+ More Filters

Reset Filters

Title

Funding Organization

Funding Type

Eligible Country

Deadline

Other (Select all that apply)

Show Expired Programs

Show Verified Programs

Not Verified

RFA: Cancer Health Research Centers (CHERCs)

American Cancer Society

Summer Cycles: New, renewal, and resubmitted applications will be accepted

Winter Cycles: Only resubmissions of previously reviewed applications, including renewals, will be accepted; no new applications accepted.

Summer Cycle

LOIs Materials Available: December
LOIs Due: February 9
Application Materials Available: March
Applications Due: June 1
Peer Review: September
Anticipated Start: April 1

Winter Cycle

LOI Materials Available: Not applicable
LOIs Due: Not applicable
Application Materials Available: September
Applications Due: December 1
Peer Review: March
Anticipated Start: October 1

Purpose

As part of the American Cancer Society (ACS) mission to promote fair and just opportunity to prevent, detect, treat, and survive cancer, we have created the Cancer Health Research Center (CHERC) program. CHERCs are designed to address cancer health disparities that affect local or regional communities. Priority will be given to Centers that focus on actionable, solution-based research designed to improve the health of the community and advance our goals for achieving health equity and reducing cancer mortality.

Background

Societal conditions where people are born, grow up, live, work, worship, and age, have a profound effect on their health, access to cancer care, and ability to carry out care recommendations. Health outcomes are impacted by intersecting factors of wealth, education, employment, geography, language, neighborhood, health systems, insurance coverage, and access to care. There remains a critical need for research that seeks to better understand the context surrounding these health disparities, values community input, and proposes and tests viable solutions.

Scientific Scope

Successful applications will propose well-designed research projects poised to make an impact on their local community within the framework of a coordinated center approach that's focused on demonstrated health inequities.

Projects may span the cancer continuum and include health promotion, cancer prevention, screening, treatment, access to care, care delivery, and/or survivorship. Community engagement is vital for successful implementation and should be central to the development of the CHERC.

The description of the CHERC should clearly present the center's overall scientific agenda, magnitude of the health inequity(ies) being addressed, thematic connection to the presented research, and how the CHERC achieves more as a unit, rather than conducted independently.

There are many examples of health disparities affecting the population in the United States. ACS has identified the following priority areas (additional topics may be considered with appropriate justification by the applicant):

Rural Communities/Access to Health
Early Onset Cancers
Racial/Ethnic Disparities - Asian, Hispanic, Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Immigrant Populations
Sexual/Gender Minorities
Age-specific Needs (pediatrics, adolescent/young adults, older adults)
Environmental Justice (radon, climate change)
Physical and Mental Disabilities

This RFA is a call for solution-based research addressing cancer health disparities that will enable fair and just opportunities to prevent, detect, treat, and survive cancer for everyone. Applicants should clearly demonstrate their ability to reach populations of interest and describe how the proposed methodologies will produce meaningful results.

In support of its overall mission, the CHERC should include a Supportive Core that is managed and coordinated by the Principal Investigator (PI). The Supportive Core should include operational and scientific activities designed to develop, promote, and enhance the scientific agenda of the CHERC, creating an optimal environment to address health equity research. Acceptable activities may include developing commonly used methods and tools, sharing resources, collaborations, facilitating relevant mentoring and training, pilot projects, community engagement, and disseminating research findings. Proposed evaluation metrics to monitor the progress and successes of the Core should be included in the application.

Project Budget and Subaward Mechanism(s)

New awards support a total budget of $1.65 M ($1.5 M direct costs plus 10% indirect costs) for a 4-year project period to include one research subaward and CHERC Supportive Core activities. There is no designated budget cap for the CHERC Supportive Core, but all activities must be fully described in the budget justification.

Research subawards include the following ACS research grant mechanisms:

Clinician Scientist Development Grants (CSDGs) provide support for protected time to allow faculty who are involved with patient care to be mentored and participate in research training to aid their development as independent clinician scientists. Faculty already serving as PI of an independent research program may not apply for a CSDG. Applicants serving as the PI (current or former) of independent extramural research grants that are more than 1 year duration AND more than $100k total direct costs, including multi-PI awards, are not eligible to apply. CSDG applicants can propose 3-, 4-, or 5-year projects, at $135,000 direct costs per year and 8% indirect costs.

Research Scholar Grants (RSGs) provide support to independent, self-directed researchers for 4 years at $215,000 per year direct costs and 10% indirect costs. To be eligible, RSG subaward PIs must have a full-time faculty position and a doctoral degree. For this RFA, faculty may have any rank.

Note: As of 2025, individual postdoctoral fellowships are no longer included as part of this award, but postdocs are encouraged to apply through our standard PF mechanism.

Postdoctoral fellows may be included in the Center or the subaward budgets as personnel.

