It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement

Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information

Purpose

This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is associated with the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot Initiative (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancer-initiative) that is intended to accelerate cancer research. Through this FOA, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) invites the submission of applications requesting support for projects that will be conducted to develop, test, and evaluate interventions and implementation approaches, or adapt existing approaches, to improve cancer risk communication between patients with an inherited susceptibility to cancer (and their families) and providers so that the affected individuals can make informed clinical risk management decisions. This FOA will allow interventional clinical studies that meet NIH's definition of a clinical trial (NIH's Definition of a Clinical Trial). Specifically, this FOA targets Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendation G.

Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot Initiative

NCI convened the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) in 2016 to provide recommendations for achieving the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot Initiative (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancer-initiative) goal of accelerating progress in cancer research. The BRP was charged with assessing the state of the science in specific areas and identifying major research opportunities that could uniquely benefit from the support of the Cancer Moonshot and lead to significant advances in understanding cancer and intervening in its initiation and progression. The recommendations focused on areas in which a coordinated effort could profoundly accelerate the pace of progress in the fight against cancer and were not intended to replace existing cancer programs, initiatives, and policies already underway. The BRP final report (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancer-initiative/blue-ribbon-panel/blue-ribbon-panel-report-2016.pdf) was approved by the National Cancer Advisory Board and included a recommendation for Cancer Prevention and Early Detection in Individuals at High Risk for Cancer. The 21st Century Cures Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6) was signed into law in December 2016 dedicating new funds to support efforts associated with the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot Initiative (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancer-initiative), including support of this FOA.

It is expected that research proposed in response to this FOA will engage a pool of scientists from diverse backgrounds, including those from underrepresented groups. In line with NIH-wide policies (NOT-OD-18-210), fostering diversity and addressing underrepresentation in the scientific research workforce is one of the key components of the NCI strategy to facilitate scientific discovery and enhance innovation.

Background

Hereditary cancer syndromes are thought to account for at least 5%-10% of all cancers, resulting in a considerable population burden of morbidity and mortality. Individuals with an inherited susceptibility to cancer require special and long-term care, and clinical management requires interdisciplinary cooperation among multiple providers. These individuals face significant risk management decisions and often must communicate with numerous health care providers, such as genetic counselors, oncologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians throughout the course of clinical management. One of the most challenging tasks confronting an individual with an inherited cancer syndrome is understanding his or her risk of disease and applying this understanding to decisions involving disease risk management and disclosure of genetic test results to family members.

Decisions about risk management are complicated by the fact that risks and benefits accompany a management strategy. For example, premenopausal women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) who are considering having risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies need to consider the effects of surgery, the consequences of premature menopause and its management, the benefits and risks of hormone replacement therapy, the residual risk of developing primary peritoneal cancer, and other issues. They need to weigh the "pros" of risk-reducing surgery (an 80% reduction in ovarian and fallopian tube cancer risk, and a potential 50% reduction in breast cancer risk for BRCA mutation carriers) and the "cons" of surgery (the abrupt onset of menopause and its long-term consequences), as well as consider the potential physical and emotional impact of surgery. Little is known about how women balance risks and benefits when deciding on a risk management strategy, or when choosing to delay a decision about screening or treatment, and how to best help women through the process.

Patients appear to benefit from participating in the decision-making process. Studies have found that patients who assume a collaborative role in their treatment decision making have better quality of life and better physical and social functioning than patients who assume a more passive role. However, collaborative patient-provider decision making can only occur if there is effective communication. Communication is essential to understanding risk and managing uncertainty. Communicating the risk of harms and benefits of medical interventions, and the uncertainty surrounding genetic risk estimates is particularly challenging. Unfortunately, many people have difficulty understanding and quantifying risk, which may lead to overestimation or underestimation of risk. Although various methods and formats for communicating risk have been developed, there is no accepted "gold standard" method to communicate risk.

Cancer genetic consultation services include: evaluating an individual's personal and family history for hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes; developing a differential diagnosis for possible hereditary cancer syndromes; undergoing genetic testing; and recommending management, cancer surveillance, and prevention options for high-risk individuals and at-risk relatives. Genetic counselors are responsible for helping patients acquire an understanding of their disease risk and encouraging risk-reducing behaviors. A critical outcome of genetic counseling is how well individuals understand their disease risk. Counseling should facilitate decision making and clients' ability to use genetic information in a personally meaningful way that minimizes psychological distress and enhances feelings of personal control.

