The most widespread shortage identified in the new survey involves ifosfamide, a generic chemotherapy drug that 94 percent of responding centers reported as being in short supply. Ifosfamide is far from a niche product: it is a workhorse alkylating agent deployed in treatment regimens for bladder, ovarian, testicular, and uterine cancers, as well as soft tissue sarcoma, osteosarcoma, and several adult and pediatric leukemias and lymphomas. Its inclusion among pediatric and adolescent cancer protocols makes the shortage particularly consequential, because clinicians managing young patients with limited therapeutic alternatives have fewer options to substitute when a foundational drug becomes scarce. The breadth of ifosfamide’s use across tumor types means that a single manufacturing failure can touch nearly every subspecialty within a comprehensive cancer center at once, from sarcoma clinics to hematology wards.

Platinum-based chemotherapy agents, which form the backbone of curative and palliative regimens for numerous tumor types, are also under strain once again. Seventy-one percent of surveyed centers reported a current shortage of carboplatin, a striking return of the supply crisis that first drew national attention in 2023, while 16 percent reported shortages of cisplatin. These two drugs are among the most widely used cytotoxic agents in modern medicine, appearing in protocols for lung, ovarian, testicular, head and neck, and many other cancers. In addition, more than half of respondents reported ongoing shortages of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin, or BCG, the immunotherapy instilled directly into the bladder to treat non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, a therapy for which there is no simple pharmacologic equivalent. The recurrence of carboplatin shortages, after an intense period of public attention and federal response in 2023, suggests that the underlying vulnerabilities in the generic injectable drug supply chain have not been resolved.

NCCN first began surveying its Member Institutions about drug shortages in June 2023, when an abrupt collapse in the supply of carboplatin and cisplatin, traced in part to quality problems at overseas manufacturing facilities, forced oncologists across the country to ration doses and delay treatments. The fact that the network has continued to measure the problem for more than three years provides a rare longitudinal view of a persistent public health failure. When the latest survey asked pharmacy directors whether national or state policies had made the shortage situation better or worse since 2023, only 4 percent said conditions had improved, while 96 percent felt the situation had stayed the same. That near-unanimous assessment of policy stagnation is perhaps the most politically significant finding in the dataset, indicating that legislative and regulatory efforts to date have not yet altered the economic dynamics that produce recurring shortages.

Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, Chief Executive Officer of NCCN, described the persistence of the problem as disheartening, noting that recurring or continued shortages of some drugs have continued despite years of raising the alarm and providing insight about what she characterized as a disruptive and dangerous issue for cancer care in America. Denlinger emphasized that the cancer centers in the network have developed internal strategies, task forces, and communications plans to keep patient care and clinical trials on track. The good news, she noted, is that those mechanisms exist; the bad news is that managing shortages consumes time and attention that could otherwise be spent improving patient experiences and outcomes, and it adds additional stress to an already burdened system. Her comments capture a paradox familiar to hospital pharmacists nationwide: the institutions best equipped to absorb supply shocks are also the ones expending enormous invisible labor to do so.

The operational toll of shortages is quantified elsewhere in the survey. Sixty-one percent of responding centers reported that they required pharmacy and physician-led mitigation strategies to keep all of their patients on a recommended dose and schedule. The majority of those centers implemented waste management strategies, which can include conserving vials, sharing partially used vials across patients under strict sterility protocols, and adjusting compounding practices to extract every usable dose from limited inventory. Others explored alternative recommended regimens, drawing on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology to identify evidence-based substitutions that preserve guideline-recommended care when a preferred agent is unavailable. These workarounds are clinically defensible, but they represent a continuous, resource-intensive improvisation that would be unnecessary in a functioning market.

When treatment plans did have to be modified because of shortages, 90 percent of centers reported a need for repeat prior authorization of the revised plan. That administrative requirement significantly increases the amount of work per patient and introduces the potential for delays in care continuity, since insurers must re-approve altered regimens before treatment can proceed. For patients, the consequence can be a gap between the decision to change therapy and the ability to actually receive it, a window in which aggressive cancers do not pause. For clinical staff, prior authorization rework compounds the pharmacy labor already consumed by shortage mitigation, illustrating how a supply chain failure upstream cascades into administrative burden downstream, multiplying the true cost of each shortage far beyond the price of the missing drug itself.

