When involving NIH-defined human subjects research, clinical research, and/or clinical trials 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 a 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.

Delayed Onset Study: All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

When preparing your application in ASSIST, use Component Type 'Admin Core.'

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions, as noted.

SF424 (R&R) Cover (Administrative Core)

Complete only the following fields:

• Applicant Information
• Type of Applicant (optional)
• Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: Administrative Core
• Proposed Project Start/Ending Dates

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement (Administrative Core)

Enter Human Embryonic Stem Cells in each relevant component.

Research & Related Other Project Information (Administrative Core)

Human Subjects: Answer only the 'Are Human Subjects Involved?' and 'Is the Project Exempt from Federal regulations?' questions.

Vertebrate Animals: Answer only the 'Are Vertebrate Animals Used?' question.

Project Summary/Abstract: Provide overall goals/abstract/summary for the Administrative Core.

Project Narrative: State the relevance of the Administrative Core's activities to public health.

Facilities and Other Resources: If the SPORE will benefit from a funded institutional, local, state, or national resource/consortium, the funded resource should be described in the application.

Other Attachments: The following "Other Attachments" should be included with the application. The filename provided for each attachment will be the name used for the bookmark in the application image.

• Tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, and charts relevant to the Administrative Core.

Project /Performance Site Location(s) (Administrative Core)

List all performance sites that apply to the specific component.

Note: The Project Performance Site form allows up to 300 sites, prior to using additional attachment for additional entries.

Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile (Administrative Core)

• In the Project Director/Principal Investigator section of the form, use Project Role of 'Other' with Category of 'Core Lead' and provide a valid eRA Commons ID in the Credential field.
• In the additional Senior/Key Profiles section, list Senior/Key persons that are working in the component.
• Include a single Biographical Sketch for each Senior/Key person listed in the application regardless of the number of components in which they participate. When a Senior/Key person is listed in multiple components, the Biographical Sketch can be included in any one component.
• If more than 100 Senior/Key persons are included in a component, the Additional Senior Key Person attachments should be used.

Budget (Administrative Core)

Budget forms appropriate for the specific component will be included in the application package.

The SPORE PD/PI (or at least one of the SPORE PD/PIs in multiple PD/PI applications) is expected to serve as Core Lead of the Administrative Core with minimum effort of 0.6 PM. If multiple PDs/PIs serve as co-Core Leads, each must devote a minimum effort of 0.6 PM. The minimum total effort for the PD/PI on a SPORE grant is 2.4 PM. If the SPORE application is submitted as a multiple PD/PI application, each PD/PI must commit a minimum of 2.4 PM. The minimum of 2.4 PM time commitment should be an aggregate of efforts in different components.

Budgets are also required for each consortium (subcontract) if they are part of the Administrative Core.

The budget may include a request of up to $50,000 direct costs to be used as discretionary funds. Budgets for costs to cover the travel of (up to) 10 investigators per SPORE to NCI-sponsored meetings/workshops and NCI-related activities, and allowable advocate-associated costs should be included. Any costs related to advisory board meetings should be included. Funds should not be requested for participation in grant review meetings, special emphasis panels, and other evaluation groups where reimbursement derives from other sources.

Budget Justification. In Personnel Justification section, discuss the time commitment of the Core Director(s) for the overall successful conduct of the SPORE.

Note: The R&R Budget form included in many of the component types allows for up to 100 Senior/Key Persons in section A and 100 Equipment Items in section C prior to using attachments for additional entries. All other SF424 (R&R) instructions apply.

PHS 398 Research Plan (Administrative Core)

Introduction to Application: For Resubmission and Revision applications, an Introduction to Application is allowed for each component.

Specific Aims: Succinctly describe the list of specific objectives and goals of the Administrative Core.

Research Strategy: Succinctly address the following items:

Leadership: Detail the plans for the organizational, administrative, and scientific management (both basic and clinical research) of the SPORE program. Describe and/or diagram the chain of authority for decision-making and administration within the program. Leadership with respect to initiating, facilitating, and implementing successful translational/clinical research collaborations should be discussed in the SC section of the Overall component.

Administrative Management: Describe the plans for the fiscal management, clerical support, manuscript preparation, and compliance to NIH public access policy (PMCID), and meeting organizations. Quality control and communication aspects of the grant, particularly if more than one institution is involved in the SPORE should be discussed. A succession plan should be included which describes the process by which new leadership will be selected in the event that the SPORE PD(s)/PI(s) is no longer willing or able to lead the SPORE. A statement of commitment to attend NCI sponsored meetings/workshops and other NCI-related activities should also be included.

Integration within SPORE and the Institution: Provide a narrative how the SPORE integrates with existing Cancer Center/institutional resources (e.g., use of clinical data and safety management systems, Biostatistics Core, etc.) Explain how coordination and communication among the different projects and programs, Shared Resources Cores and participating institutions will be achieved at the overall program level. [Note: SPORE projects are not required to interact with each other.]

Cancer Patient Population: Each SPORE must document access to a substantial patient population for the organ site or group of related cancers that are the focus of the application and provide reasonable assurance that the patients and human specimens needed for translational research are readily available. If the appropriate patient population is not available at the applicant institution, a consortium agreement may be established with a different institution(s) to provide adequate access to clinical specimens and/or patients. Describe the access to cancer patients and populations for conducting current and projected therapeutic, prevention, detection, and control research within the SPORE and collaborating institutions. For renewal applications, document the accomplished translational goals, including evidence of human subject enrollment on clinical/population research studies during the past funding period.

