PA-25-172: Modular R01s in Cancer Control and Population Sciences (R01 Clinical Trial Optional), 2026-2027

PA-25-172: Modular R01s in Cancer Control and Population Sciences (R01 Clinical Trial Optional), 2026-2027

What this opportunity is

This is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) parent funding opportunity for R01-scale projects in cancer control and population sciences. It is designated as Modular R01s in Cancer Control and Population Sciences and supports broad, programmatic cancer-control research rather than narrow disease-specific pilot work.

The NOFO is an R01 parent announcement for:

• population-level cancer prevention and control research
• cancer epidemiology, behavioral science, healthcare delivery, digital health, and implementation science
• both clinical-trial and non-clinical-trial designs in the same mechanism

It is designed as an open, recurring NIH application channel, not a one-time sprint, with repeated due dates into the 2027 cycle. It is not a fellowship or training program and is not a challenge grant; it is an NIH grant funding mechanism with a fixed annual direct cost cap.

Key facts at a glance

Why this is a good fit for 2026/2027 planning

The timing and structure make this an unusually practical grant to monitor if your team is already running cancer control or population-health work:

1. It is recurring into the 2027 cycle, with deadlines already published that extend beyond the 2026 cycle into early 2028.
2. The mechanism is stable and broad in topic framing, so teams can prepare a pipeline rather than one-off responses.
3. The direct-cost cap is clear, which makes budget design easier than many large discretionary programs.
4. A full applicant base is permitted, including a wide set of organization types, not only universities.

The opportunity is aimed at teams that can connect methods, data, policy context, and implementation outcomes in one coherent program of work.

Detailed scope and what NIH is asking for

The NOFO frames the field as broad but disciplined. The expected work sits within NCI’s DCCPS priorities and is especially relevant if your proposal addresses:

• statistical and analytic methods in population science
• epidemiology and behavioral/cancer care research
• data-linkage and analytics in cancer surveillance
• digital health and implementation science
• healthcare delivery, cancer prevention interventions, and survivorship

The scope list is extensive and includes many modern project forms, including digital monitoring, implementation outcomes, and intervention science in underserved populations.

What this NOFO is explicitly designed to fund

The published scope emphasizes studies with practical effect on cancer burden and care, including:

• risk estimation and prevention-oriented epidemiologic or behavioral work
• analytical methods to improve interpretation and use of cancer surveillance data
• implementation science questions around delivery models and uptake
• healthcare delivery and care coordination improvements
• support for marginalized or underserved populations with clear population-level relevance

What is out of scope

The NOFO also identifies non-responsive studies. In plain language, applications focused mainly on molecular biology discovery, standalone therapy development work, or broad diagnostic/technology development disconnected from population and delivery focus are likely to be rejected for scope mismatch.

The practical implication is simple: your team should be proposing a program that changes how cancer prevention, behavior, surveillance, care delivery, or survivorship science is done in populations. If your proposal is mostly lab bench work or only a purely clinical-product development story, it will not fit this NOFO, even if scientifically excellent.

Eligibility and applicant base

The opportunity has unusually broad applicant eligibility. For planning purposes, it includes most established nonprofit, public, and for-profit entities that meet NIH registration and submission requirements.

Notable eligible groups include:

• public and private higher education institutions
• nonprofit entities (501(c)(3) and non-501(c)(3))
• small and non-small for-profit organizations
• local and federal government agencies
• regional organizations, faith-based/community organizations, school districts, housing authorities (in selected categories)
• foreign organizations and non-domestic components of U.S. organizations

Two practical points matter most:

• You still must complete and maintain required registrations before submission.
• You must submit through an NIH-approved route (ASSIST, S2S path, or Grants.gov workspace with eRA Commons tracking).

Timeline strategy for this opportunity

PA-25-172 was posted in 2025 and is published as a continuing cycle with recurring windows. The NOFO lists 2026 and 2027 dates in an NIH-standard cadence.

Use the recurring dates as follows (from the official due-date table):

• 2026 windows include deadlines in June, October, and February 2027 windows with earlier and later cycles in the same pattern.
• 2027 cycle includes February, June, October 2027 standard rounds.

Because it is recurring and not a single-cycle competition, a good planning approach is to treat this as a quarterly release cycle:

• lock topic and study design before the cycle opens
• assemble data and analysis plans early
• submit at least one cycle earlier than the absolute deadline to allow portal fixes
• keep an internal pre-review date about two weeks before NIH deadline

Remember that NIH explicitly encourages early submission to allow corrections before due time, because errors during submission can trigger rejection even when the underlying science is strong.

Budget and award constraints you should plan around

The award budget language is explicit:

• direct costs are capped at $250,000 per year, excluding consortium F&A
• maximum project period is 5 years
• number of awards is not fixed and depends on appropriations plus meritorious applications

This does not mean NIH will always award the max; it means your narrative and budget must be coherent within those caps.

A practical budget structure that aligns with the mechanism:

• personnel and key computational/data support tied to each year’s work package
• moderate travel or partner costs only when essential
• implementation or dissemination costs where justified by population-level impact goals
• explicit alignment with a scalable and reviewable methodology

Do not over-allocate for infrastructure not directly linked to the proposed scope. Reviewers in these parent announcements score feasibility and fit more harshly when budgets are built around “nice-to-have” items.