Uncertainty is a common experience for individuals who undergo genetic counseling and testing for an inherited cancer syndrome, especially when they receive an uninformative test result. For example, a woman with HBOC who undergoes BRCA testing may receive an uninformative negative BRCA result or a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result, and an individual undergoing genetic testing for Lynch syndrome may have a VUS in one of several mismatch repair genes. These individuals face difficult decisions, as there are no clear guidelines for predicting disease risk. While some individuals may be falsely reassured by inconclusive findings, others may experience anxiety and frustration. Some individuals interpret a VUS finding as pathogenic and undergo risk-reducing surgery before knowing if the variant will be reclassified as pathogenic or benign. There is a need to develop communication interventions to improve the counseling process for returning a VUS result and the results of reclassification, particularly since next-generation sequencing technology increases the probability of identifying more variants of uncertain significance.

With the widespread availability of multi-gene panel tests, research should address the best methods to counsel individuals for a broad array of inherited cancer syndromes. Knowledge gaps exist in how to best deliver counseling, testing, and follow-up care across diverse populations (e.g., low income, rural) and across multiple healthcare settings (e.g., community hospitals, private practices, urban-integrated managed care practices).

To optimize communication, understanding of risk, and decision making in the context of uncertainty for individuals with inherited cancer syndromes, innovative and improved approaches need to be developed for healthcare providers and affected individuals (and families) across a variety of clinical care settings, counseling methods, and racially/ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse populations. Although genetic counseling and testing for inherited cancer syndromes have been available in the clinical setting for over 20 years, there remain many gaps in our knowledge of the process of care delivery that demand devoting our energies and creativity to benefit the individuals and families at risk. Improving risk communication that facilitates an understanding of disease risk can potentially improve clinical management decision making.

Specific Areas of Research Interest

Applications submitted to this FOA should be focused on improving cancer risk communication between patients with an inherited susceptibility to cancer (and their families) and providers so that individuals can make informed clinical risk management decisions. Applications may propose interventional studies that develop, test, and evaluate interventions and implementation approaches, or improve existing interventions and implementation approaches to enhance risk communication and understanding of genetic risk. Applications may also propose observational/qualitative studies that lead to intervention development or improvement. Applications that address health disparities and the needs of medically underserved populations are high priority.

Specifically, the FOA aims to foster and advance scientific efforts focused on:

1) Communication strategies for the return of an uninformative test result to a tested individual;

2) Tailored communication strategies that address the unique needs of members of underserved populations (e.g., low income, the uninsured, minority, rural, low literate, low numerate, non-English speaking);

3) Communication approaches for cancer risk disclosure to family members who may be at risk for cancer due to an inherited cancer syndrome;

4) Technological, verbal, and written communication approaches related to genetic counseling and testing that promote understanding of genetic risk and help guide clinical management decisions for affected individuals; and

5) Decision-making tools and techniques that promote understanding of risk and informed risk management decisions for individuals at risk.

To meet the research goals of this program, U01 research applications are expected to focus on and/or consider:

• Individuals who have cancer or who are at risk of cancer due to a known or suspected inherited cancer syndrome;
• All inherited cancer syndromes;
• A broad approach to hereditary cancer syndromes because individuals often present with a family history that does not fit neatly into a specific syndrome;
• Developing and implementing effective, feasible, and scalable interventions to improve genetic risk communication;
• A variety of clinical settings, counseling methods, and populations;

High priority areas of research interest:

• Intervention or observational/qualitative studies that address delivery of effective, culturally competent genetic counseling to medically underserved patients and families who have cancer or who are at risk of cancer due to a known or suspected inherited cancer syndrome (this may include individuals who are low income, low literate, non-English speaking, or racial/ethnic minorities);
• Studies to ascertain the clinical, behavioral, and psychological outcomes of receiving a VUS result or uninformative genetic test result and/or studies to test different approaches to communicate a VUS or uninformative test results to tested individuals and to evaluate their clinical, behavioral, and psychological outcomes;

