EXPIRED
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Provocative Questions (PQs) in Multiple Myeloma Disparities Research (R01 Clinical Trial Optional)
R01 Research Project Grant
New
PAR-19-279
PAR-19-280, R21 Exploratory/Developmental Grant
93.393, 93.394, 93.395, 93.396, 93.399
Through this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI) invites R01 applications for research projects designed to solve specific problems and paradoxes in multiple myeloma (MM) and disparities research identified as the NCI Multiple Myeloma Disparities Provocative Questions (MMD PQs). These problems and paradoxes phrased as questions are not intended to represent the full range of NCI's priorities in multiple myeloma research. Rather, they are meant to challenge cancer researchers to think about and elucidate specific problems in key areas of multiple myeloma and disparities research that are deemed important but have not received sufficient attention.
The FOA includes six Multiple Myeloma PQs that represent diverse fields relevant to multiple myeloma disparities research, but all are framed to inspire interested scientists to conceive new approaches and/or feasible solutions. Each research project (application) proposed in response to this FOA must be focused on addressing one particular research problem defined by one specific MMD PQ selected from the list. Projects proposed to address specific MMD PQs may use strategies that incorporate ideas and approaches from multiple disciplines, as appropriate. Transdisciplinary projects are encouraged as long as they serve the scientific focus of the specific PQ chosen.
May 13, 2019
30 days after posted date
Not Applicable
July 15, 2019; November 15, 2019; July 15, 2020; November 15, 2020, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. All types of non-AIDS applications allowed for this funding opportunity announcement are due on these dates.
Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.
Not Applicable
October/November 2019; February/March 2020; October/November 2020; February/March 2021
January 2020; May 2020; January 2021; May 2021
April 2020; August 2020; April 2021; August 2021
November 16, 2020
Not Applicable
It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission
Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to support new research projects designed to use sound and innovative strategies to solve specific problems and paradoxes in multiple myeloma disparities research identified by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as the NCI’s Multiple Myeloma and Disparities Provocative Questions (MMD PQs).
This FOA encourages applications for well-developed research projects using the NIH R01 grant mechanism. The companion FOA, PAR-19-280 is a parallel announcement for exploratory/developmental projects using the NIH R21 mechanism.
To be appropriate for this FOA, each application must address a single MMD PQ listed in this FOA.
The objective of the Multiple Myeloma Disparities Provocative Questions (MMD PQs) program is to extend the successful NCI PQ Initiative to stimulate multiple myeloma disparities research in areas that are understudied, neglected, paradoxical, and/or have been difficult to address in the past. The NCI sponsored think tanks and workshops to identify, articulate, and prioritize particularly compelling but understudied problems in multiple myeloma disparities research in order to identify the research areas included in the MMD PQs.
This FOA includes six MMD PQs that represent diverse areas relevant to multiple myeloma disparities research, framed to inspire scientists to conceive new approaches and/or feasible solutions. These MMD PQs are not intended to represent the full range of NCI s priorities in multiple myeloma research. Rather, they are meant to challenge cancer researchers to think about and elucidate specific problems in key areas of multiple myeloma disparities research that are deemed important but have not received sufficient attention.
The Nature of Scientific Problems Underlying Multiple Myeloma Disparities PQs
Regardless of topical area, most scientific problems underlying the corresponding PQs fall into one of three broad types:
Each application must address one, and only one, specific MMD PQ from the list below, exactly as defined in this FOA. To facilitate the submission and peer-review processes, MMD PQs are numbered 1-6. However, the order of the numbering of questions is arbitrary and should not be construed to indicate any order of priority or funding potential.
MMDPQ1: What risk factors, singularly or in cooperation, explain the variation in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) incidence among different races?
Background: While there are several risk factors suggested to play a role in MM incidence, including obesity, inflammation, and family history, little is known regarding the risk factors for developing the pre-malignant condition MGUS. Both incidence and prevalence of MGUS vary by racial/ethnic group, with Black/African Americans experiencing a two- to three-fold increase compared to rates of non-Hispanic whites. Research has suggested that the MGUS progression rate to MM is similar in African Americans and non-Hispanic whites, suggesting that the excess MM incidence in African Americans is due to increased risk of MGUS, not an increased risk of progression. Data has also shown that Hispanic/Latino and African American individuals experience an earlier age of onset for MGUS compared to non-Hispanic whites. Furthermore, studies on MGUS have supported variations in subtypes (IgM vs. non-IgM) across racial/ethnic groups.
