Abstract
The Translational Behavioral Oncology Postdoctoral Training Program at Moffitt Cancer Center, funded by the National Cancer Institute (T32CA090314), prepares postdoctoral fellows to excel in highly interdisciplinary and collaborative cancer research environments. This program leverages Moffitt’s robust faculty expertise and institutional resources, and draws from various disciplines engaged in cancer research, including behavioral science, population science, health communication, nursing, and medicine. Over the past 20 years, this program has recruited a talented and diverse pool of postdoctoral trainees (n = 47) who have acquired the requisite knowledge, skills, and experience to become successful independent investigators in behavioral oncology. In this paper, the training components and outcomes over the past two decades are reported with a particular focus on trainee and mentor evaluations of core components from the 2019–2024 cycle. These findings provide insights for developing and optimizing postdoctoral training in cancer prevention and control, serving as a model for advancing the careers of the next generation of cancer researchers.
Keywords: Cancer research training, Training grant, Postdoctoral training, Cancer education, Professional development, Career development, Independence
In 2025, the American Cancer Society estimates 2,041,910 new cancer cases and 618,120 cancer deaths in the United States (US) [1]. Currently, there are over 18 million US cancer survivors [2], and by 2040, there will be 26 million [3]. Adoption of behaviors that prevent cancer remains a challenge. For example, 14.6% of US adults use combustible tobacco products [4], 38% of adolescents are not up-to-date with the human papillomavirus vaccine [5], and 42% of adults are obese [6]. Factors such as comorbidities and poor health behaviors also worsen quality of life among cancer survivors [7] and have long-term impacts on survivorship [8]. Thus, new generations of scientists are needed to translate emerging cancer prevention and control strategies into impactful interventions [9, 10].
Moffitt Cancer Center’s (MCC) mission is to prevent and cure cancer through clinical care, research, outreach, and education. Since 2004, MCC has trained postdoctoral fellows in cancer prevention and control through the 2-year Translational Behavioral Oncology Postdoctoral Training Program, initially supported by the R25T (R25CA090314) mechanism and subsequently by the T32 mechanism beginning in 2019 (T32CA090314). Although postdoctoral training programs have substantially contributed to developing independent researchers, disseminating program design, processes, and outcomes is necessary to optimize training efforts. Thus, described herein are this program’s (1) leadership, oversight, and organizational structure; (2) training objectives and components; (3) recruitment and candidate selection; and (4) tracking and program evaluation outcomes.
Leadership, Oversight, and Organizational Structure
The co-directors (STV, VNS) lead the program by overseeing recruitment, mentor matching, evaluation, curriculum development, and implementation. The program is also guided by a six-member Internal Advisory Committee (IAC), chaired by the Associate Center Director for Research Education and Training at MCC, and a four-member External Advisory Board (EAB). IAC members, who are primarily cancer researchers at MCC, meet annually with the co-directors to review and provide recommendations to improve recruitment, core curricula, and program effectiveness. The IAC also approves applicant interview invitations and offers. The EAB, composed of external leaders in cancer prevention and control research and training programs, provides annual feedback to the co-directors on the program’s progress toward national best practices in postdoctoral training.
The co-directors meet monthly with the program team, including a program coordinator, administrator, and assistant. The program coordinator manages recruitment and handles applicant inquiries. The coordinator also provides up-to-date trainee/mentor handbooks and seminar syllabi, and communicates with trainees about relevant meetings, deadlines, trainings, career opportunities, and evaluations. Lastly, the coordinator analyzes trainee/mentor feedback and prepares progress reports. The program administrator oversees grant-related budgetary and administrative tasks, provides trainees with updates on program-related benefits, ensures timely NIH appointments, assists in applying NIH policies, and coordinates with other grant-related personnel for trainee submissions. The program assistant schedules IAC/EAB meetings, program activities, and candidate interviews.
