24th Institute Advisory Board (IAB) Meeting

Date: September 8-9, 2008

Place: Sheraton Centre, Montréal

Present:

IAB Members

1. Angela Brooks-Wilson
2. Heather Bryant (Chair)
3. Jacques Corbeil
4. Richard Doll
5. Elizabeth Eisenhauer
6. Margaret Fitch
7. Scott Leatherdale
8. William Mackillop
9. Les Mery
10. Anne-Marie Mes-Masson
11. Mark Nachtigal
12. Ben Neel
13. Steve Pillipow
14. Cheryl Robertson

Guests

15. Brent Schacter (CAPCA)
16. David Thomas (McGill)
17. Michael Wosnick (NCIC)

CIHR and ICR Staff

18. Judy Bray
19. Diane Christin
20. Dale Dempsey
21. Jaime Flamenbaum
22. David Hartell
23. Benoît Lussier
24. Gwendoline Malo
25. Claudia Mongeon
26. Morag Park (Scientific Director)
27. Stephanie Pineda
28. Diana Sarai

Regrets:

29. Ron Barr
30. Michael Tyers
31. Kimberly Banks Hart

DAY 1: Monday, September 8, 2008

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. by Heather Bryant. This is an important strategic planning meeting during which budgetary decisions will be made to launch funding opportunities in December 2008 and June 2009. Minutes of the previous IAB meeting and this meeting agenda were approved as is. Action items from the previous meeting were carried out.

Introduction of new IAB member

Dr. Bryant introduced Dr. Ben Neel who is Director of the Ontario Cancer Institute. Dr. Neel gave a brief background of his career to the Board, and highlighted his research interests in signal transduction and disease.

Welcome from the new SD

Morag Park explained that the goal of this meeting is to begin setting the directions of ICR for the future, in the short and long term. Today’s challenge is to identify priority areas that ICR needs to concentrate on immediately and set long-term goals.

Judy Bray specified that the short-term and long-term goals will be dictated by the CIHR funding timeline. Time is restricted to launch initiatives for December; however, larger budgetary decisions may be made for the June launch. Dr. Bray explained that IAB champions were assigned over this past summer to a selected number of research priorities highlighted in the May IAB Meeting in order to explain their context and status to the rest of the Advisory Board and facilitate the budgetary decision process.

IAB discussion on proposed process

Existing priorities will be discussed prior to the new priorities. Members are invited to reflect on which research priority should be launched for December and June, as well as for long-term strategic priorities. The next day of the meeting will be focused on developing a new vision for ICR, including how to raise the profile of this Institute within the research community.

Elizabeth Eisenhauer indicated that CCRA is also in the process of developing a pan-Canadian strategic plan. Dr. Morag Park and Dr. Phil Branton, who is now working for Cancer Research UK, are members of the first subcommittee of CCRA. ICR, being a founding member of CCRA, will align and present its strategic plans to CCRA.

Top of Page

Presentations on ICR existing priorities

(Refer to Briefing Notes in Appendix 1)

1. Access to Care (Champion: William Mackillop): Gwendoline Malo indicated that existing research teams are self-sufficient and therefore a large investment in this area is not recommended at this time. There is currently $1.5M assigned until 2012. Additional funding could be invested in KT, such as one-year End of Grant KT grants @ $25,000. Partnership possibilities exist and to gain input from policy-decision makers, a workshop could be organized to plan a national program. Dr. Mackillop added that there is insufficient funding in health services research and additional funds are required in quality of cancer care, not just access.

2. Early Detection of Cancer (Champion: Angela Brooks-Wilson):  There is currently $1M per year invested in colorectal screening grants. Dr. Brooks-Wilson indicated that this is an important priority and is currently under-represented. Additional funding in early detection will have cost saving benefits for the Canadian Health System. She presented an overview of the past funding programs and the researchers/projects that have been funded. Early detection is successful for certain cancers, e.g. cervical, colorectal, and ICR should continue to invest as Canada has the capacity to become a leader in this area. ICR could organize a workshop on priority areas and invest in pilot and large grants.