On the question of solutions, the survey revealed a strong consensus among pharmacy leadership. Alyssa Schatz, DrPh, MSW, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy at NCCN, noted that nearly every pharmacy director who responded would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage high-quality manufacturing for generic cancer medications, something advocates have been requesting for years. One survey respondent summarized the core problem in stark terms: many oncology generics are clinically indispensable but economically unattractive, and without correcting that economic imbalance, shortages are likely to recur. The structural logic is well understood in health policy circles. Generic injectable drugs are cheap, which benefits payers and patients, but rock-bottom prices leave manufacturers with thin margins, little incentive to invest in quality infrastructure or redundancy, and every reason to exit the market when problems arise. The survey also illuminated a desire for better information about generic suppliers and for earlier notifications by manufacturers to the US Food and Drug Administration, which would give hospitals more lead time to prepare mitigation plans before shelves empty.

NCCN is part of the End Cancer Drug Shortages Coalition, a group that brings together more than a dozen hematology and oncology nonprofits to address the issue and propose long-term solutions. In May 2026, the coalition issued a consensus statement offering a big-picture assessment of the ongoing problem and a list of policy proposals for the future, ranging from payment and purchasing reforms to manufacturing quality incentives. The coalition’s work reflects a growing recognition among oncology professional societies that shortage response cannot remain the province of individual hospital task forces indefinitely, and that durable fixes must operate at the level of the market itself, where the pricing of essential generic medicines currently fails to reward reliability.

For patients and clinicians, the practical meaning of the 2026 survey is sobering: three years of advocacy, congressional hearings, and federal attention have produced internal resilience but not external change. Every comprehensive cancer center surveyed is still managing around at least one missing chemotherapy agent, and a substantial fraction is juggling five or more at once. The network’s findings, available through NCCN’s drug shortage resources, will continue to serve as a benchmark for measuring whether the economic incentives, supplier transparency measures, and early notification requirements that pharmacy leaders overwhelmingly support are eventually translated into policy. Until then, the quiet work of vial conservation, regimen substitution, and reauthorization paperwork will remain an unheralded but essential layer of cancer care in the United States, holding the system together one shortage at a time.

Subject of Research: Persistent generic cancer medication shortages reported by United States comprehensive cancer centers

Article Title: New NCCN survey highlights persistent cancer medication shortages across United States

Article References: New NCCN survey highlights persistent cancer medication shortages across United States. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: NCCN, drug shortages, cancer medication, ifosfamide, carboplatin, cisplatin, BCG, generic drugs, oncology, pharmacy, health policy, supply chain

At the heart of the initiative are new International Adaptations of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, a family of treatment recommendations widely regarded as among the most thorough and frequently updated clinical standards in medicine. The Philippine adaptations are being developed in close collaboration with the Philippine Society of Medical Oncology and, for gynecologic malignancies, with the Society of Gynecological Oncologists of the Philippines, with additional support from the International Gynecologic Cancer Society. The planned disease coverage is broad and deliberately aligned with the country’s most pressing cancer burdens: B-cell lymphomas, breast cancer, colon cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and rectal cancer will be adapted with PSMO, while cervical, ovarian, and uterine cancers will be adapted with SGOP and IGCS. Once completed, all of the NCCN Guidelines for the Philippines will be available free of charge through the network’s global portal in the months ahead.

Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, Chief Executive Officer of NCCN, framed the collaboration as part of a broader commitment to equity in cancer care. “Our joint efforts in the Philippines and beyond reflect a shared commitment to improving access to appropriate cancer care, reducing disparities in treatment, and strengthening oncology practice through proven guidance,” she said. “By working with regional experts to regionally tailor NCCN’s guidelines for use in the Philippines, we combine our expertise to provide evidence-based recommendations that are more meaningful and usable for regional clinical settings. Through this global collaboration, we will create opportunities to grow our efforts with providers worldwide to develop practical tools that serve communities across the globe.”