Intent: Through this PQ, the NCI solicits research projects (applications) that explore and identify risk factors, both modifiable and non-modifiable, associated with the risk of developing MGUS (overall and/or by subtype) amongst different racial and ethnic groups. Areas that may be explored include but are not limited to: diet, microbiome, environmental and occupational factors; geospatial factors; molecular mechanisms (genetics, epigenetics, proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics); infections; chronic stress; inflammation; obesity; and diabetes. Studies on genetic and other omics risk may be helpful in identifying the underlying drivers of familial inheritance that have been suggested. Understanding the risk factors for MGUS in different racial/ethnic groups may be key to understanding factors that contribute to racial disparities for MM, inform new strategies for countering these risks, and help create risk prediction models for different populations.
MMDPQ2: What characteristics of immune status and response co-vary with racial/ethnic differences for MGUS incidence, and do these factors influence progression to multiple myeloma?
Background: Current research suggests that the immune microenvironment plays a critical role in the progression of MM. The interactions between tumor cells and the microenvironment of the bone marrow are thought to enable tumor cells to avoid immune recognition during disease progression. It is not known how persons of different racial/ethnic groups differ in immune response and how these differences affect progression.
Intent: Through this PQ, the NCI solicits research projects (applications) that explore the differences in immune response, breadth of antigen repertoire, frequency of antibody (Ab) maturation errors, and/or immune microenvironment in the bone marrow between diverse racial/ethnic populations. Research projects could be designed and conducted to explore the differences in baseline, native immune profiles in different racial/ethnic groups, and expand to include investigating differences in response during different stages of MM progression. Other research areas of interest are applications focused on exploring the differences in isotype expression patterns or Ab light chain ratios between different racial/ethnic groups, and on exploring how these differences influence the incidence of MGUS and progression to MM.
MMDPQ3: What are the mutational signatures of early onset vs. late onset multiple myelomas across diverse racial/ethnic patient populations?
Background: Mutational signatures, also referred to as mutographs, are specific DNA mutation combinations (nucleotide changes, indels, translocations, structural rearrangements) that result from mutagenic processes. These somatic mutation patterns have alluded to biological mechanisms involved in cancer etiology and have been used for the development of novel cancer treatments and in cancer prevention and surveillance efforts.
Intent: Through this PQ, the NCI solicits research projects (applications) that identify and study the mutational signatures in MM or its precancer conditions, MGUS, or smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), from a diverse set of patients. With little known on why certain racial/ethnic groups have higher/lower risk for developing MM, and on why some are associated with early onset disease, successful applications should include studying patients from diverse backgrounds and varying treatment outcomes, and may include African American, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Asian patients.
MMDPQ4: What factors explain the difference in age-adjusted incidence rates for multiple myeloma between males and females? Do these factors play a role in earlier stages of the disease such as MGUS?
Background: Both age-adjusted incidence and prevalence for MGUS and MM are higher in males compared to females, with some studies showing as much as a two-fold higher difference for both diseases. The sex disparities persist across all racial/ethnic groups, despite whether the population experiences an increased or decreased risk of MGUS and MM. Although it has been hypothesized that the immunomodulatory effects of female hormones may contribute to the lower MM risk, studies investigating exogenous hormone consumption and various reproductive factors have yielded inconsistent and null results. Thus, etiologic factors explaining the sex-associated disparities in MGUS and MM are unknown.
Intent: Through this PQ, the NCI solicits research projects (applications) that identify the mechanisms behind the differing rates of MGUS and MM in males and females in diverse racial/ethnic populations. Applications describing investigations of epidemiologic and genetic factors that contribute to the differing risks are of interest. Successful applications may include epidemiological studies, mechanistic studies, or preclinical models that attempt to understand what modifiable and/or biological factors contribute to disease development in males and females, and should involve the inclusion of various racial/ethnic groups, some of which experience higher rates of MGUS and MM.