Training Objectives and Components
The program fosters independent careers by building trainees’ knowledge and skills in behavioral oncology. Core training objectives are to (1) develop a basic understanding of cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis, and treatment; (2) learn about major study areas in behavioral oncology; (3) gain methodological expertise; (4) critically evaluate research; (5) practice responsible conduct of research; (6) formulate novel research questions in behavioral oncology and design a rigorous study; and (7) explore career paths in behavioral oncology. To achieve these objectives, core training components include structured mentorship, didactic seminars, tailored short-term experiential experiences, and professional integration and additional exposure to behavioral oncology (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.
Behavioral oncology training components
Structured Mentorship
Upon receiving each application, potential mentors are identified based on the applicant’s research interests. During interviews, applicants meet with potential mentors to determine the best fit. At least one primary and one secondary mentor is assigned to each trainee. Primary mentors oversee trainee development and research, meeting weekly for individual instruction and supervision. All primary mentors are MCC or University of South Florida faculty members who hold R01-equivalent funding and have previous mentoring experience. They discuss assigned readings and research with trainees, collaborate on presentations and publications, and guide trainees’ grant proposals. During the second year, primary mentors also support trainees’ career planning by reviewing job application materials, preparing trainees for job talks and interviews, and evaluating employment offers.
Secondary mentors provide additional research experiences and career perspectives, meeting monthly with trainees. They are faculty who may not yet meet the criteria to serve as primary mentors but have complementary scientific expertise to enhance trainees’ training. Any primary mentor may also serve as a secondary mentor. Additional mentors may be appointed based on the trainees’ interests and needs.
Didactic Seminars
Required, instructor-led seminars broaden trainees’ knowledge of behavioral oncology and enhance their research and funding acquisition skills. The Behavioral Oncology Seminar Series (BOSS) includes invited talks, journal clubs, and professional development discussions with topics often suggested by trainees. BOSS engages trainees by discussing topics that align with their interests and fosters engagement with co-directors, peers, faculty, and alumni.
Trainees also attend Responsible Conduct in Research (RCR) seminars, which meet NIH requirements. RCR seminars are organized by the MCC’s Office of Research and Education Training (RET) and led by MCC faculty. Topics include (1) peer-review, authorship, and publication; (2) professional and financial conflicts of interest; (3) animal welfare; (4) responsibilities to society and lab safety; (5) human subjects research; (6) data acquisition and analysis; (7) ethics of collaborative research, data management, security, and ownership; (8) research misconduct and related policies. All first-year trainees also attend a three-hour seminar specific to ethics in behavioral research.
The Grant Writing Seminar (GWS), led by the co-directors, is held biennially and provides hands-on experience in developing, reviewing, and submitting an NIH grant application under mentor guidance. The seminar spans a 7-month period and comprises 13 meetings, during which trainees learn grant writing basics and discuss drafts.
Tailored Short-Term Experiential Experiences
The Translational Research Experience in Oncology (TREO) enhances trainee understanding of the influence the translational continuum can have on behavioral oncology research. TREO provides trainees with tailored short-term experiential experiences at different, usually adjacent, stages along the translational research continuum (i.e., basic science research, translation to humans, translation to patients, translation to practice, and translation to community) [11]. Some examples include joining a team conducting basic/clinical research, working in a community/clinic setting, or participating in policy-related activities. Trainees and their mentors identify a TREO experience, a supervising TREO mentor, and submit a TREO proposal to the co-directors. Trainees dedicate at least 40 hours each year to TREO experiences.
Professional Integration and Additional Exposure to Behavioral Oncology
Special programming further integrates trainees into behavioral oncology. Trainees attend monthly Grand Rounds in Population Science (GRiPS) seminars, which feature presentations by leading experts in cancer prevention and control, including EAB members. Trainees meet with each GRiPS speaker to discuss research and career opportunities. Trainees also participate in the Health Outcomes and Behavior (HOB) Program meetings, which is a scientific program within the NCI P30 Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG). These meetings provide exposure to current issues in behavioral oncology through research presentations, as well as to the CCSG structure in preparation for possible careers at an NCI center.