The technical logic behind international adaptations is straightforward but demanding. Clinical guidelines encode not only biomedical evidence but also assumptions about available diagnostics, drug formularies, referral pathways, regulatory approvals, and health system financing. A recommendation that is feasible at a comprehensive cancer center in the United States may be impractical in a provincial hospital in the Philippines, where imaging capacity, pathology services, or targeted therapies may be limited or differently regulated. Adaptation therefore involves panels of local experts who review each recommendation against the realities of regional practice, adjusting where necessary while preserving the evidence-based core. The result is intended to be a document that clinicians can actually follow, rather than an aspirational standard that sits unused on a shelf.

The Manila summit, held on October 6, went beyond the mechanics of guideline writing to address a harder question: how localized recommendations become embedded in national health policy. PSMO, the Department of Health, and NCCN convened a high-level meeting focused on strategies to integrate the adapted guidelines into national programs under the National Integrated Cancer Control Act, the Philippine legislation that established a coordinated framework for cancer prevention, treatment, and survivorship. Highlighting global implementation models, NCCN was joined by Professor Jacek Jassem of the Medical University of Gdansk, who shared insights from Poland’s successful experience in developing and implementing the NCCN Guidelines for Poland, an example often cited as proof that a national health system can adopt and operationalize adapted guidelines at scale.

For the Philippine Society of Medical Oncology, the project represents a chance to codify local expertise within an internationally trusted framework. “NCCN Guidelines are the most reliable tools that cancer care providers use worldwide to improve prevention, treatment, and outcomes for people with cancer. Developing regionally tailored guidelines alongside NCCN and international experts allows us to seamlessly combine global clinical standards with our local expertise and regulatory environment,” said Hiyasmin A. Alejandro, MD, PSMO Vice President and Co-Lead of the NCCN adaptation project in the Philippines. “This collaboration directly strengthens our medical oncology practice, empowering Filipino healthcare providers to deliver more consistent, high-quality, and equitable care customized to the realities and regulations here in the Philippines.”

The gynecologic cancer component carries particular weight in a country where cervical, ovarian, and uterine malignancies remain significant causes of cancer-related death among women, and where access to subspecialty care varies dramatically between metropolitan Manila and more remote regions. Dr. Doris Benavides, immediate past president of the Society of Gynecological Oncologists of the Philippines, emphasized that adaptation is a two-way process rather than a simple translation exercise. “True collaboration means co-creating solutions that meet the specific needs of our patients,” she said. “By adapting the NCCN Guidelines for cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancers to the Philippine setting, we’re giving our gynecologic oncologists evidence-based recommendations grounded in the realities of local practice in various regions of the country. This important initiative will raise the standard of care and improve long-term health outcomes for Filipino women and their families. We are grateful to NCCN and IGCS for their commitment to global collaboration. This partnership lets Filipino specialists contribute local insight while benefiting from one of the world’s most trusted oncology guideline frameworks.”

The Philippine program is also serving as a template for further expansion. Building on the gynecologic cancer initiative, NCCN recently signed a new Memorandum of Understanding with the International Gynecologic Cancer Society to explore the implementation of tailored gynecologic cancer guidelines in other regions. “IGCS is committed to improving gynecologic cancer care worldwide through education, training, and awareness,” said Mary Eiken, MS, CEO of IGCS. “Our Strategic Alliance Partner Program brings together leaders and members of gynecologic oncology organizations across specialties and regions around the world. We’re excited to collaborate with NCCN to help translate NCCN Guidelines into practice for gynecologic cancer patients.” The MOU signals that the co-creation model piloted in Manila, in which national societies contribute clinical and regulatory insight while NCCN contributes its evidence-review infrastructure, could be replicated wherever professional societies and health ministries are prepared to invest in adaptation.

The scale of NCCN’s existing international footprint gives the Philippine project considerable leverage. There are currently more than 90 international adaptations of the NCCN Guidelines and more than 180 different translations across numerous languages, a library that allows clinicians in widely varying settings to consult recommendations calibrated to their own circumstances. Each adaptation undergoes the same underlying discipline: systematic review of the evidence, expert consensus, and frequent updates as new data emerge, followed by regional modification for feasibility and applicability. Because the Philippine adaptations will be freely accessible online, they have the potential to reach not only specialists in tertiary centers but also the general practitioners and community oncologists who manage the majority of cancer patients in the country.