Data Management: Describe the development and use of bioinformatics capabilities of the SPORE as they relate to the Cancer Center, institution, or activities of other NIH/NCI initiatives for overall data management.

Planning and Evaluation Activities: Discuss the planning and evaluation of SPORE activities, e.g., the evaluation of the translational research productivity of existing projects and Shared Resources Core; the process for discontinuing projects and replacing them with more promising projects; and the initiation of activities in response to important translational research opportunities. Describe the establishment of the required External Advisory Board and the recommended Internal Advisory Board (if proposed). If the board has already been established, list active membership. If board has not yet been established, describe areas of expertise for each group. In addition to the list, describe the role of each group in planning and evaluation processes.

Interaction between the SPORE and NCI-designated Cancer Center: If a SPORE application originates from an institution that is supported by an NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG; P30), the following are also expected:

The SPORE must be an integral part of the Cancer Center and the lines of authority should be clearly indicated.

• Cancer Center Director(s), or their designee, are encouraged to directly interact with the proposed SPORE (e.g., serve as an Internal Advisory Board member).
• The applicant should discuss how the SPORE will interact synergistically with existing P30 programs and their resources in order to maximize both SPORE and Cancer Center research objectives. While the SPORE is expected to become an integral element within the NCI-designated Cancer Center, a distinct institutional commitment to the SPORE must still be maintained throughout the term of the SPORE grant.
• The proposed Cores within the SPORE should not duplicate any available facility already in place and supported by another granting mechanism (e.g., P30, P01, U01, U10, DOD, etc.). Applicants may, however, augment pre-existing Cancer Center or institutional resources in order to direct these activities toward more effective fulfillment of the requirements of the SPORE. For example, the SPORE should use the Cancer Center-specific IRB(s) and DSMB(s) as well as other clinical trial resources, whenever possible.
• If applicable, renewal applications should detail how discretionary budget funds were spent during the current funding period.

Letters of Support: Attach letters of support addressed to either the SPORE PD(s)/PI(s) or the NCI and must be signed by the appropriate institution's leaders (e.g., Dean of the School of Medicine, President, Vice President for Research).

A letter of support from the institution must be attached addressing: the commitment to support the proposed SPORE, a plan describing how the institutional commitment will be established and sustained, how the institution will maintain accountability for promoting scientific excellence, and how the SPORE research effort will be given a high priority within the institution. The letter should describe the integration and synergies between the institutional resources and those of the overall SPORE and its components. The institutional commitment may come in the form of support for recruitment of scientific talent, providing protected time for physicians, assignment of specialized research space, cost sharing of resources, and/or other ways proposed by the applicant institution.

A separate letter of support from the Cancer Center is required for host institutions associated with an NCI-designated Cancer Center. The NCI-designated Cancer Center letter of support should describe the integration and synergies between the Cancer Center resources and those of the overall SPORE and its components, and delineate organizational relationships and responsibilities between the SPORE and the NCI-designated Cancer Center. If the SPORE PD/PI does not hold a prominent position within the Cancer Center, the letter should describe the future authority of the SPORE PD/PI within the Cancer Center once the NCI SPORE funding is obtained. Whenever there is dependence on Institute-wide Core Resources, a letter of agreement from the Core Director should be included.

In the case of a SPORE that involves two or more institutions, the applicant institution must submit a formal written agreement(s) from the other participant organization(s) that states how the participating institution will commit to the SPORE. The primary institution (as well as any participating institutions) is strongly encouraged to demonstrate commitment by providing financial support to the Developmental Research and Career Enhancement Programs on an awarded SPORE, as well as to other programmatic needs identified as high priority in the application.

The institution(s) is encouraged to provide the SPORE PD/PI with discretionary funds. These funds can be used to support anticipated as well as unanticipated activities during the funding period. All financial commitments made by the institution to the SPORE will be monitored and are expected to be maintained during the entire term of the award.

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:

SPOREs are expected to establish processes and infrastructure to support the meaningful sharing of data and information generated through the proposed research activities. This is expected to require collaboration with the NCI program staff as well as other SPOREs to identify and apply consensus data standards, including data elements and vocabularies; to develop and implement quality assurance processes for the data; and to share these data through the appropriate NIH/NCI data repositories.

In addition, SPOREs are encouraged to contribute to the establishment of a functional data commons. SPORE scientists should support these efforts by participating in face-to-face and virtual meetings, addressing important functional data needs, and helping to define a pilot of functional data commons. It is expected that appropriate SPORE projects should contribute data to the commons as appropriate and consistent with the goals of the program; sharing would take place at the time of publication; and a person named for data-sharing activities would be identified in the SPORE Administration Core and more fully addressed in the Data Sharing Plan.

All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan.

Appendix: Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

PHS Inclusion Enrollment Report (Administrative Core)

When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing PHS Inclusion Enrollment Report as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information (Administrative Core)

When involving NIH-defined human subjects research, clinical research, and/or clinical trials follow all instructions for in the SR424 (R&R) Application Guide

When preparing your application in ASSIST, use Component Type 'Core.'

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions, as noted.

SF424 (R&R) Cover (Shared Resources Core)

Complete only the following fields:

• Applicant Information
• Type of Applicant (optional)
• Descriptive Title of Applicant's Core(s) starting with "Core 1:", "Core 2:", etc.
• Proposed Project Start/Ending Dates

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement (Shared Resources Core)

Enter Human Embryonic Stem Cells in each relevant component.

Research & Related Other Project Information (Shared Resources Core)

Human Subjects: Answer the 'Are Human Subjects Involved?' and 'Is the Project Exempt from Federal regulations?' questions.