   Suggestion: Dr. Brooks-Wilson recommends keeping early detection as a main priority (use the successful colorectal screening as a model) and possibly focusing on a single cancer, e.g. ovarian, due to late diagnosis. She also would encourage KT of colorectal cancer screening research, and possibly POP grants. She listed the stakeholders. Dr. Neel raised that, due to volume, prostate and breast cancer screening are important areas where improvements are still needed.

3. Molecular and Functional Imaging (Champion: t.b.d.): No IAB Champion was identified for this priority. David Hartell presented an overview of ICR and CIHR funding activities in this area. A working group was created in 2002 who recommended the need for hardware and a network to unite biomedical researchers in this area. An RFA was issued in 2003 for multidisciplinary teams ($200K per year for 2 years) and outcomes of initiatives were presented. At the moment, CIHR is funding 57 projects related to molecular and functional imaging for a total of $30 million, of which $10 million support cancer imaging projects.

   Suggestion: Use existing NSERC-partnered CHRP competition (Collaborative Health Research Program) as a mechanism to fund future research in this field and approach other partners. Also include cancer priority announcement in the CHRP RFA and provide KT grants targeted towards cancer imaging researchers. It was noted that the CIHR Institute of Genetics highlighted imaging in the workshop Integrating the Physical and Applied Sciences into Health Research Workshop.

4. Palliative and End-of-Life Care (Champion: Richard Doll): ICR’s strategic investment has created a large impact in this research community. New challenges for CIHR are, amongst others, how to maintain funding for the NET teams as funding runs out at the end of 2009-10. Collaboration exists between the NETs but it could be improved. Dr. Doll held a series of teleconferences in July and August 2008 and ran a survey with NET and PEOL Leaders.

   Suggestion: Maintain PEOL panel and continue some level of funding. Potential CIHR Funding opportunities could include operating grants, fellowships, and a mechanism to network members of large team grants. Other partners are not ready to consider PEOL as a priority. Funded teams should organize a workshop to discuss short-term funding mechanisms to sustain the level of research, e.g. PRC (operating grants).

5. Risk Behaviour and Prevention (Champion: Scott Leatherdale):  Current ICR activities in this area were presented:
   1. ICR currently invests $0.5M per year on CTCRI (2007-09) which has enabled the launch of several initiatives, i.e. ICE, IDEA grants, etc. in tobacco research and prevention. This does not however address two large behavioural determinants of cancer (physical activity and healthy eating). Strengths of CTCRI (e.g. IDEA grants) could be adapted to these behavioural domains.
   2. Target obesity initiative ($200K): none of the funded students were working in population level intervention research related to obesity. The next steps could be to develop a mechanism to fund new emerging teams dedicated to population-level intervention science.
   3. Food for Health Museum Exhibit as a mechanism to engage young people
   4. Canadian Cancer Cohort: this is an important activity in which ICR may have opportunities to identify niche areas in risk behaviour and prevention activities.
      Gaps: Proposed cohort does not include ecological measures which are relevant population-level prevention initiatives (i.e. programs, policies, resources, etc.). Develop mechanisms to either fund workshops or team grants where the purpose is to develop teams that would expand focus of existing national surveillance systems beyond tobacco and develop a national intervention-level data collection and knowledge exchange system specific to young adults.

      The decision was taken to continue funding CTCRI. There is also a potential to develop initiatives around the cohort as it develops.

6. Molecular Profiling of Tumours (Champion: Brent Schacter/Anne-Marie Mes-Masson):  Dr. Brent Schacter thanked the IAB for the invitation to present CTRNet (Canadian Tumour Repository Networks). There are over 13,000 participants in CTRNet and the majority of banked samples are breast, gastro-intestinal, gynaecologic and lung cancer. Over 230 researchers have accessed the databank, of which 80% are Canadian, 10% from US, and 10% international. Over 500 online searches have been conducted over the last two years. CTRNet is a research partner in creating collections and cohort studies and has made significant research contributions. The future of molecular and translational research relies on the availability and quality of bio-specimens. There is still $600K left for 2009-10 in ICR’s budget for CTRNet. The site review of CTRNet must be implemented, as discussed in previous IAB Meetings.