Recruitment and Candidate Selection
Applicants are recruited annually through listservs, advertisements, and networking events. Recruitment support is also available from RET, which leads the annual Innovators of Tomorrow symposium. This symposium invites promising candidates to present their research, meet faculty, and explore career opportunities.
Once recruitment begins, applications to the T32 program are reviewed on a rolling basis until openings (i.e., 3 per year) are filled by exceptional candidates. The co-directors and IAC members evaluate each applicant based on academic credentials, publications, research experience, recommendation letters, and overall fit. Strong candidates are invited to interview with co-directors, prospective mentors, other faculty/staff, current trainees, and IAC member(s).
Tracking and Program Evaluation Outcomes
Tracking and program evaluation outcomes were streamlined in 2019 using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system, a secure web platform for building and managing customized databases and surveys [12], which houses trainee and mentor data. Figure 2 summarizes tracking and program evaluation components. The tracking system monitors recruitment outcomes, trainees’ career progress, and curriculum-specific and overall program evaluations. Each database includes forms completed by the program coordinator and surveys completed by each trainee/mentor. Forms and surveys are administered at critical milestones, corresponding to trainees’ individual development plans and program requirements. Program evaluation data are collected during and after trainees’ appointments. Alumni complete an annual follow-up survey, which tracks all post-program career outcomes, including their current position/institution, grants awarded, the impact of program-related components on their careers, and other notable achievements. The follow-up survey is administered to alumni from the last 15 years, as required by the NIH. The average response rate since implementing the follow-up survey has been 85%, increasing to 96% after more proactive outreach.
Fig. 2.
Components of tracking and program evaluation
Applicant and Trainee Characteristics
Demographic and academic summaries are generated for each applicant/trainee. On average, 20 applications are received each year. Between 2019 and 2024, 98 applications were received. About 71% of applicants self-identified as female, 22% as male, and 7% did not indicate their sex. Applicant racial backgrounds were 42% White, 15% Black, 29% Asian, 3% other racial backgrounds, and 11% declined to answer. Additionally, 10% were Latino/Hispanic. Approximately 7% of applicants self-identified as having a disability, and 12% were from a disadvantaged background. Academic backgrounds comprised 53% biomedical sciences, 43% social sciences, and 4% other disciplines.
After matriculation, trainee outcomes are tracked. In the 2019–2024 cycle, 18 trainees matriculated, including three trainees who transitioned from the prior R25T program to complete their second year under the T32. Trainees had an average of 6.6 (SD = 3.4) peer-reviewed publications at entry, with 2.1 (SD = 1.6) first-author publications. Since the 2019 – 204 cycle, 17 trainees have either completed or are currently participating in the program. One trainee resigned after one year for personal reasons. Table 1 reports trainee/mentor program evaluation results from the 2019–2024 cycle, which are summarized below.
Table 1.