Vertebrate Animals: Answer the 'Are Vertebrate Animals Used?' question.

Project Summary/Abstract: Provide overall goals/abstract/summary for the Shared Resources Core

Project Narrative: State the relevance of the Core's activities to public health.

Facilities and Other Resources:

If the core will benefit from a funded institutional, local, State, or national resource/consortium, the funded resource should be described in the application.

Institutional Commitment: Discuss how the institutional commitment to the core, by providing support for recruitment of scientific talent, providing discretionary resources to the Core Director, assignment of specialized research space, cost sharing of resources, and other assurances proposed by the applicant institution, will specifically facilitate the research proposed.

Other Attachments: The following "Other Attachments" should be included with each Core component in order to aid in the review of the application. The filename provided for each attachment will be the name used for the bookmark in the application image.

• Tables, graphs, figures, diagrams and charts relevant to the Shared Resources Core
• Distribution of Shared Core's Effort to Projects
• Attach a table showing the percent effort dedicated to each project as well as to the Developmental Research Program (DRP) and Career Enhancement Program (CEP)

Project /Performance Site Location(s) (Shared Resources Core)

List all performance sites that apply to the specific component.

Note: The Project Performance Site form allows up to 300 sites, prior to using additional attachment for additional entries.

Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile (Shared Resources Core)

• In the Project Director/Principal Investigator section of the form, use Project Role of 'Other' with Category of 'Core Director' and provide a valid eRA Commons ID in the Credential field.
• In the additional Senior/Key Profiles section, list Senior/Key persons that are working in the component.
• Include a single Biographical Sketch for each Senior/Key person listed in the application regardless of the number of components in which they participate. When a Senior/Key person is listed in multiple components, the Biographical Sketch can be included in any one component.
• If more than 100 Senior/Key persons are included in a component, the Additional Senior Key Person attachments should be used.

Budget (Shared Resources Core)

Budget forms appropriate for the specific component will be included in the application package.

Budgets are also required for each consortium (subcontract) if they are part of any Cores.

Core Director(s) must commit to a minimum of 0.6 PM of effort.

Note: The R&R Budget form included in many of the component types allows for up to 100 Senior/Key Persons in section A and 100 Equipment Items in section C prior to using attachments for additional entries. All other SF424 (R&R) instructions apply.

PHS 398 Research Plan (Shared Resources Core)

Introduction to Application: For Resubmission and Revision applications, an Introduction to Application is allowed for each component.

Specific Aims: Succinctly list the specific objectives and goals of the Core.

Research Strategy: If a proposed Core appears to duplicate other facilities at the applicant institution(s), justification should be provided along with an explanation for why these institutional resources cannot be used for the SPORE activities.

If any of the participating institutions has two or more ongoing SPORE awards, the application must address how related (e.g., specimen banking) activities are coordinated across all SPOREs, as well as within the Cancer Center. For example, it might be anticipated that a request to support a Biospecimen Core at an institution with a CCSG and substantial ongoing SPORE support will be smaller, based on the infrastructure already in existence at the institution. Prior to an award, NCI will carefully review proposed SPORE Core activities and budgets for overlap with ongoing CCSG and SPORE Cores. It should be the objective of all involved Core directors to make sure that biospecimen-related, biostatistical, bioinformatics, and clinical activities are performed in a cost effective and coordinated manner.

Biospecimen/Pathology Core (Required)

Describe the plans for collecting and distributing human cancer site-specific and/or related specimens, including fixed tissue, frozen tissue, paraffin blocks, slides, preserved cells, serum, plasma, urine, sputum samples, and other body fluids, as appropriate for the cancer site. Describe the plans for achieving detailed annotation of parameters of collection and preservation that are pertinent to the pre-analytic and analytic considerations of potential SPORE studies as well as essential pathological, clinical, and family history information needed for conducting a wide range of translational research activities. Describe quality measures used in this Core. Describe the informatics that will be used for tracking specimens, as well as linkage to clinical and follow-up data sets. Networking with informatics systems at other SPORE sites is encouraged, but is not required. Address development, acquisition, storage, and usage of standardized reference specimens and materials, and any other services related to the analysis of specimens (e.g., tissue microdissection, immunohistochemistry) that will be provided. Describe and justify any research activities to improve Core services and how they will benefit the SPORE. Describe integration with the cancer center biospecimen core resources and the clinical laboratory.

Provide a plan for prioritizing distribution of biospecimens to SPORE scientists and others, both inside and outside the parent/consortium institution(s), based on the merit of the proposed translational cancer research projects. Renewal applications should also include a list of the studies and/or collaborations that benefited from this Core, as well as a summary listing the numbers and types of specimens accrued and distributed during the previous funding period. If significant collaborations have emerged from this Core, over and beyond the distribution of specimens, the data should be discussed in this section, but the details of the collaboration itself, including the strategy for moving the project through the translational research pathway to the clinic should be discussed in the SC section of the Overall component.

Other Cores (Optional)

Additional Shared Resources Cores (e.g., biostatistical, clinical, animal, etc.) may also be proposed as distinct components that are supportive of one or more of the research projects of the SPORE. These Cores may also include other analytical or non-hypothesis-driven research activities designed to enhance a service. A Biostatistical Core is strongly encouraged.

For all Cores, describe the facilities and/or services that will be provided, and state the rationale for centralizing them in the Core, rather than including them in individual projects. Indicate why the Shared Resources Core is an essential part of the SPORE, and how the proposed services will facilitate accomplishment of the proposed goals and objectives of the SPORE as a whole. Address plans for prioritization of services (if necessary).