   Next step is to decide funding for 2010-11 and carry out site review of CTRNet.

Top of Page

Presentations on proposed new priorities

(Refer to Briefing Notes and other material in Appendix 2)

1. Inflammation/Infectious agents and cancer: CIHR-III was successful in new initiatives but ICR has not invested in this area. Jacques Corbeil explained that HPV is well represented, so why not apply this model to other areas of cancer.

   Next steps: Organize workshop

2. Genetic and molecular studies: There are currently many active funding programs, e.g. “Basic Biomedical Research including molecular studies on new biomarkers identification and validation of cancer genes with therapeutic potential”. Dr. Park explained the various phases of the research process, from study design, to discovery, clinical validation, molecular development to clinical assay implementation. Biomarkers include genetic markers, protein/genes, and gene signatures. Only one protein marker per year is approved by the FDA despite intensified interest and investment.

   Challenges: Need for quality tumour banks, follow-up information and large enough number of specific tumour subtypes; technologies for discovery of new serum based markers; etc.

   Gaps: Focus on cancers that, at present, have no effective screening; utilisation of bioinformatics strategies based on world wide data to drive discovery of focussed tumour stratification/ outcome/response to therapy signatures, etc.

   Next steps: Organize a workshop on cancer bioinformatics and biomarkers followed by pilot grants to identify key biomarker/tumour signatures that can be developed, followed by emerging team grants; partner with other initiatives that involve biomarker discovery (Terry Fox, CCS, CBCRA) as well as the pharmaceutical industry, possibly through the Rx&D program at CIHR; short-term translation grants; KT of research in the area of biomarker discovery and screening from projects funded in the CIHR Operating grants program; initiate a Clinical Investigator training award in cancer research, etc.

3. Regulation of Tumour metastases:  Mark Nachtigal presented an overview of the projects funded by CIHR in this area. Tumour metastasis, being the major cause of cancer-related death, is the focus of many laboratories and centres internationally.

   Next steps: Organize a workshop to identify key questions that are not being adequately addressed and that may provide most useful insight into how best to approach a strategic initiative in this area. ICR should look at the outcomes of the AACR conference held in August 2008 in Vancouver on metastasis research, including the role of the tumour microenvironment.

4. Survivorship: Margaret Fitch presented an overview of this emerging research priority in which ICR should focus on as many cancer survivors are lobbying for it. Statistics show a rate of 78% paediatric cancer survivors and 60% adult survivors in 5 years. A person is considered a survivor from the point of diagnosis. Currently, there are about 11.1 million cancer survivors in the US and 800,000 in Canada. Factors contributing to this success are many, e.g. earlier detection, more effective therapies, etc. However, with increased survivorship, long term outcomes of therapies are more prevalent, e.g. depression, emotional distress, workplace rehabilitation. Cancer survivorship research ranges from physical, psychosocial and economic factors. Future research should focus on strategies to build an evidence base for survivors’ follow-up care for example. Only 2.9% is allocated to survivorship, according to the CCRA 2006 report on research investment in Canada.

   Next steps: A workshop is already planned in November and partnerships are beginning to emerge. Judy Bray will participate and integrate ICR’s interest in biomedical aspects of survivorship. Topics from that workshop will be taken forward with some funding mechanisms, e.g. pilot projects, team grants.

   Suggestions: 1) Create a partnership (with maybe SSHERC) 2) Identify a vehicle to build capacity and research work in the area, e.g. pilot and team grants (such as the palliative care initiative).

5. Cancer Stem Cells (CSC):  Canada may invest up to $100 million in the next 5 years to accelerate research on CSC. It was accepted that CSC research is essential as there are many unanswered questions in cancer stem cells. However, some caution was raised on our understanding of CSCs in all cancers. CIHR currently invests less than $1M in cancer stem cell research. If the Canada-California collaboration on this research goes forward, ICR should wait and see.

