Overcoming misconceptions and utilizing systems approaches in cancer research

What is it about?

As part of the Cancer System Epidemiology Insights and Future Opportunities Collection, this paper explains the difference between traditional epidemiological and systems epidemiological approaches, how the limitations of traditional approaches can be tackled with systems approaches, how to overcome common misconceptions regarding systems approaches, and the importance of more dedicated funding and training for systems approaches use for cancer prevention and control.

Featured Image

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Why is it important?

While traditional epidemiological approaches have helped generate important insights about cancer prevention and treatment, they have limitations and alone cannot bridge the gaps that continue to exist in cancer research. For example, traditional epidemiological research looks at associations thus cannot fully account for and characterize the complexity of various systems (e.g., biological, behavioral, social, environmental, economics) that affect and are affected by cancer. Unlike traditional epidemiological approaches, systems epidemiological research is created to completely untangle the complex factors and mechanisms that affect and are affected by health thus identifying the root cause of a complex disease like cancer. For example, systems epidemiological research can help to better understand cancer prevention and treatment as there are still many cancers with poor cure rates likely due to their complex nature. Additionally, significant disparities exist in many cancer diagnoses and outcomes and risk, and the course of cancer can vary substantially among different people and populations. Therefore, systems epidemiological research which offers more tailored approaches and moves toward precision medicine for cancer prevention and treatment is needed. Ultimately, greater use of systems epidemiological research comes with challenges, including lack of funding and training and overcoming common associated misconceptions.