What emerges from the Montreal and Manila meetings is a picture of cancer care standardization as a genuinely global, collaborative enterprise rather than a one-directional export of American clinical doctrine. The Philippine adaptations, spanning seven disease types with PSMO and three gynecologic cancers with SGOP and IGCS, will test whether locally co-created guidelines can be woven into national policy under the National Integrated Cancer Control Act and sustained through the country’s health programs. If the Polish experience is any guide, the combination of professional society leadership, ministerial support, and an internationally recognized evidence framework can produce measurable improvements in consistency and quality of care. For Filipino patients, the practical promise is concrete: treatment recommendations that reflect both the best available global evidence and the specific realities of the hospitals, regulations, and resources where they are actually treated.

Subject of Research: International adaptation of NCCN clinical practice guidelines for cancer treatment in the Philippines

Article Title: NCCN highlights collaborations to improve global cancer outcomes during meetings in North America and Asia

Article References: NCCN highlights collaborations to improve global cancer outcomes during meetings in North America and Asia. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: NCCN, cancer guidelines, Philippines, gynecologic oncology, PSMO, IGCS, SGOP, international adaptations, health policy, NICCA, cancer care equity, oncology

The urgency underlying the agenda was captured early by Chyke Doubeni, MD, MPH, Chief Health Equity Officer at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Established prevention and screening strategies, he told attendees, have the power to eliminate nearly half of all cancer deaths, yet barriers continue to prevent many Americans from accessing these opportunities. Doubeni warned that new screening technologies carry transformative potential for cancer detection, but that their value will not be realized equitably unless the fragmented delivery processes that risk deepening existing disparities are addressed. His framing set the tone for two days of discussion in which scientific optimism was repeatedly tempered by structural realism: the tools exist, the evidence exists, and the remaining challenge is one of delivery, coverage, and trust.

That tension between knowledge and access was echoed by Darcie Green, Executive Director of Latinas Contra Cancer, who argued that the field knows more than it ever has about preventing cancer, lowering risk, and finding disease earlier, but that too much distance remains between what is known and what people can actually access and benefit from. Green called for closing that distance by bringing excellent care and patient navigation within reach and by engaging patients and communities in shaping the systems meant to serve them. Jody Hoyos, MHA, Chief Executive Officer of the Prevent Cancer Foundation, described how rapidly the paradigm is shifting: cancer prevention is no longer only about avoiding risk, she said, but about using better science, smarter screening, and earlier detection to find cancer before it becomes life-threatening. She added a practical caveat that resonated through the meeting—patients are demanding less invasive and more accessible options, and uptake will only improve if the field responds to that demand.

Day one of the summit focused on broad, population-level strategies, spanning public health infrastructure, tobacco cessation, vaccines against cancer-causing infections, emerging blood-based tests, and artificial intelligence-driven efficiencies in screening programs. Speakers emphasized that these interventions, deployed at scale, represent the clearest near-term opportunity to bend the cancer mortality curve. Mishellene McKinney, MHA, RN, OCN, Vice President of Clinical Programs at Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Hospitals, offered an integrated delivery perspective, explaining that value-based care models can proactively engage people in prevention and screening through personalized outreach and evidence-based approaches. As both health plan and care provider, Kaiser Permanente, she said, recognizes preventing cancer as a critical part of overall care and is committed to making screening more accessible, equitable, and effective for members and surrounding communities.

The second day shifted to system-level solutions for meeting individual screening needs, particularly among higher-risk populations. Discussions covered hereditary risk assessment, follow-up diagnostics after abnormal findings, out-of-pocket costs, and continuity of care across the full cancer journey. Lisa Schlager, Vice President of Public Policy for FORCE: Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, stressed that cancer risk is not one-size-fits-all: age, family history, genetics, and environmental and lifestyle factors all shape an individual’s probability of disease. Screening and prevention strategies, she argued, should be tailored so patients receive the most appropriate care for their risk profile, and public policies must evolve so patients can access the right interventions at the right time—an approach she said would improve outcomes, save lives, and reduce healthcare costs simultaneously.

