Dr Mittendorf on Expanding ASCO’s Mission Through Research Advocacy and Global Collaboration

Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, MHCM

As she prepares to lead the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) through the 2026-2027 term, Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, MHCM, is focused on advancing the organization’s mission through global collaboration, strategic research advocacy, and an unwavering commitment to equity across the cancer care continuum.

In part 2 of an interview with OncLive®, Mittendorf shared how ASCO is positioning its advocacy efforts to address the long-term implications of proposed federal research funding cuts. Mittendorf emphasized the critical return on investment generated by the support of the National Institute of Health (NIH)—both in driving scientific discovery and stimulating economic activity. She also highlighted the need for structural reforms to be developed in partnership with researchers, institutions, and policymakers. She reinforced that federal investment in research accelerates innovation and enables trials that would not be pursued by the private sector, particularly in areas like prevention.

Mittendorf discussed her plans for ASCO’s support of multidisciplinary cancer care and mentorship in another article.

OncLive: How is ASCO strategically positioning its advocacy efforts to address the potential long-term consequences of federal research funding cuts?

Mittendorf:This is a topic our members want us to be thoughtful about and advocate for. These cuts could end up having long-term consequences on [ASCO’s] role as the preeminent global leader in biomedical research. It’s important to emphasize what I would refer to as the return on investment on this type of funding. Federal research funding is not only a driver of new discoveries, it’s also a driver of the economy. Every dollar invested by the NIH generates approximately [$2.00 to $2.50] of economic activity. There is a business case to be made for the federal government to continue supporting this type of work.

Additionally, although we acknowledge there may be a need to restructure how federal research funding is administered, we believe this can be done in a thoughtful and considerate way. Any changes should be developed with input from both public and private stakeholders—including researchers, institutions, and Congress. We believe that the National Cancer Institute [NCI] and the funding it provides, have contributed knowledge that has likely affected every single patient treated for cancer.

It’s also critically important that the NCI and federal government continue to fund studies that otherwise would not be undertaken. For example, prevention trials are often supported by the NIH but would likely never be funded by pharmaceutical companies. That’s important to highlight.

I want to make sure our members know that ASCO is aware of the challenges related to research funding, and that we have a strategic approach to our advocacy efforts.

What is your vision for ASCO’s global oncology efforts, particularly regarding capacity building and equitable access to cancer care?

ASCO considers itself a global organization. We have members in over 170 countries, so having an effect globally is important to us. We have a network that is, we believe, a powerful engine for progress in cancer care broadly. In my own experience, before having the opportunity to serve on the board and then to now in this presidential role, just as an ASCO member volunteer, I’ve had the opportunity to make connections with global colleagues that have led to productive collaborations, which have been invaluable in my own career.

I’m eager to further engage in the global community to continue to drive these advancements. ASCO, as an organization, has formalized a lot of this. Our vice president [of the Cetner for Global Impact], Doug Pyle, focuses on our global outreach, and we have several different councils we work with closely, because this is what’s worked here.

As an example, our Leadership Development Program is a phenomenal program to develop young leaders in oncology. We went to our global councils in different regions of the world to ask them what would be of value to them.

We’ve established programs that are tailored for the individual councils. The current president elect, Eric J. Small, MD, FASCO, [of the University of San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center in California], is also incredibly committed to our global work. He attends each one of the global council meetings and then reports back to our group [via Zoom].

What aspects from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting will be most important for practicing oncologists, particularly regarding clinical decision-making and optimizing treatment and care delivery for their patients?

[Former ASCO president] Robin Zon, MD, FACP, FASCO, [of Michiana Hematology Oncology in Mishawaka, Indiana], has put tremendous thought into her presidential theme and the meeting overall. We had a record number of abstract submissions, and we’re excited about the abstracts that were chosen for the plenary presentations.

The meeting was structured with sessions that were disease site specific but also ones that focused on areas like [health care delivery] and [technology integration]. We [hope] that the program was well received by the membership and that attendees learned things that inform patient care. Data were presented from [practice-changing trials], and attendees learned ways to enhance the efficiency of care delivery for their patients.

This meeting takes place in Chicago, but it’s attended by members from across the globe. We hope attendees [of ASCO meetings] experience networking and the opportunity to spend time with colleagues and collaborators from around the world.

What is the importance of equity and representation within ASCO as an organization?

ASCO recognizes that we need a diversity of opinions, and that [diversity] will allow us to be a stronger organization that supports the needs of all our members. One of the aspects that ASCO is cognizant of is the demographics of [its] membership, including factors like discipline, disease type, geographic location, practice setting (academic vs community), and gender. We’re a fortunate organization in that we have so many members who want to volunteer their time and effort, for which we are grateful. We want to make certain our volunteer pool, including the Board of Directors, truly reflects the broader membership. The organization has outstanding leadership in this area, and that allows us—when considering volunteer assignments—to make certain that the individuals we identify—those who have raised their hands or whom we invite to serve—reflect the diversity of our membership.