Research training, barriers, and career development needs of early-career investigators in oncology: an EORTC survey-based study

Abstract

Background

The increasing complexity of cancer research presents significant challenges for early-career oncologists in establishing independent research careers. Although dedicated support platforms have emerged in recent years, a thorough evaluation of the research training needs and barriers faced by the current generation of trainees and early-career oncologists has been lacking. This study aimed to assess the research backgrounds, needs, and career aspirations of early-career researchers in oncology.

Methods

An online survey was distributed between September and October 2024 among young and early-career investigator (Y-ECI) members of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and other professionals meeting the EORTC Y-ECI criteria. The questionnaire collected information on research experience, challenges, and expectations from the newly launched EORTC Y-ECI community.

Results

Among 301 respondents, 200 (66.7%) met Y-ECI criteria and participated in the survey. Most were female (62.4%), aged 31-35 years (38.7%), medical oncologists (69.6%), and working in academic settings (58.8%). While 73.7% had published research, 75.8% reported challenges in conducting and publishing their work. The main barriers included lack of protected research time (77.0%), limited funding (48.2%), and insufficient grant application support (47.1%). Female researchers were seven times more likely to report gender-related barriers (odds ratio 7.14, 95% confidence interval 1.14-79.22). Most (84.3%) expressed interest in joining the EORTC Y-ECIs community, with research training, mentorship, and funding opportunities rated as the most valuable initiatives.

Conclusions

This study provides comprehensive insights into the research needs of early-career oncologists and supports the EORTC investment in structured training programmes to cultivate a strong, next-generation research workforce.

Highlights

• •We conducted a large global survey on research backgrounds, needs, and aspirations of early-career oncologists.
• •Limited protected time, funding, and infrastructural support were ranked as the major research barriers.
• •Female researchers were seven times more likely to report gender as a barrier to their research productivity.
• •Structured research training, mentorship, and funding programmes were rated as essential career development needs.

Introduction

Cancer remains a significant health care issue with rising incidence rates worldwide.¹ As the complexity of cancer care and clinical workloads increase, treatment algorithms are shifting towards globally integrated protocols that incorporate multimodal care models and involve a growing number of medical specialties.² At the same time, the field of oncological research is rapidly evolving, requiring extensive cross-disciplinary collaboration to face growing complexities in trial design, data analysis, regulatory requirements, and development of technological innovations for clinical applications.^3,4

Within this increasingly interdisciplinary environment, the new generation of medical doctors practising in oncology-related disciplines plays a critical role in embracing this shift in cancer care and shaping the future of oncology research. Although opportunities to pursue research have expanded, early-career researchers face growing challenges to long-term retention in academia.5, 6, 7 These challenges include a more fragile work–life balance, increased clinical and administrative workloads, highly competitive access to funding to establish independent research streams, and unequal access to research training across institutions and countries.

As mitigation strategies, policymakers have advocated for the establishment of standardised training programmes and oncological scientific societies have increasingly built dedicated platforms to implement training and career development opportunities for early-career researchers.^8,9 Effectively addressing the needs of this generation of trainees and early-career oncologists, however, requires a thorough assessment of their specific challenges and aspirations, which is currently lacking.

In this context, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), a leading cancer research organisation in Europe with >3800 members and >60 years of history, has consistently demonstrated its commitment to nurturing the next generation of clinical researchers in oncology.¹⁰ Health care professionals who join the organisation during their specialist training or within 10 years of board certification are recognised as young or early-career investigators (Y-ECIs), respectively, and are provided with targeted networking, educational, and career development opportunities within and beyond tumour-specific groups.

The launch of a dedicated Y-ECI community within the Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Group (GITCG) in early 2024 represented a unique opportunity to conduct a contemporary assessment of research backgrounds, training opportunities, career development challenges, and research interests of young and early-career researchers in oncology.

The findings will inform the development and implementation of targeted measures to support the current generation of clinicians and researchers effectively.

Methods

Study design and aims

An online survey, developed by the EORTC-GITCG between June and August 2024 following survey development best practices,¹¹ was distributed via SurveyMonkey, hosted at the EORTC, on 10 September 2024. The questionnaire aimed to gather insights from early-career oncologists on their research interests, career progression opportunities, and level of involvement in research activities, while also capturing their expectations for the newly launched EORTC-GITCG Y-ECI community. The survey was administered in English to all participants. Responses were recorded once for each participant and collected over a period of 2 months, including an intermediate reminder.