Other research projects of interest may include, but are not limited to the following:

• Develop, test, evaluate, and implement interventions, or improve existing interventions and implement technologies that can enhance genetic counseling, understanding of genetic risk, and risk management decision making for affected individuals and their families;
• Develop, test, evaluate, and implement, or improve and implement existing communication interventions to facilitate disclosure of genetic information to family members;
• Develop, test, evaluate, and implement approaches, or improve existing approaches to communicate risk information in a way that facilitates understanding of risk (e.g., genetic risk of cancer, risks and benefits of different risk management strategies, risks of side-effects of prevention, screening, and treatment);
• Develop and test interventions, or improve existing interventions to help individuals manage the uncertainty surrounding genetic risk estimates or uninformative or uncertain genetic test results.

This FOA solicits applications from single or multiple principal investigators who together with other key personnel have the requisite expertise to interpret and validate the success of the proposed communication and implementation strategies and projects. Although each U01 will be an independent entity, funded investigators will meet annually to share knowledge and data to inform care delivery to high-risk populations.

Non-Responsive Applications

Applications that do not pertain to individuals (and families) who have cancer or are at risk of cancer due to a known or suspected inherited cancer syndrome will be considered non-responsive to this FOA.

Applicants are encouraged to reach out to the Scientific/Research Contact listed in Section VII below to ensure appropriate alignment of projects with available funding opportunities.

See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.

NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.

Higher Education Institutions

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

• Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
• Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)

For-Profit Organizations

• Small Businesses
• For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)

Governments

• State Governments
• County Governments
• City or Township Governments
• Special District Governments
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)
• Eligible Agencies of the Federal Government
• U.S. Territory or Possession

Other

• Independent School Districts
• Public Housing Authorities/Indian Housing Authorities
• Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
• Faith-based or Community-based Organizations
• Regional Organizations

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.

• Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) - All registrations require that applicants be issued a DUNS number. After obtaining a DUNS number, applicants can begin both SAM and eRA Commons registrations. The same DUNS number must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• System for Award Management (SAM) Applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually. The renewal process may require as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a CAGE Code.
• NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
• eRA Commons - Applicants must have an active DUNS number to register in eRA Commons. Organizations can register with the eRA Commons as they are working through their SAM or Grants.gov registration, but all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
• Grants.gov Applicants must have an active DUNS number and SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.

For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see NOT-OD-11-101).

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.

By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:

• Descriptive title of proposed activity
• Name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
• Names of other key personnel
• Participating institution(s)
• Number and title of this funding opportunity

The letter of intent should be sent to:

Wendy Nelson, PhD, MPH
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 301-276-6971
Fax: 301-276-7905
Email: [email protected]

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

Travel: Applicants are required to budget funds for two senior investigators (e.g., the PD/PI and another senior member of the team, or both PD/PIs if an MPI application) to attend one meeting each year in Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of this annual meeting is to bring together investigators on NIH-funded parallel projects to share knowledge, progress, and findings, and allow for rapid translation of results.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions: Research Strategy: Additional items to be addressed include:

• Applicants are not restricted to developing applications to address the areas of research interest identified in this FOA; applicants may focus on one or multiple areas of research interest.
• Research that addresses the two priority research areas is strongly encouraged.

Optional Clinical Trials: Albeit not required, applicants may propose studies that meet the NIH definition of clinical trials. However, if such studies are proposed, they will be expected to include: Early-phase studies to develop and test a novel intervention; Phase II or Phase III studies to test efficacy; or trials that examine intervention effectiveness in real-world settings

Applications that do not pertain to individuals (and families) who have cancer or are at risk of cancer due to a known or suspected inherited cancer syndrome will be considered non-responsive to this FOA.

Health Disparities: If applicable to the type of research being proposed, address how health disparity populations or data will be integrated into the proposed studies. Highlight, as relevant, any opportunities that, if implemented, can reduce the burden of cancer in these populations. In this context, applicants are encouraged to address the needs of racially/ethnically diverse populations and those from urban and rural areas who are poor and medically underserved, who continue to suffer disproportionately from certain cancers, and who have higher rates of morbidity and mortality.