Trainee and mentor program evaluation results from 2019–2024 cycle
| Evaluation | Sell-report Items | Ratings |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Areas | Trainees (n = 14*) | Primary Mentors (n = 10) | Secondary Mentors (n = 10) | TREO Mentors (n = 16) | |
|
| |||||
| Overall Program Satisfaction | “How would you rate your overall experience in the program?”a | Excellent = 11 (79%) Very good = 3 (21%) |
Excellent = 10 (100%) | Excellent =9 (90%) Very good = 1 (10%) |
N/A |
| “I feel that the program provided me with the training and skills necessary to succeed in the future.”b | Strongly agree = 14 (100%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| “How likely would you be to recommend this program?”c | Very likely = 12 (86%) Likely = 2 (14%) |
N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| Trainee/Mentor Experiences | “How would you rate the experience with your primary mentor?”a | Excellent = 11 (79%) Very good = 2 (14%) Fair = 1 (7%) |
N/A | N/A | N/A |
| “How would you rate the experience with your secondary mentor?”a | Excellent = 11 (79%) Very good = 2 (14%) Fair = 1 (7%) |
N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| “How would you rate your experience serving as a mentor in the program?”a | N/A | Excellent = 8 (80%) Very good = 2 (20%) |
Excellent = 7 (70%) Very good = 3 (30%) |
Excellent = 14 (88%) Very good = 1 (6%) Good = 1 (6%) |
|
| “How would you rate the experience with your trainee?”a | N/A | Excellent = 8 (80%) Good = 2 (20%) |
Excellent = 6 (60%) Very good = 3 (30%) Fair = 1 (10%) |
Excellent = 14 (88%) Very good = 1 (6%) Good = 1 (6%) |
|
| “I understood my role as a mentor in the program.”b | N/A | Strongly agree = 10 (100%) | Strongly agree = 7 (70%) Agree = 2 (20%) No response = 1 (10%) |
Strongly agree = 12 (75%) Agree = 3 (19%) No response = 1 (6%) |
|
| Behavioral Oncology Seminar Series (BOSS) | “How would you rate your experience with the Behavioral Oncology Seminar Series?”a | Excellent = 11 (79%) Very good = 2 (14%) Good = 1 (7%) |
N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Responsible Conduct in Research (RCR) | “How would you rate your experience with the Responsible Conduct of Research Seminar Series?”a | Excellent = 7 (50%) Very good = 5 (36%) Good = 1 (7%) Fair = 1 (7%) |
N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Grant Writing Seminar (GWS) | “How would you rate your experience with the Grant Writing Seminar?”a | Excellent = 12 (86%) Very good = 2 (14%) |
N/A | N/A | N/A |
| “How would you rate your overall experience serving as the Primary Mentor of a trainee participating in the Grant Writing Seminar?”a | N/A | Excellent = 6 (60%) Very good = 1 (10%) Good = 1 (10%) No response = 2 (20%) |
N/A | N/A | |
| Translational Research Experience in Oncology (TREO) | “How would you rate your overall experience with TREO?”a | Excellent = 7 (78%) Very good = 1 (11%) Fair = 1 (11%) |
N/A | N/A | Excellent = 12 (75%) Very good = 3 (19%) Good = 1 (6%) |
| “How would you rate the experience with your TREO mentor?”a | Excellent = 6 (67%) Very good = 2 (22%) Fair = 1 (11%) |
N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| “I feel that I have a better understanding of how various points along the translational continuum can inform behavioral oncology research?”b | Strongly agree = 7 (78%) Agree = 1 (11%) Disagree = 1 (11%) |
N/A | N/A | N/A | |
TREO-specific survey responses are fewer for trainees (n = 9) because this survey was introduced mid-cycle as a new component
Excellent, Very good, Good, Fair, Poor
Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly disagree
Very likely, Likely, Neutral, Unlikely, Very unlikely
Structured Mentorship
Trainees/mentors rated their overall program experience highly. Trainees agreed that they received the training and skills needed to succeed and would recommend the program to others. Trainees and mentors rated their experiences and interactions with each other positively. Mentors also reported clearly understanding their role.
Didactic Seminars
Trainees rated the BOSS and GWS seminars highly, and primary mentors who had trainees participating in the GWS also reported positive experiences. Additionally, out of the 18 trainee-led NIH grant submissions in the 2019–2024 cycle, two K99/R00 and two R03 proposals were funded, representing a 22% success rate. Ideas generated through the GWS have also contributed to one K08 award and one institutional career development grant awarded at alumni’s new institutions.
Tailored Short-Term Experiential Experiences
TREO has yielded unique and impactful opportunities for trainees to engage in research and community engagement along the translational continuum. For example, one trainee, with the guidance of the MCC offices of Government Relations and Community Outreach and Engagement, worked on a Florida House Appropriations Bill, which resulted in a grant (HRSA-22–154) to increase equitable access to cancer screening and care referral in partnership with NCI-designated and federally qualified health centers. In the 2019–2024 cycle, trainees rated TREO experiences from “excellent” to “fair,” and 89% (n = 8) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they understood how the translational continuum informs behavioral oncology research.
