Currently, it’s estimated that 40% of cancers are preventable. This, however, only accounts for the proportion preventable through reducing exposure to behavioural and environmental risk factors, such as tobacco.

And while Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has played a major role in identifying behavioural risk factors and campaigning for interventions to reduce population exposure to them, there are opportunities to go further. Precision prevention research is a new frontier – one that pushes the boundaries of what is considered possible in disease prevention.

The field takes insights into the biological processes driving cancer initiation and risk, translating these understandings into preventive interventions that precisely target the processes driving cancer in high-risk groups. By targeting the actual biological processes driving cancer, not just risk factors, this approach could significantly increase the proportion of cancers considered preventable.

CRUK has funded more precision prevention research projects since our 2022 Prevention Research Strategy, which prioritised bringing biology to prevention. However, CRUK funded researchers highlighted that there are barriers in the UK’s research environment impeding the growth of this field. Today’s policy report, Precision Prevention: A new opportunity for UK health and life sciences, sets out these barriers and 6 recommendations to government bodies to address them.

Creating a robust talent pipeline

Preventative interventions can take a long time to have a measurable effect, meaning there is a long gap before publishable results emerge. This can be tricky for early- and mid-career researchers keen to publish results to secure future funding and establish a long-term research career. This has stunted the development of a pipeline of new prevention researchers – and precision prevention is no exception.

This is being felt keenly in the community, and consequently individual funding opportunities to support early-career researchers to move into precision prevention research are very important. In 2025, Dr Nadia Nasreddin received funding through CRUK’s Biology to Prevention award, aimed at early career researchers to fund precision prevention research projects.

As well as targeting the career stages that need it most, the experts we spoke to flagged that efforts to build a research pipeline should embed the right skill set to complement precision prevention research. Clinician academics have first-hand insight into the needs and preferences of the target patient groups and can ensure that precision prevention interventions are fit for purpose as they are developed. As such, senior experts, many of whom are clinician academics themselves, emphasised that clinicians should be a particular target for efforts to build overall researcher capacity in precision prevention research.

NIHR and UKRI already have dedicated programmes to encourage more people to train as clinician academics. We are calling on these funders to prioritise precision prevention within these programmes.

Strategy and infrastructure: the importance of funding

A robust and skilled pipeline of new researchers is essential to drive precision prevention research forward. However, it’s clear researchers can only do this if the conditions and resources are in place to support this work. Chronic underfunding has constrained progress across prevention research; this is especially the case for novel fields such as precision prevention.

Professor Karen Brown is director of the Leicester Cancer Research Centre and co-chair of the UK Therapeutic Cancer Prevention Network. She reflects that there is a long-standing perception that there is no funding in prevention research. But, she says, that’s changing. “You can see what a difference the CRUK push towards biology-based prevention has made to applications. Ultimately people will go where the funding is – we need more funding from NIHR and UKRI”.

Strategic prioritisation has impact far beyond the projects that are subsequently funded. Government funders have broad reach: reflecting the potential of precision prevention in their strategies could raise the profile of the field, sparking more research activity. This signalling effect cannot be understated.

We’re therefore calling on NIHR and UKRI to ensure that precision prevention research is prioritised as part of broader shifts to fund more prevention research. However, the opportunity does not stop there. Researchers emphasise the need for core-funded infrastructure. While project funding is essential, its ‘stop-start’ nature can make it difficult to carry out long-term research projects. The lengthy timelines associated with precision prevention research mean that the stability of a core-funded institution would make the difference in facilitating this research.

The benefits of infrastructure go far beyond establishing stability. Professor Ruth Langley is a medical oncologist, specialising in the design and management of oncology clinical trials based at University College London.

The regulatory environment

The final piece of the puzzle to ensure the research environment allows precision prevention research to flourish is engagement from the UK’s regulators.

All of the researchers we spoke to highlighted that regulatory processes are typically geared towards therapeutics: this has created blockers in designing precision prevention trials which generate the right evidence to support regulatory decision-making.

Researchers emphasised the impact of a lack of MHRA guidance around key methodological issues that affect precision prevention research, such as the use of surrogate endpoints. Currently, MHRA deals with these questions on a case-by-case basis which can lead to mixed responses, ultimately undermining confidence in funding and running this research in the UK.

The MHRA has a track record of developing integrated pathways to support research teams from the early stages of development, such as the Innovative Licencing and Access Pathway (ILAP). CRUK is calling for the MHRA to develop a support pathway catering specifically to the needs of precision prevention trials. “Something similar to the ILAP for precision prevention – a joined-up committee which supports from the start of the project and follows it through – would be fantastic.” says Sarah.

Taken together, these actions would not only start to unblock some of the key avenues for delivering more precision prevention research but would develop a unique regulatory capability within the UK, establishing its role as a world leader in precision prevention research.