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 modifications:

• All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan.
• Addressing the Cancer Moonshot Public Access Pilot Program: Utilizing the provision outlined in the 21st Century Cures Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6), NCI has established a data sharing policy for projects that are funded as part of the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot Initiative. This Initiative requires applicants to submit a Public Access and Data Sharing Plan that: (1) describes their proposed process for making resulting publications and to the extent possible, the Underlying Primary Data immediately and broadly available to the public; (2) if applicable, provides a justification to NCI if such sharing is not possible. NCI will give competitive preference and funding priority to applications with a data sharing plan that complies with the strategy described here ( https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancer-initiative/funding/public-access-policy). The data sharing plan will become a term and condition of award. Study consent must address the option to use data for future research studies.

Appendix:

Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:

If you answered Yes to the question Are Human Subjects Involved? on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

Delayed Onset Study

Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH, and responsiveness by NCI, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy. Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.

Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

In addition, for applications involving clinical trials:

A proposed Clinical Trial application may include study design, methods, and interventions 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 may lead to new avenues of scientific investigation.

Observational/qualitative studies should serve as foundational research to support intervention development.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

In addition, for applications involving clinical trials

Are the scientific rationale and need for a clinical trial to test the proposed hypothesis or intervention well supported by preliminary data, clinical and/or preclinical studies, or information in the literature or knowledge of biological mechanisms? For trials focusing on clinical or public health endpoints, is this clinical trial necessary for testing the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention that could lead to a change in clinical practice, community behaviors or healthcare policy? For trials focusing on mechanistic, behavioral, physiological, biochemical, or other biomedical endpoints, is this trial needed to advance scientific understanding?

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

In addition, for applications involving clinical trials

With regard to the proposed leadership for the project, do the PD/PI(s) and key personnel have the expertise, experience, and ability to organize, manage and implement the proposed clinical trial and meet milestones and timelines? Do they have appropriate expertise in study coordination, data management and statistics? For a multicenter trial, is the organizational structure appropriate and does the application identify a core of potential center investigators and staffing for a coordinating center?

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

In addition, for applications involving clinical trials

Does the design/research plan include innovative elements, as appropriate, that enhance its sensitivity, potential for information or potential to advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice?

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?

Does the application provide a plan for sharing data in accordance with the NCI Cancer Moonshot Public Access and Data Sharing requirements?

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address

1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and

2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

In addition, for applications involving clinical trials

Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable

Study Design

Is the study design justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that will be clear, informative and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the study based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Given the methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the trial appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the study populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), proposed intervention arms/dose, and duration of the trial, appropriate and well justified?

Are potential ethical issues adequately addressed? Is the process for obtaining informed consent or assent appropriate? Is the eligible population available? Are the plans for recruitment outreach, enrollment, retention, handling dropouts, missed visits, and losses to follow-up appropriate to ensure robust data collection? Are the planned recruitment timelines feasible and is the plan to monitor accrual adequate? Has the need for randomization (or not), masking (if appropriate), controls, and inclusion/exclusion criteria been addressed? Are differences addressed, if applicable, in the intervention effect due to sex/gender and race/ethnicity?

Are the plans to standardize, assure quality of, and monitor adherence to, the trial protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate? Is there a plan to obtain required study agent(s)? Does the application propose to use existing available resources, as applicable?

Data Management and Statistical Analysis

Are planned analyses and statistical approach appropriate for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions? Are the procedures for data management and quality control of data adequate at clinical site(s) or at center laboratories, as applicable? Have the methods for standardization of procedures for data management to assess the effect of the intervention and quality control been addressed? Is there a plan to complete data analysis within the proposed period of the award?

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

In addition, for applications involving clinical trials

If proposed, are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed?

Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial at the proposed site(s) or centers? Are the plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate?

If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial?

If multi-sites/centers, is there evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to: (1) enroll the proposed numbers; (2) adhere to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and, (4) operate within the proposed organizational structure?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

Study Timeline

Specific to applications involving clinical trials

Is the study timeline described in detail, taking into account start-up activities, the anticipated rate of enrollment, and planned follow-up assessment? Is the projected timeline feasible and well justified? Does the project incorporate efficiencies and utilize existing resources (e.g., CTSAs, practice-based research networks, electronic medical records, administrative database, or patient registries) to increase the efficiency of participant enrollment and data collection, as appropriate?