If a Clinical Core is proposed, the application also should discuss how duplication in the reporting of clinical trial data to the NCI will be avoided.

For New Applications, summarize the preliminary studies that support the ability of the Core to provide the proposed services.

For renewal applications, use of the Core facilities and services by projects and developmental programs during the current funding period should also be clearly documented.

Progress Report Publication List (for Renewal Applications): List all publications and accepted manuscripts resulting from previously funded Core(s) that are being continued and which cite the SPORE grant. Using an asterisk, mark each listed publication if it is a result of formal collaborations between this Core and other projects within the SPORE, with other SPOREs, or with other funded NCI networks, such as the NCI Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) or the Early Detection Research Network (EDRN). For publicly available citations, PMC submission identification numbers (PMCID), if required, should accompany the full reference. Copies of these publications should not be included as appendix material.

Letters of Support: Attach appropriate letters relevant to each Core detailing the nature and extent of participation.

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:

All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan.

Appendix: Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

PHS Inclusion Enrollment Report (Shared Resources Core)

When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing PHS Inclusion Enrollment Report as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information (Shared Resources Core)

When involving NIH-defined human subjects research, clinical research, and/or clinical trials 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 a 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.

Delayed Onset Study: All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

When preparing your application in ASSIST, use Component Type 'Dev Res Prog'.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions, as noted.

SF424 (R&R) Cover (DRP)

Complete only the following fields:

• Applicant Information
• Type of Applicant (optional)
• Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: "Developmental Research Program"
• Proposed Project Start/Ending Dates

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement (DRP)

Enter Human Embryonic Stem Cells in each relevant component.

Research & Related Other Project Information (DRP)

Human Subjects: Answer only the 'Are Human Subjects Involved?' and 'Is the Project Exempt from Federal regulations?' questions.

Vertebrate Animals: Answer only the 'Are Vertebrate Animals Used?' question.

Project Summary/Abstract: Provide overall goals/abstract/summary for the DRP.

Project Narrative: State the relevance of the DRP's activities to public health.

Facilities and Other Resources: Institutional Commitment: Discuss how the institutional commitment to the DRP, if provided, will specifically facilitate the research proposed.

Other Attachments: The following "Other Attachments" should be included with the DRP component to aid in the review of the application. The filename provided for each attachment will be the name used for the bookmark in the application image.

• Tables, graphs, figures, diagrams and charts relevant to the DRP.

Project /Performance Site Location(s) (DRP)

List all performance sites that apply to the specific component.

Note: The Project Performance Site form allows up to 300 sites, prior to using additional attachment for additional entries.

Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile (DRP)

• In the Project Director/Principal Investigator section of the form, use Project Role of 'Other' with Category of 'DRP Director' and provide a valid eRA Commons ID in the Credential field.
• In the additional Senior/Key Profiles section, list Senior/Key persons that are working in the component.
• Include a single Biographical Sketch for each Senior/Key person listed in the application regardless of the number of components in which they participate. When a Senior/Key person is listed in multiple components, the Biographical Sketch can be included in any one component.
• If more than 100 Senior/Key persons are included in a component, the Additional Senior Key Person attachments should be used.

Budget (DRP)

Budget forms appropriate for the specific component will be included in the application package.

Budgets are also required for each consortium (subcontract) if they are part of the DRP.

DRP Director(s) must commit to a minimum of 0.3 PM of effort.

The DRP, as a required component of a SPORE, must be maintained throughout the entire term of the grant. A minimum commitment of $50,000 direct costs per year from SPORE funds per year must be proposed and maintained for a DRP. The NCI will monitor the activities of both SPORE and institutionally sponsored DRP projects during non-competitive years to ensure that the institutional commitment is being maintained. DRP funds should be used for research activities and cannot be used for the purchase of any large equipment.

Note: The R&R Budget form included in many of the component types allows for up to 100 Senior/Key Persons in section A and 100 Equipment Items in section C prior to using attachments for additional entries. All other SF424 (R&R) instructions apply.

PHS 398 Research Plan (DRP)

Introduction to Application: For Resubmission and Revision applications, an Introduction to Application is allowed for each component.

Specific Aims: Describe the specific objectives and goals of the DRP.

Research Strategy: Clearly describe the process for solicitation of DRP projects and the institutional review process for funding pilot and/or collaborative projects that generate feasibility data. These funds are intended to remain flexible and to support studies of 2 years or less. The expectation is that successful feasibility studies that have translational potential will replace full projects that are not progressing satisfactorily toward their translational research objectives within the SPORE or projects that have been completed or will be the subject of a new grant application.

New applications should describe the processes to be used to set up the DRP within the SPORE and the process to be established for the continuous reviewing and funding of the pilot and collaborative projects based on quality and importance to the overall SPORE goal. New applicants may also supply a short description of eligible projects as examples. Renewal applicants should include their track records of funding pilot projects, methods of monitoring and assessing ongoing pilot projects, and short descriptions of other potentially eligible projects.

Progress Report Publication List (for Renewal Applications): List all publications and accepted manuscripts resulting from previously funded DRP component and which cite the SPORE grant. Using an asterisk, mark each listed publication if it is a result of formal collaborations between the DRP and other projects within the SPORE, with other SPOREs, or with other funded NCI networks, such as the NCI Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) or the Early Detection Research Network (EDRN). For publicly available citations, PMC submission identification numbers (PMCID), if required, should accompany the full reference. Copies of these publications should not be included as appendix material.

Letters of Support: Attach appropriate letters relevant to the DRP detailing the nature and extent of participation.

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:

All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan.