   Next steps:  Funding should be targeted to operating research grants.

6. Translational Research: Dr. Park introduced Dr. Thomas, Chair of the Biochemistry Department at McGill University, who agreed to talk about this priority in Dr. Tyers’ absence (Dr. Tyers’ slide presentation on “Case for an ICR translational research initiative in Technology Development” is enclosed in Appendix 2). Dr. Thomas leads a CIHR training grant in Chemical Biology. He explained the path for development of targeted small molecule drugs in cancer (drug discovery process). He pointed out that pharmaceutical companies, such as Bristol Myers, obtain many drug leads from either NIH or Academia; hence there are many possibilities for translational research. Dr. Thomas presented the vision of the chemical biology network. There is a need to fund patent costs, e.g. set goals and make it competitive. His motto: “Focus, fund, evaluate and fund substantially”.

ICR budgets and financial reports

(Refer to Appendix 3)

Dr. Lussier reminded members that the Institute has now three budgets, the Institute Support Grant (ISG) of $1M for the Institute’s operations, the Institute Strategic Initiative (ISI) Budget with $8.5M for grants and awards, and the Institute Community Development (ICD) Budget of $100k for specific workshops and special projects.

ISG Budget: ICR received a third of its operational budget on April 1st 2008 and is waiting for the CIHR-McGill contract to be signed to have the remaining deposited. The contract is scheduled to be signed on September 22nd.

ISI Budget: $556K can be added to the approved budget because of anticipated deferrals and return. On August 13th, RKTC approved $0.5M increase for all the institutes (from $8 to $8.5M); however, this is not yet final. (In the chart provided, $ amounts highlighted in blue indicate current commitments whereas $ amounts indicated in green indicate commitments agreed to in May 2008).

In 2008-2009, ICR has $556K unallocated funds. In 2009-2010, ICR is committed to 3 cancer-related STIHR grants for a total of $1M per year for the next 6 years, $500K into CTCRI in the next 5 years and $1M per year for Cancer Stem Cell Research in the next 5 years. Also, over $1M will be invested in bridge funding for operating grants and $200K for grants in Meetings, Planning and Dissemination (MPD). Funding for translation acceleration grants end this year and will probably not be renewed by CBCRA. The target obesity initiative will also end in 2008/2009. As of 2010-2011, ICR will have $1.3M available for new programs because of funds freed from the palliative care NET grants and the tumour bank initiative.

The meeting on Day 1 was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Top of Page

DAY 2: Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Call to order

Dr. Heather Bryant called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

Recap and results of previous day’s priority setting exercise

(Refer to Appendix 4)

Dr. Park summarized the discussion on the 12 priorities by highlighting the main points and action items for each. Dr. Lussier reiterated the amount of funds available for 2008-09 and 2009-2010. Assuming the $0.5 increase, ICR has about $0.5M available which should be spent this year. It could be allocated to workshops or bridge funding. For next fiscal year, assuming an $8.5M budget, ICR has an additional $0.5M of unallocated funds. For fiscal year 2009-10, it is not yet known if ICR will commit $0.5M for CTCRI or the $1M in Cancer Stem Cells, in which case, more funds could become available.

Ms. Malo described the various types of one-year funding programs. Meetings, Planning and Dissemination (MPD) Grants are not in this list because funds are already committed.

• Catalyst Grants provides seed money to support research activities that represent a first step towards pursuit of more comprehensive funding opportunities, e.g. pilot projects, career re-orientation, etc. Funds are for 1 to 3 years @ $25K-$100K per year, starting in September 2009.
• Proof of Principle (POP) Grants, with funding starting in September 2009.
• Intervention Research Grants, with funding starting in July 2009.
• End of Grant KT Grants are for 1 yr @ $25K per year with funding starting in September 2009.
• Synthesis Grants are also for 1 yr @ $100K per year with funding starting in November 2009.
• Start-up Grants for New Investigators are for 1 yr @ $100K per year with funding starting in October 2009.