Application mechanics and requirements

From the NOFO and linked NIH guidance, application submission is electronic and standard R01 process-oriented. The official guidance is to use one of the accepted routes:

1. ASSIST
2. S2S (institutional systems-to-system route) into Grants.gov and eRA Commons
3. Grants.gov Workspace + eRA Commons

Critical compliance checklist before submission

• Confirm your organization has all registrations active before deadline (SAM/UEI/NPI pathway and related registries).
• Verify PI and team have valid eRA Commons identities.
• Confirm clinical trial determination and whether your design actually requires clinical trial categorization.
• Verify each required form section in the R01 instructions and any NOFO-specific instructions.
• Ensure application dates are converted to due-date local time.

Required documents and materials to prepare in advance

Although the NOFO contains full instructions in its Part IV, teams should prepare this baseline set early:

• Specific aims and central hypothesis tied to population outcomes
• Significance section tied to cancer control need
• Innovation section that demonstrates a real advancement over typical methods
• Approach and analytic plan with practical implementation path
• Data sources and governance (especially if using linked or secondary data)
• Human subjects and ethical documentation if applicable
• Data sharing and software/data management plan where relevant
• Institutional approvals and registrations documented without last-minute stress

Who should apply, and how to evaluate fit internally

This NOFO is worth pursuing if your team can satisfy both of these conditions:

1. The science is directly in cancer control population-level research.
2. The project can be framed as scientifically rigorous but implementation-aware, with realistic path to measurable practice or policy-relevant impact.

Strong candidate profiles include:

• teams with robust data science and epidemiologic integration capacity
• researchers linking prevention or care-delivery questions with real behavior/environmental determinants
• investigators with proven capacity to produce population-relevant outputs

Weak profiles are usually the reverse:

• projects that look like basic mechanism studies
• technology projects without delivery/equity/systems context
• intervention studies that cannot articulate population-level applicability

How review panels tend to interpret “fit” for this program

This is one of the most important points for writing a successful proposal. Broad topics in the NOFO can tempt teams to submit very complex proposals. Reviewers generally reward clarity + focus + coherence more than breadth.

Three fit signals that typically strengthen applications:

• clear rationale that connects study design to population-level cancer control
• explicit methods for handling implementation barriers and context
• realistic sample, timeline, and analytic plan consistent with the budget cap

A recurring mistake is treating this as a “catalogue proposal” and packing multiple disconnected methods into one R01. That usually weakens the story and triggers scope concerns.

Practical preparation roadmap (90-day version)

A practical workflow for a team that wants to catch the next available cycle:

90–75 days before deadline

• Set research question and endpoints.
• Confirm scope match against no longer responsive themes.
• Assign owner for registration, internal grants office, and data governance.

75–45 days before deadline

• Draft Specific Aims and significance
• Lock analytic approach and data availability
• Prepare preliminary tables/figures and budget rationale
• Start mock run through submission platform

45–21 days before deadline

• Finalize institutional approvals
• Align key person forms and biosketches
• Run internal review with independent reviewer
• Final check of budget cap and budget justification

21–7 days before deadline

• Validate all NIH-required metadata fields
• Verify contact information and institution profile consistency
• Ensure response letters for previous applications are in place when needed

7–0 days before deadline

• Submit at least one business day early
• Resolve system warnings; do not wait until final minutes unless absolutely necessary
• Keep screen captures/tickets for support if a system issue occurs

Common mistakes and preventable errors

1. Missing registrations or stale registrations

   • This is the most frequent failure mode. NIH explicitly does not accept late registration as a reason to excuse late submission.

2. Weakly defined intervention in population context

   • If the intervention does not map to population-scale relevance, review questions often pivot from “good science, weak fit.”

3. Budget built around a larger mechanism

   • This is specifically risky because direct costs are capped and NIH expects scope within that budget and mechanism.

4. Applying to this NOFO with essentially bench or diagnostic-only work

   • The NOFO lists clear non-responsive categories. Respect the framing.

5. Overloading with too many aims

   • Many strong R01 teams lose clarity by running five aims with no central integrating question. Panels prefer coherence.

6. Ignoring repeated-cycle strategy

   • Submitting one cycle and treating all future rounds as lost opportunities can cost you learning momentum. Treat this as a serial strategy where revisions and refinements improve your next try.

FAQ

Is this still open now?

The opportunity is published as a recurring NIH parent R01 cycle and remains active through at least the 2027 rounds, with an expiration date listed as 2028-01-08. In practical terms, this is an active route for at least the 2026 and 2027 windows at the time of this check date.

Are only U.S. entities eligible?

No. The NOFO explicitly allows foreign organizations and non-domestic components of U.S. entities in the eligible list.

Is a clinical trial required?

No, clinical trial status is optional. You can propose with or without a trial.

What is the minimum budget?

The NOFO does not state a minimum budget in the same way it states a cap. The direct-cost cap is $250,000 per year; applications should reflect realistic project needs.

What’s the best way to start if I have a data-heavy project?

Start by framing the project in terms of implementation, behavioral/epidemiologic relevance, and population-level impact before adding technical complexity. A strong data section matters only if the scientific and public health questions are explicit.

If we miss one due date, can we submit next month?

Yes, as long as the cycle’s submission window is active and you still meet the standard requirements and deadlines listed in the NOFO.

Official links and operational references

• Official opportunity page: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-25-172.html
• NIH Grants Policy Statement: https://www.nih.gov/grants-policy-statement
• How to Apply guide (Research): https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply.html

Suggested contacts (from the NOFO)

• Program contacts include NCI email/phone points for scientific and grants administration queries.
• eRA Service Desk and grants email support are the official first-line contacts for submission and technical issues.

Use these only through the official NIH channels listed in the opportunity page. If you are unsure whether your proposal is out of scope, use the listed NCI research/scientific contact early rather than waiting for a late-cycle question.