Appendix: Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

PHS Inclusion Enrollment Report (DRP)

When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing PHS Inclusion Enrollment Report as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information (DRP)

When involving NIH-defined human subjects research, clinical research, and/or clinical trials 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 a 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.

Delayed Onset Study: All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed

When preparing your application in ASSIST, use Component Type 'Career Enh Prog.'

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions, as noted.

SF424 (R&R) Cover (CEP)

Complete only the following fields:

• Applicant Information
• Type of Applicant (optional)
• Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: "Career Enhancement Program"
• Proposed Project Start/Ending Dates

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement (CEP)

Enter Human Embryonic Stem Cells in each relevant component.

Research & Related Other Project Information (CEP)

Human Subjects: Answer only the 'Are Human Subjects Involved?' and 'Is the Project Exempt from Federal regulations?' questions.

Vertebrate Animals: Answer only the 'Are Vertebrate Animals Used?' question.

Project Summary/Abstract: Provide overall goals/abstract/summary for the CEP.

Project Narrative: In the "Project Narrative", the relevance of the CEP's activities to public health should be stated.

Facilities and Other Resources: Institutional Commitment: Discuss how the institutional commitment to the CEP, if provided, will specifically facilitate the research proposed.

Other Attachments: The following "Other Attachments" should be included with the CEP component in order to aid in the review of the application. The filename provided for each attachment will be the name used for the bookmark in the application image.

• Tables, graphs, figures, diagrams and charts relevant to the CEP.

Project /Performance Site Location(s) (CEP)

List all performance sites that apply to the specific component.

Note: The Project Performance Site form allows up to 300 sites, prior to using additional attachment for additional entries.

Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile (CEP)

• In the Project Director/Principal Investigator section of the form, use Project Role of 'Other' with Category of 'CEP Director' and provide a valid eRA Commons ID in the Credential field.
• In the additional Senior/Key Profiles section, list Senior/Key persons that are working in the component.
• Include a single Biographical Sketch for each Senior/Key person listed in the application regardless of the number of components in which they participate. When a Senior/Key person is listed in multiple components, the Biographical Sketch can be included in any one component.
• If more than 100 Senior/Key persons are included in a component, the Additional Senior Key Person attachments should be used.

Budget (CEP)

Budget forms appropriate for the specific component will be included in the application package.

Budgets are also required for each consortium (subcontract) if they are part of the CEP.

CEP Director(s) must commit to a minimum of 0.3 PM of effort.

The CEP, as a required component of a SPORE, must be maintained throughout the entire term of the grant. A minimum commitment of $50,000 direct costs per year from SPORE funds per year must be proposed and maintained for CEP. The NCI will monitor the activities of both SPORE and institutionally sponsored CEP projects during non-competitive years to ensure that the institutional commitment is being maintained. CEP funds should be used to support research activities, including partial salary support for the candidate, research personnel, supplies, travel, and/or other expenses, and cannot be used for the purchase of any large equipment.

Note: The R&R Budget form included in many of the component types allows for up to 100 Senior/Key Persons in section A and 100 Equipment Items in section C prior to using attachments for additional entries. All other SF424 (R&R) instructions apply.

PHS 398 Research Plan (CEP)

Introduction to Application: For Resubmission and Revision applications, an Introduction to Application is allowed for each component.

Specific Aims: Describe the specific objectives and goals of the CEP.

Research Strategy: Clearly describe the plans for this program including the policies, criteria, and processes for selecting candidates (e.g., advanced post-doctoral fellows who are ready to transition to a faculty position within one year, junior faculty, and established investigators), including the special efforts that will be made to recruit women, individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, as well as individuals with disabilities. The plan should include the number and types of positions that will be made available, the criteria for eligibility and selection of candidates, a description of the selection process, and the process for mentoring or advising junior level candidates or monitoring the progress of all candidates. New applicants should provide short descriptions of potential candidates, as well as the names and research activities of mentors/advisors. Renewal applicants should provide this information in addition to their past performance on recruiting women, individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, as well as individuals with disabilities, and the track record of awardees supported on the SPORE. Support of a CEP awardee should not exceed 2 years.

Similar to the DRP, outstanding career enhancement projects may be promoted to full projects to replace those that are not meeting their translational research objectives within the SPORE or projects that have been completed. Successful CEP awardees may be provided continued support as project co-leaders of the promoted projects.

Progress Report Publication List (for Renewal Applications): List all publications and accepted manuscripts resulting from previously funded CEP component and which cite the SPORE grant. Using an asterisk, mark each listed publication if it is a result of formal collaborations between the CEP and other projects within the SPORE, with other SPOREs, or with other funded NCI networks, such as the NCI Clinical Trials Network (formerly known as Cooperative Groups) or the Early Detection Research Network (EDRN). For publicly available citations, PMC submission identification numbers (PMCID), if required, should accompany the full reference. Copies of these publications should not be included as appendix material.

Letters of Support: Attach appropriate letters specific to the CEP detailing the nature and extent of support and/or participation.

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:

All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan.

Appendix: Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information (CEP)

When involving NIH-defined human subjects research, clinical research, and/or clinical trials 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 a 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.

Delayed Onset Study: All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed

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) using ASSIST or other electronic submission systems. 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.

For information on how your application will be automatically assembled for review and funding consideration after submission go to: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ElectronicReceipt/files/Electronic_Multi-project_Application_Image_Assembly.pdf.

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 Applying Electronically. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Guidelines for Applicants Experiencing System Issues. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) and component Project Leads 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.

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 (SAM). 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 are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy.