Are potential challenges and corresponding solutions discussed (e.g., strategies that can be implemented in the event of enrollment shortfalls)?

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

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 (GDS).

For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by 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.

Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this FOA.

Applications will be assigned 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.
• Compliance with resource sharing policies.

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.

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 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).

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.

Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person’s race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research.

For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA. HHS provides general guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/index.html. The HHS Office for Civil Rights also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html; and https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/laws-regulations-guidance/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.

Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award

The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Part 75, and other HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.

The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.

Primary Responsibilities of the PD(s)/PI(s) include:

• Defining objectives and approaches, including study design and protocol development;
• Overseeing study conduct, including data analyses and interpretation, and quality control of studies conducted under this program as well as publication of their results;
• Overseeing and performing other scientific activities of the plan;
• Monitoring the completion of the supported activities and taking corrective actions if needed:
• Overseeing the implementation of the approved data sharing plan;
• Participating in the activities of the Program Steering Committee, including attendance at an annual meeting of investigators;
• Accepting and implementing the policies approved by the Program Steering Committee to the extent consistent with applicable grant regulations;
• Cooperating with NCI programmatic, technical, and administrative staff; and
• Administratively managing the U01 grant.

Investigators will be expected to:

• Leverage, where feasible, technology from related NCI-sponsored informatics initiatives, for example the NCI Informatics Technology for Cancer Research (ITCR) (https://itcr.nci.nih.gov/)) program, which supports the development of informatics algorithms, tools, and resources across the continuum of cancer; and
• Coordinate with and leverage, where feasible, the technology of the NCI Cancer Research Data Commons, a program that will provide infrastructure to make diverse cancer research data broadly available and maximize their reuse and impact (see The Next Generation Cancer Knowledge Network at https://gdc.cancer.gov).

Specific rights and responsibilities of awardees will include the following:

• Awardees will be required to coordinate and share data with existing resources at and supported by NIH (see Resource Sharing Plan section of FOA); and
• Awardees will register clinical trial studies through ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov).

In carrying out its stewardship of Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot initiatives, the NCI will monitor and evaluate progress to meet the expectations set forth by Congress in the 21st Century Cures Act. In addition to standard annual Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) submissions, principal investigators may be expected to supply additional progress-related information.

Awardees will retain custody of and have primary rights to the data and software developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current DHHS, PHS, and NIH policies.

NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:

NCI Project Scientists' Responsibilities include:

• Monitoring the progress and performance of the awardees;
• Organizing and conducting annual meetings to discuss progress either by teleconference, videoconference, or face-to-face;
• Participating in the activities of the Program Steering Committee;
• Facilitating collaborations between the awardees and other NCI-sponsored programs, investigators and/or organizations and helping the coordination of such efforts that may contribute to accomplishing the project's goals;
• Reviewing all major transitional changes that the awardees might propose (e.g., a partnering institution) and advising on their appropriateness prior to implementation to ensure consistency with the goals of this FOA; and
• Providing technical assistance and advice to the awardees, as appropriate.

Additionally, an agency program official or NIH IC program director will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice. The NCI has the right to adjust funding, or withhold, suspend, or terminate the support to those awardee institutions that are unable to meet the performance requirements set forth in these Terms and Conditions of Award, or significantly change the level of performance.

Areas of Joint Responsibility:

The Program Steering Committee will serve as a non-voting organizational body for the NCI and awardees. The Program Steering Committee will consist of:

• Two representatives of each awardee (the contact PD/PI and designated backup senior investigator); and
• Two NCI Project Scientists.

The Program Steering Committee will be organized and administratively managed by the NCI staff and will meet once a year with required awardee attendance.

Dispute Resolution:

Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened. It will have: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16.

When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 Award Term and Conditions for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)

Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources)
Email: [email protected] (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-945-7573

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]

Wendy Nelson, PhD, MPH
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6971
Email: [email protected]

Referral Officer
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6390
Email: [email protected]

Crystal Wolfrey
National Cancer Institute
Telephone: 240-276-6277
Email: [email protected]

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.