Continuity of care emerged as one of the summit’s most persistent themes. Brandon Leonard, MA, Vice President of Government Affairs at LUNGevity Foundation, identified the central systems challenge as ensuring that patients move seamlessly from initial screening through follow-up diagnostics, treatment, and survivorship care. From a policy standpoint, he called for eliminating access barriers by guaranteeing that screening and diagnostics are covered for all eligible patients without burdensome cost-sharing or utilization management requirements. Molly Guthrie of Susan G. Komen reinforced the point with a concrete legislative record: Komen’s Center for Public Policy has led the introduction of, and helped pass, dozens of state bills to remove barriers standing in the way of affordable, accessible breast imaging. Gaps remain, she cautioned, and laws must continue to evolve so that all patients can obtain the screening they need without financial burden—a goal requiring collective action at both state and federal levels.

Disparities in screening access and experience received pointed attention, including for communities often overlooked in mainstream cancer control conversations. Scout, PhD, Executive Director of The LGBTQIA+ Cancer Network, identified medical mistrust as one of the biggest screening barriers for LGBTQIA+ people, citing recent data showing that this barrier has grown notably worse for 75 percent of that population within the last 18 months. Simple, low-cost interventions—welcoming signage, inclusive badges, visible signals of affirmation—can counteract that mistrust, Scout argued, while medical offices that fail to take such steps actively perpetuate disparities. The observation underscored a recurring summit message: equity in cancer screening is built or lost in thousands of small, everyday clinical interactions, not only in federal legislation.

Genetic risk and the promise of precision prevention figured prominently as well. Tuya Pal, MD, a clinical geneticist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, and Vice-Chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, emphasized that access after testing is what actually saves lives. People with inherited genes that elevate cancer risk have tremendous potential to benefit from screening, she noted, but it is not testing alone that improves outcomes—rather, it is accessing appropriate care based on the results. To reap the benefits of genetic testing, the field must ensure that all individuals can obtain recommended screening and preventive measures once a result is in hand. Her comments reframed the national conversation about expanding genetic testing, warning that testing capacity without downstream care is a hollow victory.

Speakers also grappled with how to translate accelerating scientific progress into practical, responsible care. Ernest Hawk, MD, MPH, Head of Cancer Prevention and Population Science at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, acknowledged that the science of cancer prevention and screening has advanced remarkably, and that translating that evidence into clinical tools for risk assessment, evidence-based screening programs, and practice standards has already helped save countless lives. Looking ahead to innovations such as multicancer detection tests moving closer to clinical practice, he urged balance: enthusiasm for their potential must be weighed against careful consideration of potential harms, costs, and implications for population health, until rigorous evidence demonstrates meaningful improvements in outcomes. Elisa M. Rodriguez, PhD, MS, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, added a patient-centered dimension from her own experience delivering cancer risk information: people do not simply want a risk score or percentage, she said—they want actionable information on what they can do to help protect themselves from developing cancer.

The summit also featured remarks from NCCN’s Chief Medical Officer, Renuka Iyer, MD, and Chief Scientific Officer, Nancy L. Lewis, MD, MBS, FACP, with panels moderated by Clifford Goodman, PhD, a consultant in health care technology and policy, and a series of presentations showcasing effective screening and prevention strategies in action. Attendees could pick up copies of the free NCCN Guidelines for Patients on screening and prevention—covering breast cancer screening and diagnosis, colorectal screening, genetic testing, lung cancer screening, and prostate cancer screening—all available in English and Spanish at NCCN.org/patients through funding from the NCCN Foundation. The organization’s next convening, the annual Patient Advocacy Summit on December 3, 2026, also in Washington, D.C., will turn to advancing family-centered cancer care, examining gaps in government support, awareness of assistance programs, and caregiver information. For a field that can already prevent roughly half of cancer deaths with tools in hand, the summit’s collective message was clear: the next frontier is not discovery, but delivery.