Important Update: See NOT-OD-18-228 for updated review language for due dates on or after January 25, 2019.

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

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 SPORE as a whole 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 SPORE proposed).

Reviewers will consider, but not individually score, each of the review criteria below, taking into account the merit of research projects, clinical trials, population science studies, cores, developmental research and career enhancement programs, and scientific collaborations in the determination of scientific merit of the SPORE grant. 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 SPORE address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is there a strong scientific premise for the project? If the aims of the SPORE 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?

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 SPORE? 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?

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?

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 SPORE? 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 SPORE 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 children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

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?

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?

Specific for this FOA: 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 sites or 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?

The Scientific Collaboration section is part of the Overall component. Reviewers will assign a numerical score to only this section of the Overall based on the following criteria.

• Horizontal Collaborations: Do any/many of the proposed projects (and the Developmental Research Program, if appropriate) detail scientific collaboration with other SPOREs, other NIH/NCI programs, or other government or non-government organizations such that information, expertise and resources are shared to complete translational goals within the SPORE more rapidly and efficiently? Are the plans to promote collaborative projects by the SPORE leadership adequately addressed? For new SPORE applications, are plans described for collaborative projects, and are these plans sufficient? For renewal applications, have proposed milestones and timelines in collaborative activities been reached? Does the participation in and outcome of collaborative projects and Programs contribute to the overall translational goals of the SPORE?
• Vertical Collaborations: For renewal applications, has the SPORE participated in trans-NCI mechanisms, or has it partnered with ongoing trials for SPORE-initiated biomarker studies, or has it used other grant or contract mechanisms to expand clinical studies that were begun in the SPORE, collaboratively outside the P50 mechanism, or has it partnered with industry to continue the development of a SPORE concept? Have proposed milestones and timelines in collaborations been met? Has the SPORE leadership played an important role in moving SPORE concepts through translational/clinical development so that patients can most quickly reap the benefits of SPORE research? For new applications, is there a plan for potential collaborative agreements in developing cancer therapeutics and biomarkers, and for expanding population and cancer prevention studies beyond the limits of the SPORE, should early clinical studies prove to be successful?

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. A project 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. An assigned reviewer will give a criterion score for each of the following five criteria for the individual research projects. However, criterion scoring is not used for the other SPORE components.

Significance

Does the project address an important translational research goal or barrier for this particular organ site or the related group of cancers? 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 preventive interventions that drive this field?

In addition, for applications proposing 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?

Investigators

Are the Project co-leaders, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? Is there adequate evidence of co-leadership of the project by basic and applied/clinical investigators in the conception, design, and proposed implementation of the project? If investigators are in the early stages of independent careers or are new to translational cancer research 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 with other groups, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approaches, governance and organizational structures appropriate for the project?

In addition, for applications proposing 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?

Innovation

Does the project challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions in the context of translational research? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research? Are the concepts novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

In addition, for applications proposing 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?

Approach

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? 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?

Specific for this FOA: Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable:

Will the research achieve a human endpoint within the 5-year project period? Is it likely the study will be completed within the project period? If the project is ongoing and has changed research direction, is there appropriate rationale for the new approach? Are the plans for (1) 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 children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Note: Aspects of collaboration unrelated to scientific data will be reviewed in the Scientific Collaboration section (Overall component) and not in the SPORE Research Projects section.

In addition, for applications proposing 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?

Environment

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 for this FOA: Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable:

In the case of multiple institutions involved in a single SPORE, is there an adequate plan for communication among investigators to achieve the goals of the grant? Is there evidence of institutional support? Is there evidence of effective use of SPORE Cores?

In addition, for applications proposing 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?

Review Criteria for Administrative Core

Reviewers will assign a numerical score based on the following criteria (these criteria do not receive separate scores).

Leadership

Are the scientific qualifications, involvement, leadership and time commitment of the Co-Leaders sufficient for requirements of the proposed SPORE? (Leadership for collaborations will be reviewed in the Scientific Collaboration section, now part of the Overall component.)

Administrative Management

Does the plan for the Administrative Core adequately address how the SPORE will be managed administratively including the fiscal and data operations? Are the communication aspects of the SPORE facilitated by this Core adequately addressed, particularly if there is more than one institution involved in the proposed research? Is there evidence that appropriate clerical and administrative personnel and quality controls are in place for the smooth running and total integration of the SPORE? Are the qualifications, experience, and commitment of the Shared Resources Core Director(s) and other key personnel adequate and appropriate for providing the proposed facility or services? Will this Core provide adequate meeting/travel support, and support for the advisory boards? Are the qualifications, experience, and commitment of the Core Director(s) and other key personnel adequate? Does the proposed plan include a succession plan for SPORE leadership that could be enacted in the event that the SPORE PD(s)/PI(s) is no longer willing or able to lead the SPORE? If patient advocates are included, are their activities appropriate to the goals of the SPORE?

Institutional Commitment

Is the institutional commitment for facilitating the research objectives of the SPORE (e.g., through special facilities, recruitments, discretionary funding, supplemental resources for CEP and DRP) sufficiently documented?

Integration of the SPORE within the Institution

Are the activities of SPORE projects and proposed Cores well integrated into the institution? Does the entire SPORE integrate with the existing cancer center/institute (e.g., use of clinical data and safety management systems, biostatistical and other Cores, etc.)? Is there evidence of, or plans for, coordination and communication across all components of the SPORE and among all participating institutions at the overall SPORE level?

Cancer Patient Population

Is the access to patients and populations for conducting current and projected therapeutic, prevention, detection, and control research adequate to ensure likely success of the SPORE?