MMDPQ5: Can mouse or other preclinical models be developed that accurately reproduce characteristics of the various stages of progression from MGUS to SMM to MM?
Background: Pre-clinical models, including cell lines, xenografts, and humanized or genetically engineered mouse models, are important tools for understanding the development of cancer and identifying new cancer treatments. Currently, there are a limited number of models for studying MM and the bone marrow microenvironment, and each model comes with both advantages and disadvantages/limitations in terms of their use. Additionally, there are very few models that are derived from diverse racial/ethnic patient populations.
Intent: Through this PQ, the NCI solicits research project (applications) that develop mouse or other preclinical models representing the various stages of MM progression, from MGUS to SMM to MM. Models developed from various racial/ethnic populations are strongly encouraged. Applications should describe the development and validation of the models and describe how they can be used to advance the field of MM disparities research. Applicants are also encouraged to validate the genetic ancestry of the patients from which the models were derived using appropriate ancestry methods.
MMDPQ6: Are there racial/ethnic differences in the natural history of and response to multiple myeloma therapies including chemotherapy, steroids, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, radiation, and stem cell therapy and, if so, what are the underlying mechanisms?
Background: Researchers have recently begun to investigate the problem of treatment response disparities in MM; however, no conclusive finding has been reached. On one hand, there is a study following patients with similar access to healthcare, such as U.S. veterans treated through the Veterans Health Administration, that has not found significant differences in response to MM therapy amongst different racial/ethnic groups. A meta-analysis of NCI-conducted clinical trials in MM patients also did not reveal diverse responses to therapies among patients with varying racial backgrounds. On the other hand, African Americans develop MM at a younger age, and it may be more aggressive compared to non-Hispanic whites. Three subtypes, defined by chromosomal translocations t(11;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20), appear to be enriched in African Americans. These biological differences may also be related to responses to therapy. Access to therapy is a major factor in public health disparities, but this may in turn obscure rather than inform the biological features that impact the disease and treatment outcomes. This issue of obscuring biological differences is especially prominent if the data are not adequately representative of minorities, as is the case in the studies mentioned above.
Intent: Through this PQ, the NCI solicits research projects (applications) for a systematic approach in data collection and analysis of response to MM therapies among patients from various racial and ethnic groups with the focus on possible differences in the biology of the disease and its host. Studies on race/ethnicity-based molecular signatures that would lead to distinct responses to therapy and projects on the role of racially/ethnically distinct tumor environments, including that in precancerous stages of the disease (MGUS or SMM) are needed. Lastly, research focusing on responses to various therapy types within distinct racial/ethnical milieu are also acceptable.
Scientific Scope: The collective scientific scope of this FOA is defined by the list of MMD PQs. These PQs define research areas appropriate for this FOA. They should NOT be construed as examples of specific topics. The scientific scope of an application must clearly and distinctly correspond to one (and only one) of the MMD PQs listed above to be considered for funding. Within an area defined by a given PQ, applicants may propose and pursue any topic they deem relevant as a "research answer" to that PQ. It is important, however, that applicants carefully read the Background and Intent Statement for each MMD PQ.
Individual Goals: Within the research area defined by a specific MMD PQ chosen, the overarching goal of the proposed research project must be an attempt to provide definitive, comprehensive, and thorough research answers to the problem or portions of the problem presented by that question. The proposed research solutions are expected to be creative and highly original with a high potential for transformative impact on current concepts and paradigms in cancer research.
Within this general requirement, specific topics for the proposed investigations, strategies, priority directions, and other details of study design and execution are left to the discretion, originality, and creativity of the applicants. The creativity and originality (combined with scientific rigor) are particularly important, given that the areas identified by the individual MMD PQs are generally understudied. Therefore, the applicants have the full freedom to identify the most promising direction(s) to address the selected PQ, formulate Specific Aims, choose optimal experimental approaches, and adapt appropriate specific benchmarks as measures of accomplishing the overarching goal of the project. It is expected that these specific benchmarks will be in line with the Intent Statement for the selected MMD PQ.