Subject of Research: Cancer prevention and screening policy, equity, and access discussed at the NCCN Oncology Policy Summit

Article Title: Cancer prevention and screening takes center stage during DCSummit convened by NCCN

Article References: Cancer prevention and screening takes center stage during DCSummit convened by NCCN. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: NCCN, cancer prevention, cancer screening, health equity, National Cancer Institute, CDC, genetic testing, early detection, health policy, patient advocacy, multicancer detection tests, screening disparities

In her new role, Werner will oversee the division’s clinical, research, and educational priorities while helping guide strategic efforts to expand access to innovative cancer care, advance clinical and translational research, and support the development of future oncology leaders. The position carries particular weight at a comprehensive cancer center serving a vast and geographically dispersed region, where the division’s faculty must balance the demands of subspecialty patient care with the infrastructure required to design, launch, and sustain clinical trials. Werner’s mandate, as described by institutional leaders, is to serve as a critical connector between academics, University of Utah Health, and Huntsman Cancer Institute, aligning the division’s academic mission with the real-world needs of cancer patients and their families throughout Utah and the surrounding Mountain West states.

Werner already holds several of the institution’s most senior research and administrative posts. She serves as deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Huntsman Cancer Institute and is a member of the Huntsman Cancer Institute CEO Cabinet, giving her a seat at the table where the cancer center’s institutional strategy is set. Within the school of medicine, she is a tenured professor in the Department of Internal Medicine and an adjunct professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a dual appointment that reflects the gynecologic focus of her clinical and research work. She also holds the Karen H. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair in Women’s Cancer Research, an endowed professorship that supports her sustained investigation into cancers that disproportionately affect women and that have historically presented some of the most difficult challenges in oncology.

As a clinician, Werner specializes in gynecologic malignancies, caring for patients with ovarian, endometrial, cervical, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers. Her practice spans the full continuum of cancer care, from initial treatment planning and enrollment in clinical trials through the management of treatment-related toxicities, survivorship, and end-of-life care. That breadth is notable in an era of increasing subspecialization, and it informs her research agenda, which addresses not only how new therapies can be developed but how patients experience treatment across its entire arc. She also brings extensive experience in breast cancer research and treatment, extending her reach beyond gynecologic oncology and positioning her to lead a division whose faculty cover the full spectrum of solid tumor and hematologic malignancies.

Werner’s research portfolio centers on experimental therapeutics for gynecologic and breast cancers, with particular emphasis on targeted therapies, immunotherapy, PARP inhibitors, biomarkers, and the design of early-phase clinical trials. PARP inhibitors, which exploit defects in DNA damage repair pathways to selectively kill tumor cells, have transformed the treatment landscape for ovarian cancer in particular, and investigators such as Werner have been central to translating that biology into clinical benefit. Her work has advanced the understanding of tumor heterogeneity, treatment resistance, and genomic predictors of cancer outcomes, and has explored novel approaches for patients with recurrent and treatment-resistant disease, populations for whom options have historically been limited. As an internationally recognized investigator, she has led and contributed to numerous clinical trials that have helped define standards of care in her field.

Her influence extends well beyond Utah. Werner serves on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Ovarian Cancer Panel and the NCCN Ovarian Cancer Guidelines Value Pathways Panel, bodies that help shape the national treatment guidelines and clinical resources used by oncologists across the United States. She also sits on the NCCN Guidelines Steering Committee and the NCCN Oncology Research Program, and she has served as a special expert for the National Cancer Institute Gynecologic Cancer Steering Committee, contributing to multiple national cervical and endometrial cancer planning initiatives. Since 2013, she has served as institutional principal investigator for NRG Oncology, representing Utah in the national cancer clinical trial leadership activities of one of the major cooperative groups that conducts practice-changing trials across the country. She is a recipient of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Clinical Investigator Team Leadership Award and a member of the Society of Huntsman Translational Scholars.

Werner has also played a significant role in strengthening the operational machinery of clinical research nationally. Through the Association of American Cancer Institutes, she serves on the Physician Clinical Leadership Initiative and is former chair of the AACI Clinical Research Innovation Steering Committee. She was instrumental in establishing the AACI Clinical Trials Office Medical Directors Forum and the Associate Directors of Clinical Research Forum, national platforms through which the leaders of cancer center clinical trials offices share strategies for improving trial operations, accrual, and innovation. Within her own institution, her prior leadership record includes service as senior director of clinical research before her deputy director role, medical director of the Huntsman Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Office, and associate director of the University of Utah Hematology and Oncology Fellowship Program. In the trials office role, she worked to recruit and train physician-scientists to lead clinical trials and implemented professional training for clinicians and staff, broadening the institution’s portfolio of investigator-initiated, pharmaceutical, national cooperative group, and Phase 1 research.