Data Management

Are the plans for and/or track record of the overall data management and/or bioinformatics capabilities of the SPORE as they are related to the Cancer Center, institution, and/or activities of other NIH/NCI initiatives sufficient for the requirements of the proposed SPORE?

Planning and Evaluation of Activities

Are the plans for and/or track record of evaluating the translational research productivity of existing projects and Cores adequate for the requirements of the proposed SPORE? Are the plans for and/or track record of use of advice from internal and external advisors sufficient? For renewal applications, is there evidence that the flexibility available to the SPORE has been used effectively?

Review Criteria for Shared Resources Core(s)

Do the Shared Resources Core(s) provide essential functions or services for at least one project?

Biospecimen/Pathology Core

Investigator

Is there sufficient evidence of proficient personnel dedicated to the activities of specimen collection, annotation, quality control, storage, distribution, and analysis? Is there sufficient oversight of the collection of initial and follow-up clinical information, data entry, and maintenance of database and computer networks? For renewal applications, the performance and relative time commitments of these individuals should also be evaluated based on the past accomplishments of the Core.

Approach

• Does the proposed plan for this Core adequately address the development, annotation, and maintenance of a human cancer site-specific specimen resource, including linkage of specimens with pre-analytical parameters and pathological, clinical, and family history data that maximize their potential use in translational research?
• Does the proposed plan adequately address and prioritize the distribution of specimens within and outside the SPORE? For renewal applications, is there clear documentation of the use of specimens by SPORE investigators within full and developmental projects, as well as details, if applicable, about the distribution and use of SPORE collected specimens outside of the SPORE and/or institution?
• If applicable, does the proposed plan adequately address the performance of analyses on specimens (e.g., tissue microdissection, immunochemistry) and/or develop new technologies and methodologies that enhance or benefit activities of the SPORE? For renewal applications, is there clear documentation that demonstrates these analyses were critical to the success of certain projects and are worthy of continued support, if requested?
• Does the proposed plan give sufficient evidence that the activities of the Core are well integrated with those of the projects and that the investigators within the projects are working closely with those of the Core to meet project objectives?
• Does the proposed plan adequately address if and how the investigators will obtain written informed consent for all prospectively collected tissues/specimens in a manner that will protect patient confidentiality and enable studies?

Environment

Does the proposed plan augment and/or complement any existing specimen resource supported by a Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG; P30 grant mechanism) or other funding mechanism(s)? Do investigators applying from institutions with a CCSG and multiple SPORE grants address how their Core will benefit from already established infrastructure, databases, etc., that will enable this proposed specimen Core to be more cost effective and efficient?

Other Cores

Investigator

• Are the qualifications, experience, and commitment of the Shared Resources Core Director(s) and other key personnel adequate and appropriate for providing the proposed facilities or services?

Approach

• Is the proposed Shared Resources Core well matched to the needs of the overall SPORE? Does it provide essential facilities or services for one or more scored research projects? For renewal applications, does the application demonstrate the use of each Core by SPORE projects during the previous funding period?
• Does the proposed plan demonstrate that the activities of the Core are well-integrated with those of the projects and that the investigators within the projects are working closely with those of the Core to meet project objectives?
• What is the overall quality of the proposed Core services? Are adequate quality control processes proposed for the facilities or services provided by the Shared Resources Core (including procedures, techniques, and quality control)? What are the criteria for prioritization and usage of Shared Resources Core products and/or services?
• Will the proposed Shared Resources Core(s) provide cost effective services to the SPORE? Are there adequate plans to augment and/or complement an existing shared resources supported by an NCI Cancer Center Support grant (P30), if applicable?

Environment

• Is the environment for the Shared Resources Core adequate to support the program as proposed?

Review Criteria for the Developmental Research Program (DRP)

Reviewers will assign a numerical score based on adherence to the following criteria:

• Will the proposed plan for the DRP attract new ideas and pilot studies within and/or outside of the SPORE institution(s)? Is the plan for periodic solicitation, review and funding of a spectrum of pilot projects, as well as for promoting pilot projects with translational research potential to full projects within the SPORE, adequate?
• For renewal applications, did the DRP generate a strong publication record? Were any high-risk/high-impact projects funded through the DRP? Did data produced by the DRP lead to success in the competition for outside funds? Did any DRP projects reach translational potential and become full SPORE projects? Was funding from the DRP used for collaborative projects with other institutions/programs?

Review Criteria for the Career Enhancement Program (CEP)

Reviewers will assign a numerical score based on the following criteria:

• Is the proposed plan to select promising candidates for independent careers (academic, industrial, governmental) in translational cancer research adequate? Is the plan for recruitment, retention and communication with awardees adequately addressed? For renewal applications, are the research activities, independent grant awards, publication(s), and promotion/current status of individuals who have been supported by the CEP addressed?
• Does the proposed plan address how the investigators will seek out and include qualified women and minorities in the program?
• Does the proposed plan address periodic review of the CEP awardees and the role of mentors/advisors?
• For renewal applications, did any CEP projects become full SPORE projects?

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.

Study Timeline

Concerning clinical trials proposed in this application: 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 six 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 six 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 children 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.

For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period. Suggestions for Renewal applications are included within each of the SPORE sections above. The main aspects to address include the following points:

• Has adequate progress been made in projects, Shared Resources Cores, the developmental programs, and Scientific Collaborations since the previous competitive review?
• Were the previous specific aims accomplished, and are the proposed research goals logical extensions of work during the current funding period?
• Has scientific collaboration occurred, as indicated by joint publications and new collaborative aims and/or projects?
• Were any significant changes to the SPORE during the current funding period, including the use of the SPORE "flexibility option" and any new directions proposed in the new funding period adequately explained?
• If discretionary funds were requested, has the disposition of these funds been adequately addressed?
• Has a translational project been completed and been moved forward on the translational/clinical developmental continuum to a later phase of product/intervention development?
• Is there adequate justification for adding new projects and/or deleting previous components?