Strict internal timelines: Sign-off circulation begins September 15th for a December 2008 launch, so the final text must be submitted by October 6th.

Discussions on future plans for existing and new priorities

Each IAB Champion gave his/her opinion on possible funding programs according to the above short-term funding possibilities, keeping in mind long-term objectives:

1. Survivorship (M. Fitch): Dr. Fitch suggests naming cancer survivorship as a priority and build partnerships for a long-term program. There is enough knowledge for short-term funding, e.g. STIHR, start-up new investigator, catalyst grants. ICR should make use of outcomes from the international research workshop planned in November to get ready for long-term RFAs in June 2009. Issues were raised about spending more funds in health services, psychosocial areas, as substantial funds have been spent in palliative care. It was noted that survivorship is a priority of several agencies and it was proposed to discuss it with CBCRA and to initiate support for biomedical aspects of Survivorship.

   Recommendation: Catalyst grants to support projects with collaborations between scientists and clinicians.

2. Access to Quality Cancer Care (W. Mackillop):

   Recommendation: Promote a national integration meeting on the status of health services research in cancer control for next year. Partner with CPACC and CCS.

3. Early Detection of Cancer (A. Brooks-Wilson): This is a long-term initiative only. KT for colorectal cancer could occur through the existing funding programs. There are benefits in going to another cancer site; however, this will need further discussions.

   Recommendation: Organize workshop to establish a long-term strategic plan with stakeholders; launch Proof of Principle Grants to select the next cancer site.

4. Palliative and End of Life Care (R. Doll): Dr. Doll recommends a workshop to gather leaders and examine how this initiative can be sustained in the long term, not only through CIHR funding, and involve KT issues. Furthermore, we should evaluate where Canada stands in palliative care and how we measure outcomes. A need for an external impact assessment was raised. Impact of Canadian cancer research investment is an issue that Dr. Eisenhauer would like to see in the next CCRA survey report. RCTs will be discussed further between R. Doll, D. Dempsey and M. Park.

   Recommendation: Organize a workshop on how to sustain this initiative; how to assess the impact of investment; review panel.

5. Risk Behaviour and Prevention (S. Leatherdale):

   Recommendation: Organize a meeting on surveillance and another on tobacco and obesity; Meeting on CBRPE and other groups (Youth Health).

6. Molecular Profiling of Tumours (A.M. Mes-Masson): Dr. Mes-Masson suggests changing the name of the initiative because the scope of the activity has broadened to other areas. ICR has been criticized for lack of activity in ethics. This should be initiated, both short- and long-term. Dr. J. Flamenbaum who is present at this meeting might be able to propose ethical issues and explain how they can be integrated into ICR’s priorities.

   Recommendation: CTRNet site review (1 ½ year timeline) and Impact evaluation

7. Inflammation/Infectious Agents and Cancer (J. Corbeil): Powerful new technologies are needed to accelerate cancer drug discoveries. Dr. Corbeil suggests using POP funding programs across the priorities for patents.

   Recommendation: 1) Inflammation/Tumour progression (t. metastasis/t. micro-environment) 2) Workshop/Working Groups covering many priorities, prior to IAB Meeting

8. Genetic and Molecular Studies (M. Park): This is a big envelope where ICR needs to target specific issues. Needs may be identified through a national workshop on bioinformatics; i.e. medical informatics to address biological questions; large team grants to integrate basic and clinical research; catalyst grants to build capacity.

   Recommendation: Catalyst grants for bioinformatics.

9. Tumour Metastases (M. Nachtigal): This is a long-term initiative. Tumour micro-environment is an important clinical challenge, and complements and uses many of the other initiatives; better tissue banking material for example; cancer stem cells is part of the process.

   Recommendation: Establish a working group to identify the issues, which could lead to an RFA. (There is currently a keystone meeting in Vancouver).

10. Cancer Stem Cells (B. Neel):

    Recommendation: 1) Use some of the funds for biomarkers 2) Working group to discuss details and plan strategy.