Institutional leaders framed the appointment as a natural culmination of that record. John Inadomi, MD, investigator at Huntsman Cancer Institute and chair of the Department of Internal Medicine at the U, described Werner as an exceptional physician-scientist, educator, and leader whose contributions have strengthened the institution’s work across cancer care, research, and education, noting that she is deeply respected by colleagues and trainees alike for her collaborative leadership style, commitment to excellence, and focus on improving the lives of patients with cancer. Bradley Cairns, PhD, chief executive officer of Huntsman Cancer Institute, said Werner brings an extraordinary combination of exceptional patient care, scientific leadership, and institutional experience to the role, and emphasized her ability to connect clinical care with research and discovery as a strength that will help deliver meaningful advances to patients throughout Utah and the Mountain West. Sachin Apte, MD, MS, MBA, chief clinical officer and physician-in-chief at Huntsman Cancer Institute, cited her national leadership, clinical expertise, and commitment to mentorship as qualities that position her to guide the division’s continued growth and innovation.

Werner succeeds Saundra Buys, MD, a Huntsman Cancer Institute investigator and Distinguished Professor who served as chief of the Division of Oncology for many years and played a pivotal role in advancing the division’s clinical, research, and educational missions. The institution also expressed appreciation to Sarah Colonna, MD, oncologist and medical director of the Family Cancer Assessment Clinic at Huntsman Cancer Institute and associate professor of internal medicine, who provided leadership as interim co-chief of the division alongside Werner during the transition. For her part, Werner described it as a privilege to lead a division with such a deep commitment to patients and such extraordinary strength in discovery, clinical research, education, and care, pledging to build on the foundation established by Buys to bring promising advances to patients more quickly. Outside of medicine, she draws leadership lessons from family life and from volunteering in youth swimming and volleyball, pointing to the value of showing up consistently, creating opportunities for growth, celebrating progress, and helping people develop confidence in their own abilities. Research at Huntsman Cancer Institute is supported by the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute, including cancer center support grant P30 CA042014, as well as by the Huntsman Cancer Foundation.

Subject of Research: Leadership appointment in academic oncology and cancer clinical trials at Huntsman Cancer Institute

Article Title: Theresa Werner, MD, named chief of the Division of Oncology

Article References: Theresa Werner, MD, named chief of the Division of Oncology. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: Theresa Werner, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Division of Oncology, gynecologic oncology, clinical trials, PARP inhibitors, NCCN, NRG Oncology, cancer research, physician-scientist, leadership appointment

The World Cancer Congress, organized every two years by the Union for International Cancer Control, is the flagship international meeting on cancer control. It draws researchers, clinicians, advocates, policymakers, and people with lived experience from more than 120 countries, making it a natural stage for work that sits at the intersection of clinical medicine and public health policy. Representing the network’s Global Policy team in Hong Kong are Matt Izzo, MPP, Senior Specialist for Global Policy and Strategic Alliances, and Stephanie Montesino, MPH, a Global Policy and Advocacy Fellow, each presenting one of the two abstracts. The organization also maintains an informational booth at the congress where attendees can learn about its international programs and collect free patient resources.

Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, Chief Executive Officer of the network, framed the stakes in a statement released ahead of the meeting. The congress, she said, offers a unique opportunity to engage with key decision-makers worldwide regarding cancer care and policy. Everyone, she argued, should have access to the best possible cancer prevention and treatment regardless of where they are located, and she expressed pride in sharing what the network and its in-country collaborators are doing to improve cancer outcomes around the globe while working with others to build on that success. That framing matters, because the two abstracts presented in Hong Kong are not merely academic exercises; they are evidence for a policy argument that regionally appropriate guidelines belong at the center of national cancer planning.