Target population

Health care professionals or graduates in medicine working or training in an oncology-related field were invited to complete the survey without EORTC membership or country of practice restrictions. To proceed with the questionnaire, participants had to show an interest in gastrointestinal (GI) oncology and fit the EORTC definition of Y-ECIs, a status granted to EORTC members joining the organisation during their specialist training or within 10 years of board certification.¹⁰ The survey was sent to the entire pool of registered EORTC members, who were asked to forward the questionnaire to non-EORTC colleagues who would meet Y-ECI criteria, allowing for a ‘snowball sampling’ approach.

Description of the survey

The questionnaire consisted of 29 questions divided into different sections: (i) demographic information and education/professional background; (ii) research interest, experience, and challenges faced by the participant; (iii) current research network, involvement in activities dedicated to early-career oncologists outside the EORTC, and satisfaction from these services; and (iv) feedback about the EORTC and the participant’s interest in and expectations from the EORTC-GITCG Y-ECI community.

Six-point Likert scale questions (ranging from 0 to 5, with the latter showing the highest degree of agreement) were used to collect participants’ comments on research challenges and expectations. The survey was conceptualised, drafted, reviewed, and approved by the chairs of the EORTC-GITCG Y-ECIs, the chairs of the EORTC-GITCG, and the chair of the EORTC-YI Group. A copy of the administered questionnaire is available in the Supplementary Material (Supplementary Table S1, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmogo.2025.100208).

Ethical considerations

Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any point without providing a reason. Ethics approval was not required due to the nature of the study and collection of anonymised data.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise survey results from the aggregated and respondent-level data. All questionnaires from participants fulfilling the eligibility criteria were analysed. As respondents were permitted to skip questions without impacting the completion of the remaining questionnaire, each survey item was analysed independently, using the total number of responses available for that specific question. For six-point Likert scale questions under the sections ‘Research needs assessment’ and ‘Expectations from the EORTC Y-ECI GI programme,’ results are reported as the ratio of participants selecting ‘very probably’ or ‘yes, definitely’ over the total number of respondents unless otherwise specified. Associations between variables within subgroups were tested using either the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05 (two-sided). Due to the descriptive nature of the study, not all the analyses were preplanned. Statistical analyses were conducted using R, version 4.4.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

EORTC membership information

Overall, 301 participants started the questionnaire, of whom about half (155/301, 51.5%) were not EORTC members. Following screening for Y-ECI status and interest in GI oncology, a total of 200 researchers were eligible to participate in the survey. Only respondents meeting the Y-ECI criteria were allowed to proceed with the full survey. As the survey platform permitted participants to skip questions, the denominators vary across items. However, because non-Y-ECIs were automatically excluded through initial screening, all responses collected were considered relevant and reflective of the intended target population. Consequently, each survey item was analysed independently, based on its specific number of valid responses. Most participants (164/199, 82.4%) reported to be members of scientific societies other than the EORTC and to have known about the EORTC via a colleague (77/199, 38.7%), a scientific publication (46/199, 23.1%), or their working institution (45/199, 22.6%). Only 4 (2.0%) stated to have come across the EORTC on social media (Twitter/X n = 3, Facebook n = 1 and Instagram n = 1). Participants’ most frequently reported research fields of interest beyond GI cancers were quality of life (63/199, 31.7%), breast (55, 27.6%), and lung (52, 26.1%) cancer. Among those who were already EORTC members and proceeded with the survey (140/200, 70%), the majority (79, 56.4%) had joined the EORTC-GITCG, followed by the EORTC Quality of Life (42, 30.0%), Lung (23, 16.4%), Head and Neck and Soft Tissue and Sarcoma (19, 13.6% each) groups.