11. Translational Research/Therapeutics (D. Thomas):

    Recommendation: 1) Drug targets, biomarkers 2) Workshop or working group 3) Proof of Principle grants (J. Corbeil/M. Tyers)

12. Molecular and Functional Imaging (D. Hartell) – no recommendations at this point

Dr. Bryant suggests holding all the workshops or working groups on the same day, just prior to the IAB Meeting.

Top of Page

December launch of one-year initiatives

In summary, ICR’s options are as follows for the December 2008 launch:

POP 1 Grants ($150K/1 yr)

• translational therapeutics
• early detection
• molecular profiling of tumours
• functional imaging

Catalyst Grants ($25-$100K/1-3 yr)

• survivorship
• bioinformatics

Next steps for the 3-4 top priorities

• Workshop in palliative care (R. Doll/M. Fitch)
• Working committee on stem cells
• Working group on Translational therapeutics (J. Corbeil)
• Working group on tumour progression/metastasis  (A.M. Mes-Masson & M. Nachtigal)

To do:

• Partnership on survivorship (with CCS who identified this area as one of top priorities)
• Meetings on risk behaviour and prevention (surveillance, youth health – S. Leatherdale/L. Mery)
• Impact Evaluation of palliative care (OBIS)
• CTRNet site review

ICR Communications Strategy

(Refer to Appendix 5)

Based on other CIHR Institutes, G. Malo listed the types of activities that ICR could use to communicate with its community and enhance its profile:

• A first newsletter could highlight the Institute transition and opportunity to showcase research outcomes, success stories, etc.; this is also useful for conference handouts.
• Café scientifique’s are hosted in partnership with the CIHR Communications Branch and are targeted to the general public for information purposes. They are usually held around the IAB Meetings across the country.
• Journalist workshops take place over two days and enable Institutes to profile researchers funded by CIHR, given a specific area such as cancer. It also raises awareness and visibility for CIHR.
• Youth Engagement, through the CIHR’s synapse program of the communications branch, targeted to high-school students through prizes, workshops, summer camps, science fairs.
• New Investigator Forum
• Summer Institutes
• Prizes for excellence
• Travel grants

Examples in other Institutes:

• IHDCYH: holds a Café scientifique around the IAB Meetings, organizes forum on current institute topics at the host university the day before the IAB
• IGH: holds café scientifique’s
• IA: “Meet & Greet” lunches with funded researchers, with sometimes poster sessions
• IMHA: public forum on research updates
• IG: student lectureship at the host university; invites prominent members of the university to share messages with the IAB during IAB Meeting
• III: “Meet & Greet” lunches with research community at the host university; invites prominent members to present at the IAB.

Café scientifiques were favoured as a first activity for ICR, the night prior to the February 2009 IAB Meeting.

Next IAB Meetings

The following IAB Meetings were confirmed:

• February 5-6, 2009 in Vancouver
• May 4-5, 2009 in London

Other cities in consideration: Thunder Bay and Halifax.

Partnerships

David Hartell explained how ICR can deal with partnerships to more effectively build capacity, share knowledge, etc. (e.g. STIHRs). For example, Ovarian Cancer Canada approached CIHR as they wanted to invest $200K in ovarian cancer research. He summarized the funding opportunities available in partnerships, e.g. master’s award, doctoral research award fellowship award.

The Small Health Organization Partnership Program (SHOPP) has a research budget of less than $250K. This could be an option for charitable organizations that wish to invest their monies. In the past 7 years, 3 organizations have approached ICR. This Institute will deal with partnerships case by case.

Report on Ethics

A.M. Mes-Masson gave a quick summary of the last IABED meeting and teleconferences. Terms of reference kept coming back at the table; however, no tangible work on ethics has been done. Central CIHR put out the PROBE mechanism, inviting people to put forward position paper on a specific topic. It was recommended to identify a candidate, appointed by GC, to address the issue of ethics related to cancer, besides an IAB rep. Dr. Mes-Masson has a list of potential candidates. Dr. Flamenbaum believes that ethics are being addressed by ICR through the priorities; we just need to be aware that we are addressing the issue.