Original Rigorous Concepts versus Preliminary Data: In general, the R01 funding mechanism is used for research projects for which research approaches, methodologies, and background information are well established and usually documented by extensive preliminary data from researchers laboratories. The requirement for well-developed projects applies to applications submitted in response to this FOA.
For many of the MMD PQs, there could be gaps in background information and original preliminary data may be scarce or difficult to obtain beforehand. Since the intention of this FOA is, by definition, to exploit understudied areas, the emphasis is on the novelty and significance of the concepts to be explored with a relaxed requirement for preliminary data. These concepts must be original but also rigorous in terms of integrating to the extent possible the available incomplete information for a given area from various sources. Reviewers will assess both aspects jointly; if the conceptual aspects of the proposed project are viewed as exceptionally strong, applicants will not be penalized for some gaps in the preliminary data. The focus of the FOA is definitely on the "power of the ideas," but combined with rigorous plans to validate those ideas.
See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.
Grant: A support mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.
New
Resubmission (only of applications previously submitted to this FOA).
The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types.
Optional: Accepting applications that either propose or do not propose clinical trial(s).
Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Application budgets are not limited but need to reflect the actual needs of the proposed project.
The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum project period is 5 years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
o Hispanic-serving Institutions
o Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
o Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
o Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
o Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Governments
Other
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible
to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in
the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
Applicant Organizations
Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.
Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. This means that the NIH will not accept:
The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Specific Aims: This section must address the expected overall impact of the project outcomes in terms of breadth and magnitude on cancer research.
Research Strategy: This section must contain (place at the beginning of the section and within the standard page limits) the following element:
Multiple Myeloma Disparities Provocative Question (MMD PQ) Choice. Identify one (and only one) specific MMD PQ from the list that will be addressed in the proposed project and briefly describe how the project will provide an answer to the selected MMD PQ using a conceptually original and rigorous strategy.
Use the standard Research Strategy subsections (Significance, Innovation, and Approach) to describe the proposed project. This description should also address all the specific aspects listed below.
Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following modification:
Appendix:
Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
When involving NIH-defined human subjects research, clinical research, and/or clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:
If you answered Yes to the question Are Human Subjects Involved? on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.
Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed with the following additional instructions:
Delayed Onset Study
Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Foreign (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions.
See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected, and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.
Important reminders:
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete or non-compliant will not be reviewed.
Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact a Scientific/ Research Contact at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy. Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.
Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
For this particular announcement, note the following:
Even though this FOA uses the R01 funding mechanism and the proposed projects should be well developed, there are important differences with respect to conventional R01 applications in emphasis on specific aspects. To be viewed as having potential high impact, the proposed research projects, as designed, must be likely to yield far- or broad-reaching advances in the understanding of the research problem defined by the selected MMD PQ. Thus, potential impact of the applications will be judged in large part on the power of the ideas behind the proposed research, whereas the completeness of preliminary data, required for conventional R01 applications, is de-emphasized for this FOA.
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials:
A proposed Clinical Trial application may include study design, methods, and intervention that are not by themselves innovative but address important questions or unmet needs. Additionally, the results of the clinical trial may indicate that further clinical development of the intervention is unwarranted or lead to new avenues of scientific investigation.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Specific to this FOA: To what extent is this research project, as designed, likely to yield far- or broad-reaching advances in our understanding of the selected MMD PQ?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Are the scientific rationale and need for a clinical trial to test the proposed hypothesis or intervention well supported by preliminary data, clinical and/or preclinical studies, or information in the literature or knowledge of biological mechanisms? For trials focusing on clinical or public health endpoints, is this clinical trial necessary for testing the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention that could lead to a change in clinical practice, community behaviors or health care policy? For trials focusing on mechanistic, behavioral, physiological, biochemical, or other biomedical endpoints, is this trial needed to advance scientific understanding?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
With regard to the proposed leadership for the project, do the PD/PI(s) and key personnel have the expertise, experience, and ability to organize, manage and implement the proposed clinical trial and meet milestones and timelines? Do they have appropriate expertise in study coordination, data management and statistics? For a multicenter trial, is the organizational structure appropriate and does the application identify a core of potential center investigators and staffing for a coordinating center?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Specific to this FOA: To what extent does the proposed project provide opportunity for novel findings that would be informative as answers for the selected MMD PQ? For high risk projects, is the potential for benefit justifiably high? In cases where the proposed project is an extension of ongoing work, how well does it address truly original concepts and/or research directions not covered by the ongoing work and/or use preliminary data in a creative, innovative way? Is it clear that that project focuses on innovation as a main benefit rather than simply taking "the next logical step" in research?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Does the design/research plan include innovative elements, as appropriate, that enhance its sensitivity, potential for information or potential to advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address
1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and
2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Specific to this FOA: To what extent is the experimental design optimal to ensure generation of important information for the selected MMD PQ? If negative results are obtained, how likely is it that these results will be informative for our understanding of the selected MMD PQ? How well do the applicants propose a conceptually original and rigorous strategy to solve the problem defined by the selected MMD PQ? If supporting preliminary data are limited or incomplete, how well are such gaps compensated by exceptional strength of conceptual aspects?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Does the application adequately address the following (if applicable):
Study Design
Is the study design justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that will be clear, informative and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the study based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Given the methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the trial appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the study populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), proposed intervention arms/dose, and duration of the trial, appropriate and well justified?