Demographics and professional background

For the most part, participants were female (121/194, 62.4%), and within the 31-35 years (75/194, 38.7%) or 36-40 years (63/194, 32.5%) age groups. Most were medical doctors (MD) with (75/194, 38.7%) or without (60/194, 30.9%) specialist board certification, followed by MD/PhD professionals with specialist board certification (30/194, 15.5%). Similarly, the majority were post-specialty health care professionals (87/194, 44.8%), followed by trainees with at least 3 years of experience (58/194, 29.9%). The medical specialties most represented were medical oncology (135/194, 69.6%), radiation or clinical oncology (54/194, 27.8%), and surgical oncology (6/194, 3.1%). Median experience (from residency or start of PhD, whichever came earlier) was 6 years (range 0-20 years). Most respondents started their medical careers in Italy (79/194, 40.7%), The Netherlands (18/194, 9.3%), Spain (11/194, 5.7%), Turkey (10/194, 5.1%), Germany (9/194, 4.6%), or the UK (7/194, 3.6%). The majority were practising in Italy (67/194, 34.5%), The Netherlands (16/194, 8.2%), or Spain (15/194, 7.7%). A complete overview of the country of practice of the survey respondents is reported in Figure 1. Most participants worked at university hospitals (114/194, 58.8%) or comprehensive cancer centres (53/194, 27.3%), mainly in clinical roles, with 77.3% (150/194) dedicating at least 75% of their time to clinics. Notably, <10% of participants reported to dedicate ≥75% of their time to research activities. Detailed demographic and professional background information is summarised in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Geographical distribution of survey respondents based on their country of practice. A colour-graded scale indicates the relative percentage of respondents from each country, with darker shades representing higher levels of participation.

Table 1.

Demographic and professional characteristics of survey respondents (N = 194)

Characteristics	n (%)
Gender
Female	121 (62.4)
Male	73 (37.6)
Age group
25-30 years	39 (20.1)
31-35 years	75 (38.7)
36-40 years	63 (32.5)
>40 years	17 (8.7)
Professional qualification
MD without specialisation	60 (30.9)
MD with specialisation	75 (38.7)
MD/PhD with specialisation	30 (15.5)
Other	29 (14.9)
Current position
Not yet started specialty training	5 (2.6)
Trainee (<3 years’ experience)	17 (8.8)
Trainee (≥3 years’ experience)	58 (29.9)
Postspecialty professional	87 (44.8)
Postspecialty PhD candidate	22 (11.3)
Other	5 (2.6)
Medical specialty
Medical oncology	135 (69.6)
Radiation oncology	32 (16.5)
Clinical oncology	22 (11.3)
Surgical oncology	6 (3.1)
Other oncology-related specialty	9 (4.6)
Non-oncology specialty	5 (2.6)
Institution type
University hospital	114 (58.8)
Comprehensive cancer centre	53 (27.3)
Regional hospital	26 (13.4)
Private hospital	8 (4.1)
Community hospital	8 (4.1)
Other type (not specified)	6 (3.1)
Time allocation
100% clinical	48 (24.7)
75% clinical/25% research	102 (52.6)
50 clinical/50% research	34 (17.5)
>50% research	10 (5.2)

Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding or may exceed 100 when multiple answers were allowed.

Research interest and experience

Survey participants reported to be interested mainly in clinical research (174/193, 90.2%). Other research interests encompassed preclinical/translational research and literature reviews (67/193, 34.7% each), and epidemiological and real-world research (61/193, 31.6%). Statistics and methodology (36/193, 18.6%) and qualitative research (23/193, 11.9%) accounted for <20% of the research interests each. Most had published their research work (143/194, 73.7%), mainly as co-author (92/194, 47.4%) or first author (64/194, 33.0%). Research interests in the entire cohort and within gender and age subgroups are represented in Figure 2A.

Figure 2.

Research interests and desired involvement of young and early-career investigators (Y-ECI) in research activities. (A) summarises the research fields of interest for Y-ECI respondents, highlighting the percentage of participants expressing interest in given fields. (B) shows the desired involvement of Y-ECI respondents in different research-related activities within a dedicated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Y-ECI gastrointestinal group. Squared boxes display the overall percentage of respondents interested in each field or activity. The accompanying pie charts break down these interests by gender (pink: female, blue: male) and age group (light green: <35 years, dark green: ≥35 years). F, female; M, male.

Research needs assessment

Most participants reported challenges in conducting and publishing their research (147/194, 75.8%), with the main obstacles being recognised as the lack of or limited protected research time (107/139, 77.0%), lack of or limited funding (67/139, 48.2%), and lack of or difficulty in gaining funding or grant application and management support (65/138, 47.1%). Overall, only a minority of participants perceived age (16/138, 12.0%) and gender (11/138, 8.0%) as factors influencing their research performance. In contrast, the majority identified years of experience as a potential contributor (72/137, 52.5% selecting ‘possibly’ or ‘probably’) and the lack of well-being support, defined as excessive workload, lack of institutional well-being policies and interventions, or burnout as a significant barrier (69/139, 49.6%). Subgroup analyses by age, gender, specialty, training completion status, and geographical area of practice were largely consistent with the overall cohort in terms of perceived research barriers and career development needs. However, while age and gender were not widely perceived as major barriers to research, they influenced participants’ perspectives on the matter. Researchers >35 years old were significantly more likely to identify a lack of or limited protected time as a major obstacle to their research performance [odds ratio (OR) 2.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-7.09, P = 0.042]. Additionally, female researchers were seven times more likely to report that their gender negatively impacted their research output (OR 7.14, 95% CI 1.14-79.22, P = 0.05). Detailed information on research backgrounds, barriers and career development aspirations within these subgroups are reported in Table 2 and in Figure 3.