AI Based Application Success Predictor

🔑 1. High-Impact, Hypothesis-Driven Science (Most Critical)

ACS reviewers prioritize:

Clear, testable hypothesis (not exploratory only)
Strong biological or population-science rationale
Innovation that meaningfully advances the field

👉 Weak hypothesis = one of the most common rejection reasons

🎯 2. Direct Relevance to Cancer Burden

Funded proposals clearly address:

Cancer risk, prevention, detection, treatment, or survivorship
Or major contributors (e.g., tobacco, obesity, disparities)

👉 ACS is mission-driven:
“How does this reduce cancer burden?” must be obvious

🌍 3. Population-Level or Patient-Level Impact

ACS uniquely values:

Public health impact (very strong weight)
Behavioral, epidemiological, or implementation research
Interventions that can scale

👉 Compared to AACR:

More weight on real-world impact, not just biology

⚖️ 4. Balance Between Innovation & Feasibility

Winning proposals:

Are innovative but not overly risky
Have:
- Preliminary data
- Realistic aims
- Backup strategies

👉 Over-ambitious = frequent rejection

👩‍🔬 5. Investigator Potential (Key Differentiator)

ACS strongly funds people, not just projects:

Early-career:

Clear trajectory toward independence
Strong mentorship team

Established investigators:

Productivity (publications, prior grants)
Leadership in field

👉 Weak CV can sink even a good idea

🧪 6. Rigorous Study Design

Clearly defined aims (usually 2–4)
Appropriate methodology and statistics
Feasible recruitment/sample access

👉 Vague methods = major scoring penalty

🤝 7. Alignment with ACS Priority Areas

Higher success rates seen in:

Cancer disparities research
Prevention (lifestyle, screening)
Survivorship and quality of life

👉 These areas are often strategically prioritized

🏥 8. Strong Institutional & Mentorship Support

Access to:
- Facilities
- Data or patient cohorts
Clear institutional backing

👉 Especially critical for fellowships and junior awards

💰 9. Realistic Budget & Scope

Budget matches project scale
Efficient resource use

👉 Over-scoped proposals often fail feasibility review

📑 10. Clear, Reviewer-Friendly Writing

Successful proposals:

Are easy to read and logically structured
Clearly connect:
- Hypothesis → Methods → Impact

👉 Poor presentation can undermine strong science

📊 What Actually Wins (Practical Ranking)

🔥 Decisive factors:

Strong hypothesis + innovation
Clear cancer relevance
Real-world or population impact

⚖️ Major differentiators:

Investigator strength
Feasible, rigorous design
Alignment with ACS priorities

📌 Supporting factors:

Institutional support
Budget
Writing quality

💡 Insider Insight

Compared with other cancer funders:

American Cancer Society = “impact-balanced science”
Not as biology-heavy as AACR
Not as purely clinical as ASCO

👉 The winning formula is:
Strong science + clear path to reducing cancer burden (especially at population level)

Specialties

Cancer

Public Health

Eligibility Requirements

All applicants must be independent researchers at eligible US academic institutions or non-profits. Applicants from underrepresented groups and from Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) are encouraged to apply. Previous CHERC awardees may submit applications for competitive renewals of the CHERC Supportive Core only. The Center's PI must have a strong track record of addressing cancer health disparities as evidenced by extramural cancer research funding, mentoring junior investigators, publications in peer-reviewed journals, and administrative/leadership experience.

Sponsor Details

Sponsor Institute/Organizations: American Cancer Society

Sponsor Type: Corporate/Non-Profit

Address: P.O. Box 6704. Hagerstown, MD 21741

Legal & Affiliation Disclaimer

Affiliation Disclaimer: Trialect operates independently and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or supported by any sponsors or organizations posting on the GrantsBoard platform. As an independent aggregator of publicly available funding opportunities, Trialect provides equal access to information for all users without endorsing any specific funding source, content, organization, or sponsor. Trialect assumes no responsibility for the content posted by sponsors or third parties.

Subscription Disclaimer: Upon logging into Trialect, you may choose to SUBSCRIBE to GrantsBoard for timely notifications of funding opportunities and to access exclusive benefits, such as priority alerts, reminders, personalized recommendations, and additional application support. However, users are advised to contact sponsors directly for any questions and are not required to subscribe to engage with funding opportunities.

Content Ownership and Copyright Disclaimer: Trialect respects the intellectual property rights of all organizations and individuals. All content posted on GrantsBoard is provided solely for informational purposes and remains the property of the original owners. Trialect does not claim ownership of, nor does it have any proprietary interest in, content provided by third-party sponsors. Users are encouraged to verify content and ownership directly with the posting sponsor.

Fair Use Disclaimer: The information and content available on GrantsBoard are compiled from publicly accessible sources in alignment with fair use principles under U.S. copyright law. Trialect serves as an aggregator of this content, offering it to users in good faith and with the understanding that it is available for public dissemination. Any organization or individual who believes their intellectual property rights have been violated is encouraged to contact us for prompt resolution.

Third-Party Posting Responsibility Disclaimer: Trialect is a neutral platform that allows third-party sponsors to post funding opportunities for informational purposes only. Sponsors are solely responsible for ensuring that their postings comply with copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Trialect assumes no liability for any copyright or intellectual property infringements in third-party content and will take appropriate action to address any substantiated claims.

Accuracy and Verification Disclaimer: Trialect makes no warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information provided by sponsors. Users are advised to verify the details of any funding opportunity directly with the sponsor before taking action. Trialect cannot be held liable for any discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies in third-party postings.

Notice and Takedown Policy: Trialect is committed to upholding copyright law and protecting the rights of intellectual property owners. If you believe that content on GrantsBoard infringes your copyright or intellectual property rights, please contact us with detailed information about the claim. Upon receipt of a valid notice, Trialect will promptly investigate and, where appropriate, remove or disable access to the infringing content.

View Funding Opportunity