used to control the side effects of chemo- and immuno-therapies or as second-line treatments for tumors resistant to kinase inhibitors (KI). Drugs specifically developed for cancer therapy, such as interferons (IFN), the tyrosine KI abivertinib TKI (tyrosine kinase inhibitor) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor inhibitors, may help control symptoms of Covid-19.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Better knowledge of mechanisms of drug activities is essential for repurposing. Chemotherapies induce ER stress and enhance mutation rates and chromosome alterations, leading to resistance that cannot always be related to mutations in the target gene. Metformin, thalidomide and cytokines (IFN, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-2 (IL-2) and others) have pleiomorphic activities, some of which can enhance tumorigenesis. The small and fragile patient pools available for clinical trials can cloud the data on the usefulness of cotreatments.

GROWING POINTS

Better understanding of drug metabolism and mechanisms should aid in repurposing drugs for primary, adjuvant and adjunct treatments.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Optimizing drug combinations, reducing cytotoxicity of chemotherapeutics and controlling associated inflammation.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Solving problems is smart, preventing them is wise: Lessons learned from the 2nd International DKFZ Conference on Cancer Prevention

The 2nd International DKFZ Conference on Cancer Prevention (CCP2020) organized by the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) was held as a virtual event on 17-18 September 2020. The event gathered experts on cancer prevention from around the world with the aim of generating a stimulating interchange of opinions between clinicians and basic researchers working in the field. The talks and posters of the conference fueled exciting discussions and debates about the state of the art of cancer prevention and provided a comprehensive outlook on the many aspects of the field. The program was divided into three main sessions, illustrating the most recent methodological approaches and interventions in primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, enriched by introductory lectures depicting the most relevant aspects of each session. The key concepts covered in this meeting were risk factors, early detection, improving life after cancer, cancer prevention in Europe and personalized prevention. The importance of the latter was expressly highlighted, many presentations emphasizing that in the era of personalized medicine, prevention also needs to be based on the unique genetic, epigenetic, social and behavioral characteristics of the individual to achieve maximal efficacy. In this article, we summarize the key messages emerging from each section, with particular attention on the most important challenges yet to be met in the field of cancer prevention.