Table 2.

Subgroup analyses of research backgrounds, barriers, and aspirations

Variable	Gender				Age				Specialty				Country
	Male (ref. group)	Female	OR (95% CI)	P value	≤35 years (ref. group)	>35 years	OR (95% CI)	P value	Medical oncology (ref. group)	Other	OR (95% CI)	P value	Italy (ref. group)	Other	OR (95% CI)	P value
Research background
PhD degree, n (%)
Yes	23 (32)	35 (29)	0.88 (0.48-1.69)	0.747	22 (19)	36 (45)	3.40 (1.72-6.85)	<0.001	32 (26)	18 (35)	1.53 (0.75-3.09)	0.271	11 (16)	47 (37)	2.95 (1.44-6.48)	0.003
No	50 (68)	86 (71)			92 (81)	44 (55)			90 (74)	33 (65)			56 (84)	80 (63)
Time allocated to research per week, n (%)
<50%	61 (87)	89 (78)	0.53 (0.20-1.27)	0.170	91 (81)	59 (83)	1.19 (0.56-2.62)	0.701	95 (81)	42 (88)	0.63 (0.21-1.59)	0.371	62 (92)	29 (25)	3.97 (1.56-12.39)	0.003
≥50%	9 (13)	25 (22)			22 (19)	12 (17)			22 (19)	6 (12)			5 (8)	88 (75)
Years of experience in oncology, n (%)
<6	49 (68)	63 (52)	0.51 (0.26-0.98)	0.035	88 (77)	24 (30)	0.13 (0.07-0.25)	<0.001	71 (59)	28 (55)	1.17 (0.60-2.26)	0.736	41 (61)	71 (56)	1.22 (0.67-2.25)	0.543
≥6	23 (32)	58 (48)			26 (23)	55 (70)			50 (41)	23 (45)			26 (39)	55 (44)
Publication experience, n (%)
Yes	55 (75)	88 (73)	0.87 (0.44-1.70)	0.738	74 (65)	69 (86)	3.37 (1.55-7.89)	<0.001	88 (72)	39 (77)	1.25 (0.60-2.76)	0.706	53 (79)	90 (71)	0.65 (0.31-1.29)	0.235
No	18 (25)	33 (27)			40 (35)	11 (14)			34 (28)	12 (23)			14 (21)	37 (29)
Lead authora, n (%)
Yes	38 (52)	53 (44)	0.72 (0.40-1.27)	0.300	43 (38)	48 (60)	2.46 (1.32-4.64)	0.003	53 (43)	26 (51)	1.35 (0.70-2.62)	0.405	18 (27)	73 (58)	3.64 (1.93-7.05)	<0.001
No	35 (48)	68 (56)			71 (62)	32 (40)			69 (57)	25 (49)			49 (73)	54 (42)
Research challenges, n (%)
Yes	58 (79)	89 (74)	0.72 (0.36-1.47)	0.391	84 (74)	63 (79)	1.32 (0.64-2.80)	0.497	91 (75)	43 (84)	1.80 (0.79-4.56)	0.231	48 (72)	99 (78)	1.40 (0.70-2.75)	0.379
No	15 (21)	32 (26)			30 (26)	17 (21)			31 (25)	8 (16)			19 (28)	28 (22)
Research barriers
Lack of funding, n (%)
Yes	27 (50)	40 (47)	0.89 (0.45-1.74)	0.862	35 (43)	32 (56)	1.71 (0.82-3.60)	0.125	39 (45)	23 (56)	1.53 (0.72-3.29)	0.343	21 (46)	46 (49)	1.16 (0.57-2.38)	0.720
No	27 (50)	45 (53)			47 (57)	25 (44)			47 (55)	18 (44)			25 (54)	47 (51)
Lack of protected time, n (%)
Yes	44 (82)	63 (74)	0.68 (0.30-1.60)	0.409	58 (71)	49 (86)	2.52 (0.98-7.09)	0.042	66 (77)	32 (78)	1.07 (0.44-2.74)	1.000	35 (76)	72 (77)	1.08 (0.45-2.47)	1.000
No	10 (18)	22 (26)			24 (29)	8 (14)			20 (23)	9 (22)			11 (24)	21 (23)
Lack of research programmes, n (%)
Yes	21 (57)	33 (39)	1.00 (0.49-2.02)	1.000	29 (35)	25 (44)	1.42 (0.71-2.86)	0.377	34 (39)	15 (37)	0.88 (0.40-1.91)	0.846	17 (37)	37 (40)	1.12 (0.54-2.37)	0.854
No	33 (61)	52 (61)			53 (65)	32 (56)			52 (61)	26 (63)			29 (63)	56 (60)
Age, n (%)
Yes	3 (6)	13 (16)	3.11 (0.93- 10.62)	0.103	6 (7)	10 (18)	2.73 (0.83-9.79)	0.102	9 (11)	7 (17)	1.81 (0.59-5.36)	0.268	7 (15)	9 (10)	0.60 (0.21-1.83)	0.401
No	51 (94)	71 (84)			76 (93)	46 (82)			77 (89)	33 (83)			39 (85)	83 (90)
Gender, n (%)
Yes	1 (2)	10 (12)	7.14 (1.14-79.22)	0.050	8 (10)	3 (5)	0.53 (0.09-2.32)	0.525	5 (6)	5 (12)	2.30 (0.58-9.05)	0.287	3 (6)	8 (9)	1.32 (0.35-6.63)	0.751