Additional Review Criteria for Renewal Applications Opting for Two Research Projects

Do the proposed continuation projects significantly expand the translational scope, magnitude and consequence of the research goals of the projects funded in the previous grant cycle? Is there appropriate justification for the role of each participating institution? Are the collaborations between institutions necessary to achieve the specific aims of the project(s)? When compared to projects funded in the previous grant cycle, are additional technologies and/or disciplines proposed?

For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.

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.

Not Applicable.

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 .

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 NCI 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:

• May undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
• Will receive a written critique.

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 submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.

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.

When an award is made, it is the policy of NCI that meritorious projects reviewed as part of the SPORE be funded as part of the SPORE even though other funding may be available. Duplicate funding will not be awarded.

NCI program staff may administratively delete funding or reduce the duration of support for components of SPOREs that are judged by peer review to be less meritorious and/or nonessential to the conduct of the SPORE. Additional funding requested by the applicants for qualified EPPS projects may be removed if, in the judgment of review and/or the NCI Program Official, the proposed research strategy does not meet qualifications established for EPPS projects in Part 2 Section IV, PHS 398 Research Plan (Research Project), under Specific Aims description.

The NCI program staff may reduce SPORE funding to support only two scientific research projects in cases where the overall impact score is within the funding range for the fiscal year but one of more projects are judged significantly less meritorious compared with the overall impact score. The exercise of this option by the NCI staff is expected to be a rare event. Under no circumstances may a new applicant submit an application with less than three research projects. Renewal applicants may opt for submitting two research projects based on the success of previously awarded SPORE projects.

Additionally, ICs may specify any special reporting requirements for the proposed clinical trial to be included under IC-specific terms and conditions in the NoA. For example: If the proposed clinical trial has elevated risks, ICs may require closer programmatic monitoring and it may be necessary to require the awardee to provide more frequent information and data as a term of the award (e.g., to clarify issues, address and evaluate concerns, provide documentation). All additional communications and information related to programmatic monitoring must be documented and incorporated into the official project file. Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the NIH and are subject to the IC-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA. ClinicalTrials.gov: If an award provides for one or more clinical trials. By law (Title VIII, Section 801 of Public Law 110-85), the "responsible party" must register and submit results information for certain "applicable clinical trials" on the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System Information Website (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov). NIH expects registration of all trials whether required under the law or not. For more information, see http://grants.nih.gov/ClinicalTrials_fdaaa/

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Grantee institutions must ensure that the application as well as all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the awardee must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols. Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials) to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of the data. Further information concerning these requirements is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/data_safety.htm and in the application instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).

Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption Requirements: Consistent with federal regulations, clinical research projects involving the use of investigational therapeutics, vaccines, or other medical interventions (including licensed products and devices for a purpose other than that for which they were licensed) in humans under a research protocol must be performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE).

Substitution of the research projects that have been proposed as part of a reviewed and funded SPORE application requires prior approval of the EAB and the NCI Program Official. Such substitution can be allowable if the original project is not performing as expected (i.e. unlikely to reach its proposed translational goals) or if the translational goals have been accomplished earlier than anticipated. The awardee is required to provide justification of the proposed changes. Project substitutions cannot be approved during the first year of the current SPORE project period.

Awardee-selected projects that involve {clinical trials or studies involving greater than minimal risk to human subjects} require prior approval by NIH prior to initiation.

• The awardee institution will provide NIH with written study protocols that address risks and protections for human subjects in accordance with NIH's Instructions for Preparing the Human Subjects Section of the Research Plan.
• The awardee institution will provide NIH with specific plans for data and safety monitoring, and will notify the IRB and NIH of serious adverse events and unanticipated problems, consistent with NIH DSMP policies.

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 http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/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 http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/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 registration, submitting and tracking an application, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, 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)

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission, downloading forms and application packages)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: support@grants.gov

GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and process, finding NIH grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-945-7573

Toby T. Hecht, Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-5683
Email: hechtt@mail.nih.gov
(Translational Research Program)

Peter Ujhazy M.D., Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-5681
Email: ujhazyp@mail.nih.gov
(Lung, Myeloma, Sarcoma SPOREs)

Julia T. Arnold, Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-5691
Email: jarnold@mail.nih.gov
(Brain and Melanoma Cancer SPOREs)

Andrew Hruszkewycz, M.D., Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-5687
Email: hruszkea@mail.nih.gov
(Prostate and Bladder SPOREs)

Leah Hubbard, Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-5693
Email: leah.hubbard@nih.gov
(Head & Neck, Thyroid, Cervical and Endometrial SPOREs)

Igor Kuzmin, Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-5684
Email: kuzmini@mail.nih.gov
(Leukemia, Lymphoma, RAS, Kidney SPOREs)

Steven F. Nothwehr, Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-5685
Email: nothwehrs@mail.nih.gov
(Gastrointestinal, Pancreatic, Neuroendocrine SPOREs)

JoyAnn Phillips Rohan, Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-5150
Email: joyann.rohan@nih.gov
(Breast and Ovarian SPOREs)

Referral Officer
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6390
Email: ncirefof@dea.nci.nih.gov

Shane Woodward
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6303
Email: woodwars@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.