Report on CPACC

CPACC recruited a new Research Action Group Chair to replace Dr. Philip Branton who retired as Scientific Director of CIHR-ICR and was also filling the position of the R-AG Chair at CPAC. A public announcement will be made shortly as negotiations still need to be made with the university to which the candidate is affiliated.

Dr. Bryant announced the recruitment of Dr. Jon Kerner as the Primary Prevention Action Group Chair, as of September 2nd, 2008 and gave a brief background of his career. Common risk factors are tobacco, obesity, physical activity and diet. CPACC is looking at framing a strategic planning in these areas; also collaborating with CCNS to host conference on policy in obesity management.

The cohort initiative is underway and is entitled the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow Project. A Governance committee has been formed to oversee the project and is chaired by Dr. John Potter. A first face-to-face meeting will take place in October 2008. Several groups in other chronic diseases are getting together to establish a strategic planning in various cohorts, e.g. diabetes.

CPACC is working with the Terry Fox Research Institute on biomarkers. A press release is coming out next week.

CPACC is inviting researchers to the Colorectal Cancer Screening Network where politicians and policy makers will be present. There are three programs in place and three more will be announced. She mentioned the high rate of colorectal cancer in the Northwest Territories and the establishment of a program to screen colorectal cancer in this area. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (formerly known as the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA)) has done the assessment on colorectal screening. Further collaborations with this group and CPAC will take place in the future.

Collaborations are also underway with CAPCA, as well as PHAC on risk assessment and surveillance. There is an RFA deadline on September 15th for $500K per year. These are for collaborations across disciplines, primary prevention, policy, treatment, surveillance and between provinces (more details on the CPACC website).

Report from NCIC/CCS

The Board met in June 12th, 2008 and approved an integration agreement for both organizations. They are aiming for January 31st, 2009 for the transition to take effect and sign the legal agreement (Transfer of Assets). Dr. Wosnick reiterated that this decision was long overdue, due in part to the competitive fundraising scene. The research portfolio of $40-50M is now integrated into CCS under the directorship of one CEO. Some negotiations took place on May 12th, 2008 from which a set of principles were drawn for both organizations and can be viewed on the web site. The Staff structure was discussed as well and no positions have been lost; except that now the department of planning and portfolio management is called research planning and evaluation. The two finance teams are being amalgamated; the two communications departments are also merging into one single department. Dr. Wosnick will retain a position within the organization but title/duties have yet to be determined. Research grants in collaboration with CIHR are not being affected by this merge. A meeting with Darrell Fox is planned shortly to propose that Terry Fox Foundation keeps funds within the CCS Organization.

Dr. Wosnick wanted to personally thank NCIC Board and Dr. Elizabeth Eisenhauer for the time and devotion in the merger.

Report on CCRA and the ICR role

A CCRA subcommittee will develop a pan-Canadian strategic plan by the end of 2009 and a first teleconference will take place on September 10th, 2008. The aim is to identify gaps and opportunities, in the similar fashion as UK. CCRA consists of research funding organizations that distribute money through a peer review process. However, there are discussions on whether to expand membership to other foundations that do not go through a peer-review process. The 2006 survey report is available on the CCRA website. Tom Hudson has organized a workshop on the Cancer Genome on October 28th, 2008 in parallel to the International Cancer Genome Consortium in November. The goal is to arrive with a short list of tumours and create a Canadian Cancer Genome Consortium in the same line as the international model.  The full areas of cancer research are covered in the strategy.

Dr. Mackillop wanted to outline that CCRA was a large achievement thanks to Phil Branton. This should be highlighted in the ICR evaluation, newsletters to community, etc.

Other business

Dr. Mes-Masson mentioned that there will be a UICC International meeting in Montreal in 2012, involving 20-30,000 people, for which the bid committee is led by Eduardo Franco. CIHR is looking for a Community Public Reps from the Institutes (Cheryl Robertson).

The meeting on Day 2 was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

Prepared by Diana Sarai