No	53 (98)	74 (88)			74 (90)	53 (95)			81 (94)	35 (88)			43 (94)	84 (91)
Limited experience, n (%)
Yes	6 (11)	14 (17)	0.63 (0.20-1.70)	0.460	15 (19)	5 (9)	0.43 (0.13-1.20)	0.141	11 (13)	8 (19)	1.61 (0.57-4.41)	0.427	5 (11)	15 (16)	1.58 (0.56-5.27)	0.451
No	48 (89)	69 (83)			65 (81)	52 (91)			73 (87)	33 (81)			41 (89)	76 (84)
Lack of well-being support, n (%)
Yes	26 (48)	43 (51)	0.91 (0.46-1.80)	0.862	38 (46)	31 (54)	1.38 (0.70-2.74)	0.391	40 (46)	24 (58)	1.61 (0.76-3.48)	0.255	25 (54)	44 (47)	0.76 (0.37-1.54)	0.474
No	28 (52)	42 (49)			44 (54)	26 (46)			46 (54)	17 (42)			21 (46)	49 (53)
Research needs
Research training, n (%)
Yes	36 (55)	57 (51)	0.85 (0.47-1.61)	0.641	59 (56)	34 (48)	0.72 (0.37-1.37)	0.286	59 (53)	25 (56)	1.12 (0.56-2.27)	0.860	34 (55)	59 (52)	0.88 (0.47-1.65)	0.753
No	29 (45)	54 (49)			46 (44)	37 (52)			53 (47)	20 (44)			28 (45)	55 (48)
Larger access to funding, n (%)
Yes	40 (61)	59 (54)	0.72 (0.38-1.34)	0.346	59 (56)	40 (57)	1.04 (0.54-2.01)	1.000	63 (57)	28 (62)	1.25 (0.62-2.60)	0.593	35 (56)	64 (57)	1.00 (0.54-1.89)	1.000
No	25 (39)	51 (46)			46 (44)	30 (43)			48 (43)	17 (38)			27 (44)	49 (43)
Mentorship, n (%)
Yes	17 (32)	28 (33)	0.94 (0.44-1.95)	1.000	24 (29)	21 (37)	1.41 (0.68-2.90)	0.363	25 (29)	15 (37)	1.41 (0.63-3.10)	0.420	15 (33)	30 (32)	0.98 (0.46-2.13)	1.000
No	37 (68)	57 (67)			58 (71)	36 (63)			61 (71)	26 (63)			31 (67)	63 (68)
International collaborations, n (%)
Yes	15 (28)	25 (30)	0.91 (0.42-1.94)	0.849	21 (26)	19 (33)	1.42 (0.71-2.86)	0.377	25 (29)	10 (24)	0.86 (0.37-1.92)	0.839	11 (24)	29 (32)	1.45 (0.65-3.39)	0.428
No	39 (72)	59 (70)			60 (74)	38 (67)			61 (71)	31 (76)			35 (76)	63 (68)
Academic collaborations, n (%)
Yes	19 (35)	24 (28)	1.38 (0.66-2.88)	0.452	24 (29)	19 (33)	1.21 (0.58-2.51)	0.709	28 (33)	12 (29)	1.41 (0.63-3.10)	0.420	14 (30)	29 (31)	1.03 (0.48-2.27)	1.000
No	35 (65)	61 (72)			58 (71)	38 (67)			58 (67)	29 (71)			32 (70)	64 (69)
Industry partnerships, n (%)
Yes	13 (24)	21 (25)	0.97 (0.43-2.14)	1.000	16 (19)	18 (32)	1.89 (0.86-4.20)	0.113	21 (24)	10 (24)	1.00 (0.40-2.37)	1.000	9 (20)	25 (27)	1.45 (0.66-3.39)	0.428
No	41 (76)	64 (75)			66 (81)	39 (68)			65 (76)	31 (76)			37 (80)	68 (73)
Research administrative support, n (%)
Yes	26 (48)	38 (45)	1.12 (0.56-2.24)	0.861	35 (43)	29 (52)	1.44 (0.72-2.87)	0.303	43 (51)	17 (42)	0.70 (0.32-1.48)	0.349	23 (50)	41 (45)	0.80 (0.39-1.65)	0.600
No	28 (52)	46 (55)			47 (57)	27 (48)			42 (49)	24 (58)			23 (50)	51 (55)
Research legal support, n (%)
Yes	23 (43)	31 (37)	1.29 (0.64-2.60)	0.481	27 (33)	27 (47)	1.82 (0.91-3.69)	0.111	34 (39)	15 (37)	0.88 (0.40-1.91)	0.846	21 (46)	33 (35)	0.66 (0.32-1.36)	0.271
No	31 (57)	54 (64)			55 (67)	30 (53)			52 (61)	26 (63)			25 (54)	60 (65)
Funding management support, n (%)
Yes	28 (52)	37 (44)	1.36 (0.68-2.73)	0.388	36 (44)	29 (51)	1.29 (0.93-8.60)	0.102	41 (48)	22 (55)	1.34 (0.63-2.88)	0.566	19 (41)	46 (50)	1.41 (0.69-2.93)	0.369
No	26 (48)	47 (56)			45 (56)	28 (49)			45 (52)	18 (45)			27 (59)	46 (50)

