Every week, the editors of Cancer Today magazine bring you the top news for cancer patients from around the internet. Stay up to date with the latest in cancer research and care by subscribing to our e-newsletter.

MRI Surveillance May Offer Alternative to Preventive Brain Radiation for Small Cell Lung Cancer

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has a high risk of spreading to the brain. People with SCLC who respond to initial treatment and have no evidence of cancer in the brain may receive prophylactic cranial irradiation, or preventive radiation to the brain. As brain MRI has become routinely available, researchers have questioned whether close MRI surveillance could allow more people to avoid preventive radiation and its effect on a person’s cognitive abilities, according to an article in Medscape. Findings presented at the 2026 World Conference on Lung Cancer in Seoul, South Korea, showed patients assigned to MRI surveillance alone had a 40% lower risk of cognitive failure or death than those assigned to MRI surveillance plus preventive brain radiation over a median follow-up of 22 months. In the phase III clinical trial, 304 people with small cell lung cancer were monitored using MRI, with half also receiving prophylactic radiation. According to Medscape, the study found 17% of people who underwent MRI alone were alive and maintained their performance on cognitive tests within a year of being assigned to the treatment, compared with 6% in the radiation group. However, 15% of those undergoing MRI and preventive radiation developed brain metastases within a year, compared with 30% for those assigned to MRI surveillance alone. Preliminary analysis of overall survival data suggested no significant difference between the groups, but the final overall survival analysis is pending. Based on these findings, Hideyuki Harada, of Shizuoka Cancer Center in Nagaizumi, Japan, an invited discussant at the conference, noted MRI surveillance could be considered for extensive-stage SCLC, but he suggested more data on overall survival is needed before recommending MRI surveillance alone to those with limited-stage SCLC.

Cancer Progress Depends on Research Funding and Scientific Independence, Report Says

The U.S. cancer death rate has declined substantially over the past three decades. However, cuts to federal funding for research and changes to how those funds are awarded threaten to stall that progress in the years ahead, according to the AACR Cancer Progress Report 2026. The annual report from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) highlights advances in cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment to educate the public about the importance of research. (The AACR also publishes Cancer Today.) Between July 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026, the Food and Drug Administration approved 11 new cancer therapies, including the first molecularly targeted therapy for diffuse midline glioma, according to the report. The report also calls attention to uncertainty surrounding federal funding for cancer research. As of June 14, 2026, the number of National Cancer Institute competitive grants awarded this fiscal year was 41% below average for the same point in fiscal years 2021 through 2024. In addition, the value of those awards was 25% below the year-to-date average over the same period. The report also raises concerns about a proposed rule that would shift authority over funding awards from medical expert review panels to political appointees. Additionally, the report also highlights a separate National Institutes of Health policy change that will prevent researchers from using career development funds to conduct independent clinical trials. Researchers who want to lead such trials will need to obtain separate funding, Healio reported. “There is uncertainty whether there will be the sizable investment needed to keep the pipeline going—and I’m not just talking about the drug development pipeline,” Catherine Bollard, a senior vice president and chief research officer at Children’s National in Washington, D.C., and a member of the report steering committee, told Healio. “I’m talking about the next generation of scientists and physician-scientists needed to work on that pipeline. Right now, funding for research in the academic setting is under threat for multiple reasons.”

People May Be Able to Wait Five Years for a Colonoscopy After High-risk Adenomas

People who have had high-risk adenomas removed during colonoscopy may be able to wait five years for a follow-up procedure, according to interim results from a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The clinical trial randomly assigned 10,799 people who had a high-risk adenoma, which is a type of precancerous polyp, removed during a colonoscopy to receive a follow-up colonoscopy after three years or to wait until five years. People in the three-year group also received a colonoscopy at the five-year mark. At five years, the cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer was 0.77% in the five-year group, compared with 0.82% in the three-year group. People were diagnosed with early- and late-stage cancer at similar proportions in both groups, MedPage Today reported. Five participants died of colorectal cancer in the study period: three in the five-year group and two in the three-year group. The researchers wrote that current guidelines are based largely on observational data. An accompanying editorial suggests current surveillance recommendations may be unnecessarily aggressive for many people and might be improved by considering additional levels of risk. The editorial noted the five-year model cut the number of colonoscopies performed nearly in half. “Such a decrease in the number of surveillance colonoscopies would translate into a lower patient burden, lower procedural risk, and greater availability of colonoscopy for other indications,” the authors wrote. They cautioned that longer follow-up is needed to assess colorectal cancers, late-stage diagnoses and deaths. The trial is ongoing, with its primary analysis planned at 10 years.