Are potential ethical issues adequately addressed? Is the process for obtaining informed consent or assent appropriate? Is the eligible population available? Are the plans for recruitment outreach, enrollment, retention, handling dropouts, missed visits, and losses to follow-up appropriate to ensure robust data collection? Are the planned recruitment timelines feasible and is the plan to monitor accrual adequate? Has the need for randomization (or not), masking (if appropriate), controls, and inclusion/exclusion criteria been addressed? Are differences addressed, if applicable, in the intervention effect due to sex/gender and race/ethnicity?
Are the plans to standardize, assure quality of, and monitor adherence to, the trial protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate? Is there a plan to obtain required study agent(s)? Does the application propose to use existing available resources, as applicable?
Data Management and Statistical Analysis
Are planned analyses and statistical approach appropriate for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions? Are the procedures for data management and quality control of data adequate at clinical site(s) or at center laboratories, as applicable? Have the methods for standardization of procedures for data management to assess the effect of the intervention and quality control been addressed? Is there a plan to complete data analysis within the proposed period of the award?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Specific to this FOA: Are there any extraordinary aspects and/or resources that provide novel or enhanced opportunities to investigate the selected MMD PQ in a way that would not be possible elsewhere even in generally excellent scientific environments? For example, are there any unique, newly developed/acquired technical capabilities (without which the project could not be proposed) that are not available anywhere else?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
If proposed, are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed?
Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial at the proposed site(s) or centers? Are the plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate?
If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial?
If multi-sites/centers, is there evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to: (1) enroll the proposed numbers; (2) adhere to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and (4) operate within the proposed organizational structure?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Specific to applications involving clinical trials
Is the study timeline described in detail, taking into account start-up activities, the anticipated rate of enrollment, and planned follow-up assessment? Is the projected timeline feasible and well justified? Does the project incorporate efficiencies and utilize existing resources (e.g., CTSAs, practice-based research networks, electronic medical records, administrative database, or patient registries) to increase the efficiency of participant enrollment and data collection, as appropriate?
Are potential challenges and corresponding solutions discussed (e.g., strategies that can be implemented in the event of enrollment shortfalls)?
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.
When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States (U.S.) or augment existing U.S. resources.
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan; (2) Sharing Model Organisms; and (3) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).
For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the Center for Scientific Review, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications . Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Cancer Advisory Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee’s business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person’s race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research.
For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA. HHS provides general guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/index.html. The HHS Office for Civil Rights also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html; and https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/laws-regulations-guidance/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.
In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
Not Applicable
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 Award Term and Conditions for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity
and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)
Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred
method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
General Grants Information
(Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH
grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred
method of contact)
Telephone: 301-945-7573
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding
Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: support@grants.gov
Amy Kennedy, Ph.D., M.P.H.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-781-3335
Email: amy.kennedy@nih.gov
Syed Quadri, Ph.D.
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Telephone: 301-435-1211
Email: quadris@mail.nih.gov
Crystal
Wolfrey
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6277
Email: wolfreyc@mail.nih.gov
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75.