Associations of gender, age, specialty, and country of practice with research backgrounds, perceived research barriers and aspirations using Fisher’s exact test. P value reported are two-sided and P < 0.05 indicates statistical significance and is marked in bold. ‘Yes’ responses include participants who selected ‘very probably’ or ‘yes, definitely’. Percentages are calculated as the number of ‘Yes’ responses divided by the total number of valid responses for each item.

CI, confidence interval; ref., reference; OR, odds ratio.

^aLead author defined as first and/or last/corresponding author on majority of publications.

Figure 3.

Research barriers and needs within key subgroups. Bar plots show the percentage of respondents who identified each listed factor as having significantly limited their research career. ‘Yes’ responses include participants who selected ‘very probably’ or ‘yes, definitely’. Percentages are calculated as the number of ‘Yes’ responses divided by the total number of valid responses for each item.

Expectations from the EORTC Y-ECI GI programme

About half of the participants reported having research groups dedicated to early-career oncologists in their country (75/176, 42.6%). Overall, local groups met their members’ expectations in terms of educational needs (30/72, 41.7%), research needs (30/72, 42.2%), and networking needs (35/72, 48.6%) in less than half of the cases. Most respondents stated to be interested in joining the EORTC Y-ECI GI community (145/172, 84.3%) and expressed interest particularly in clinical trials management and conduction (115/172, 66.9%) and writing literature reviews and meta-analyses on GI oncology topics (108/172, 62.8%) or research articles on highlights from conferences (101/172, 58.7%). A complete overview of the desired involvement in the EORTC Y-ECI GI initiatives is summarised in Figure 2B.

Research training or mentorship opportunities, funding opportunities, and research infrastructural support were rated as the most valuable initiatives that the newly established EORTC Y-ECI GI community could offer by 52.8% (93/176), 56.6% (99/175), and 43.7% (77/176) of the participants, respectively. Other elements of support expected from the EORTC were opportunities to get involved in research projects (19/77, 24.7%) and build a research network (17/77, 22.1%). A complete list of expected sources of support from the EORTC Y-ECI group is reported in the Supplementary Materials, Table S2, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmogo.2025.100208.