The first abstract, titled “The Inclusion of Clinical Practice Guidelines in National Cancer Control Plans,” examines a class of documents that most people outside health ministries have never heard of but that shape care for millions. National Cancer Control Plans are government-led public health initiatives that lay out clearly defined processes for cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. They are, in effect, a country’s master blueprint for reducing its cancer burden. The research team’s findings offer both encouragement and a warning. On the encouraging side, 61 percent of active national cancer control plans include references to existing national or international cancer treatment guidelines, and another 19 percent include strategies for developing such guidelines. Taken together, that means roughly four in five plans at least acknowledge the role of structured clinical guidance.

The warning lies in the details. While the vast majority of the plans studied, 86 percent, feature strategies for implementing the use of guidelines more broadly, most of them overlook the systems needed to measure whether that implementation actually happens, and whether it happens equitably and with quality. A plan that tells clinicians to follow guidelines but never checks whether they do, or whether patients in rural and underserved regions receive the same standard of care as those in major cities, leaves the hardest part of the work undone. The research also identified significant room for growth in incorporating guidance on disease staging, the systematic classification of how far a cancer has progressed. Staging is critical for identifying population-level trends and for designing targeted interventions, yet it remains underdeveloped in many national plans.

The second abstract shifts from policy documents to clinical practice. Titled “Enhancing Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Care in China Through Adapted Clinical Guidelines,” it was authored jointly with Dr. Jun Ma and Dr. Ying Sun, both Chief Physicians and Radiation Oncologists at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China. The abstract explains how the network worked with local experts in China to create the Chinese Editorial Committee, a body that then adapted the network’s Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Head and Neck Cancers into a dedicated Chinese edition covering cancer of the nasopharynx. The goal was to tailor recommendations to regional clinical practice and resource availability, producing a practical, context-specific framework for elevating the management of nasopharyngeal cancers across diverse clinical settings in China.

The choice of nasopharyngeal carcinoma is not incidental. Dr. Ma, in comments provided with the release, noted that the disease is substantially more common in China than in the United States, reflecting a combination of Epstein-Barr virus-related, genetic, and environmental factors. That higher disease burden has generated extensive local clinical experience and, in places, meaningful differences in practice compared with American norms. Local experts were therefore able to suggest several adaptations to the original guidelines based on clinical data from China. These included the addition of medications that are available in China but not necessarily elsewhere, as well as the expansion of some systemic therapy and radiation therapy recommendations. The result, Dr. Ma said, is a set of guidelines built on the network’s time-tested methods but optimized for people in China, and he described the underlying guidelines as the gold standard, shown to improve the quality, effectiveness, equitability, and accessibility of cancer care around the world.

The scale of the adaptation effort is considerable. Nearly half of all registered users of the network’s guidelines are international professionals, with the largest concentrations in China, India, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Thailand, Canada, Spain, and Italy. Across the globe there are now more than 90 international adaptations of the guidelines and more than 180 different translations in numerous languages. Those numbers describe something rare in medicine: a single, continuously updated evidence framework that is simultaneously authoritative enough to anchor practice in Boston or Houston and flexible enough to be reworked for the drug formularies, diagnostic capacity, and epidemiology of Guangzhou or Mexico City. All of the organization’s global cancer resources are available for free through its website or its Virtual Library mobile app.

What emerges from the two abstracts is a coherent model. On one side, the analysis of national cancer control plans shows that governments are already reaching for clinical guidelines but frequently stop short of the measurement and staging infrastructure that turns a written recommendation into measurable, equitable care. On the other side, the China collaboration demonstrates what disciplined adaptation looks like: a standing editorial committee of local experts, a defined process for incorporating region-specific clinical data and drug availability, and a commitment to preserving the evidence-based methodology of the original while adjusting its content. Presented together at a congress attended by policymakers from more than 120 countries, the two pieces of research make a case that could reshape how the next generation of national cancer plans is written, with guidelines that are not just referenced but implemented, measured, and honestly tailored to the populations they are meant to serve.

Subject of Research: Adapting clinical practice guidelines for regional cancer care and national cancer control planning

Article Title: NCCN models how to tailor cancer care for different regions during 2026 World Cancer Congress

Article References: NCCN models how to tailor cancer care for different regions during 2026 World Cancer Congress. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: NCCN, World Cancer Congress, national cancer control plans, clinical practice guidelines, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, China, UICC, global health policy, guideline adaptation, cancer care equity, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, head and neck cancers