Discussion

Cancer care and oncological research have undergone significant evolution in recent years, posing unique challenges for early-career professionals in oncology, a group already vulnerable to career-stage-specific pressures. While targeted support programmes have emerged, a comprehensive assessment of the current needs and aspirations of young professionals in oncology-related fields has been lacking. The establishment of EORTC Y-ECI-focused communities provided an invaluable opportunity to bridge this gap. Our survey offers the first up-to-date snapshot of the research backgrounds, training opportunities, career development challenges, and research interests of the current and future generation of early-career medical professionals working in oncology.

Conducted over 2 months, our survey saw participation from 200 professionals, the majority of whom were not EORTC members at the time of response. We intentionally removed membership and geographical restrictions to capture insights from a broader spectrum of early-career oncologists, reflecting diverse needs and ambitions. This inclusive approach and the high level of engagement were encouraging, suggesting strong interest in more participatory, bottom-up initiatives targeting early-career researchers.

From a demographic perspective, most participants were female (62.4%), aged 31-35 years (38.7%), and in the early years after specialty training. Approximately half had completed specialty training (44.8%), and nearly one-third held a PhD (29.9%). These results cannot represent a formal workforce census but mirror recent trends showing increasing female representation in oncology, a positive shift that could help to address ongoing challenges in leadership and career progression.12, 13, 14

Most respondents were medical oncologists (69.6%), working predominantly in academic centres (58.8%) with clinical roles that offered limited or no protected research time (77.3%). Despite holding predominantly clinical jobs, nearly all expressed a strong interest in research, particularly for clinical trials (66.2%). Moreover, 82.4% of participants were affiliated with scientific societies beyond the EORTC, and 73.7% had prior publishing experience, which suggests overall respondents’ active participation in research activities. Research engagement is a positive indicator, not only for advancing scientific knowledge but also for enhancing health care systems and ultimately improving patient care by promoting the adoption of evidence-based medicine.¹⁵ In this context, the EORTC has historically played a significant role in promoting clinical research, and the large participation in this survey by both members and nonmembers reflects its influential footprint in establishing research-based frameworks across and beyond Europe.¹⁶

The survey highlighted the lack of protected research time as the most significant barrier (77%) to conducting research, far exceeding funding or infrastructural limitations. This finding is particularly concerning, given that many respondents worked in academic settings, where more structured opportunities for nonclinical activities might reasonably be expected. Notably, this issue was reported more frequently by more senior researchers (86% versus 71% of participants aged ≥35 years versus <35 years), who may face additional administrative responsibilities and family-related pressures at their career stage. Nearly half (49.7%) of participants cited the absence of well-being support as a major factor negatively impacting their research productivity. Overall, these issues align with existing literature showing that clinicians conducting research outside regular hours face a higher risk of burnout. Burnout is a negative predictor of academic career progression and is a particularly prevalent issue in oncology-related specialties, where the emotional and clinical demands of caring for patients with chronic or terminal illnesses exacerbate existing time and personnel constraints.¹⁷ This consideration is especially true for younger physicians, who are more vulnerable to these pressures.18, 19, 20 In recognition of these challenges, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force has issued a set of recommendations aimed at supporting the well-being of oncology clinicians and researchers.²¹ These include promoting a balanced workload and protected time off, tailored mentorship, resilience-building initiatives, and career development support—measures intended for implementation at all levels, from individual professionals to institutional, national, and supranational structures.

To advance their careers, respondents identified access to research training, mentorship, and funding as the most critical needs. These factors are consistent with those highlighted in other studies as essential for fostering academic retention over alternative career paths.22, 23, 24, 25 Intrinsic interest in research often emerges early in medical training but is generally insufficient to secure a research job. Early research exposure combined with structured mentorship has been shown to significantly increase the likelihood of successful academic careers.26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Supporting this, in a recent survey study intellectual stimulation ranked highly among early-career oncologists as a source of professional satisfaction, second only to achieving good work–life balance.³² However, variability in specialty training programmes across countries, combined with inconsistent access to research pathways, limits opportunities for many early-career professionals.^9,33 With their complementary role to training bodies and often over national structure, scientific societies play a vital role in addressing these challenges and ensuring more equitable access to research opportunities.

This study has certain limitations inherent to the use of survey data. Firstly, the dissemination beyond the EORTC network and across all geographical areas precluded the calculation of the participation rate, limited the assessment of the representativeness of the invited population across different settings, and resulted in an imbalanced representation among countries. However, the questionnaire was tailored to target a population that met the EORTC definition of Y-ECI, and this approach facilitated the largest known assessment of early-career oncology researchers. Further, subgroup analyses by demographic factors, specialty, and geographical area overall confirmed trends observed in the entire cohort. Secondly, responders were predominantly composed of medical oncologists and professionals from academic institutions or cancer centres, potentially limiting the capture of perspectives from other specialties and settings. This imbalance, which reflects EORTC focus on clinical trials, also underscores the relative under-representation of other oncology specialists in clinical research and an unequal research engagement in community or regional practices that sit outside universities or dedicated oncology centres. These findings reveal a critical need for more interdisciplinary initiatives and greater investments in inclusive opportunities to build a truly equitable research network. Nevertheless, our findings align with broader literature that identifies career-stage-oriented challenges with cross-specialty relevance,³⁴ suggesting that supportive programmes tailored to early-career researchers are highly needed regardless of their subspecialty and place of practice.

These results reinforce the value of the expanding portfolio of EORTC initiatives aimed at Y-ECIs, establishing the EORTC-GITCG Y-ECI community as a key hub for career development and collaboration, complementing national training pathways and contributing to the long-term goal of establishing global oncology professional routes.³⁵ In this context, the open-access approach of the EORTC further enhances its inclusivity and reach: membership is free, open to both clinical and nonclinical professionals, and—aligned with other European and United States-based professional societies such as ESMO and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)—it offers geographically unrestricted career development opportunities. These are frequently available in hybrid formats and supported by travel grants for in-person events, measures that actively promote research engagement and help alleviate financial burdens, particularly among professionals from low- and middle-income countries. One such initiative is the EORTC-GITCG workshop, open to all EORTC Y-ECIs with an interest in GI oncology, which offers expert-led lectures, practical group activities, and opportunities for networking, mentorship, and collaborative research. An overview of this and other EORTC initiatives for Y-ECIs is provided in Table 3.

Table 3.

Overview of opportunities for EORTC young and early-career investigators

Initiative	Description
EORTC Fellowship Programme	A 3-year research fellowship enabling Y-ECIs to work on EORTC database projects under the supervision of experienced experts.
Workshop on Methods in Clinical Cancer Research	Advanced training in the design and conduct of clinical trials.
Clinical Trial Statistics for Non-Statisticians	Specialised training in statistical methodologies for clinical trial design and data interpretation.
EORTC research group meetings	Biannual tumour-specific group meetings (e.g. GITCG) focused on advancing disease-oriented research.
EORTC cross-disciplinary meetings	Open to all EORTC members, these meetings address transversal topics such as Quality of Life, Minimal Residual Disease, Imaging, and Antibody–Drug Conjugates.
Advancing Ideas into Clinical Research	A career development course tailored to Y-ECIs, offering coaching on leadership, team-building, EORTC operations, research development, networking, and publishing.
EORTC GITCG Y-ECI workshop	A dedicated event for GITCG Y-ECIs, combining expert-led lectures, interactive group work, and opportunities for mentorship, collaboration, and career development in GI oncology.
EORTC webinars	Virtual educational sessions freely available to EORTC members, covering current topics in oncology and offering speaking opportunities for Y-ECIs.
SPECTA platform	A European biobank collecting high-quality, annotated biospecimens from patients outside clinical trials to support collaborative translational research.
E2-RADIatE platform	Joint EORTC–ESTRO real-world data platform in the field of radiation oncology, designed to generate robust evidence on radiotherapy as a cancer treatment modality and to further integrate the discipline into multidisciplinary therapeutic strategies.

This table provides an overview of key educational, research, and career development initiatives offered by EORTC to support Y-ECIs.

EORTC, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; ESTRO, European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology; GI, gastrointestinal; GITCG, Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Group; Y-ECIs, young and early career investigators.

In conclusion, this survey provides valuable insights into the needs and aspirations of early-career researchers in oncology, highlighting areas for intervention and support. Addressing these issues through targeted programmes and collaborative efforts will be essential for sustaining a vibrant, innovative oncology workforce capable of meeting the demands of modern cancer care and research.