Professional Integration and Additional Exposure to Behavioral Oncology
Over the past two decades, the program has supported 47 postdoctoral trainees. Alumni (n = 44) have collectively produced 1,796 publications and secured 226 grants, totaling ~$109,352,678 to date. In total, 31 (71%) alumni hold cancer research positions, with 25 (81%) of those securing tenure-track faculty positions. Supplemental Fig. 1 illustrates alumni career placements.
Discussion
Over the past 20 years, individuals enrolled in the Translational Behavioral Oncology Postdoctoral Training Program at MCC have made significant contributions to behavioral oncology and established independent careers. Outcomes, including publications, grant funding, and professional appointments, provide strong evidence of program success, particularly in quality didactic training and grant writing mentorship.
Structured mentorship has been a clear contributor to trainees’ success. A multi-tiered, structured mentorship model, including primary and secondary mentors, exposes trainees to diverse perspectives, supports interdisciplinary development, and facilitates individualized career guidance. Including mentors from different disciplines strengthened trainees’ networks and research opportunities [13, 14]. Mentors also play an integral role in the GWS, guiding trainees through the grant application process in line with NIH submission schedules.
Resource support further promotes trainees’ success. Beginning in 2021, comprehensive resources were made available based on suggestions from the EAB and trainees, including the Trainee Curriculum Support Guide and access to an electronic resource folder containing sample job talks, grants, cover letters, and other materials developed and shared by trainees. These resources facilitate onboarding, career development, and clear expectations.
Institutional commitment also ensures long-term sustainability. For example, when funding for this program transitioned from the R25 to the T32 mechanism, MCC provided supplemental funds to cover effort for the co-directors and dedicated administrative staff. This institutional support helped enhance program efficiency, enabling co-directors and mentors to concentrate their efforts on mentoring and career guidance. Partnership with MCC offices and departments for recruitment support and for facilitating TREO experiences has also been essential to program success. For example, applications from postdoctoral candidates that participated in RET’s Innovators of Tomorrow have more than doubled in the past year, underscoring the growing awareness and reputation of the T32 program. MCC also has a dedicated Office of Postdoctoral Affairs that offers postdoctoral pilot funds to support future grant applications. Leveraging additional institutional and community-based support (e.g., foundations) can further strengthen program implementation.
Finally, robust program evaluation is necessary to adjust and adapt to trainee needs. As noted above, TREO is an innovative experience that enables trainees to become comfortable working on topics and with people outside their immediate expertise, thereby enhancing their potential for future professional integration. In response to trainee feedback, TREO can be extended to a two-year duration, allowing for more involved experiences and mentorship.
Longitudinal and multi-source evaluations are time-intensive but critical for evaluating impact and guiding improvements. By documenting trainees’ advancement during and beyond program participation, the importance of supporting trainees’ career development can be effectively communicated to stakeholders. Tracking components that demonstrate long-term program impact include professional appointments, funding success, and continued engagement in cancer research.
The Translational Behavioral Oncology Postdoctoral Training Program at MCC has successfully recruited and trained postdoctoral researchers dedicated to conducting cancer prevention and control research in interdisciplinary and collaborative environments. This was achieved through a multi-tiered approach, including structured mentorship, participation in didactic seminars, and tailored short-term experiential experiences, as well as professional integration and additional exposure to behavioral oncology. Through these experiences, trainees have developed the skills and expertise necessary to become independent investigators in behavioral oncology. Trainees have further benefited from resource support, institutional commitment, and program evaluation. Although many other T32 programs have developed effective postdoctoral training strategies, all programs can benefit from sharing best practices to collectively enhance the training experiences of future cancer scientists.
Supplementary Material
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02800-1.
Funding
The National Cancer Institute (T32CA090314) and the MCC Cancer Center Support Grant (P30CA076292) funded this evaluation project and the Translational Behavioral Oncology Postdoctoral Training Program.
Footnotes
Competing interests The authors report no financial or non-financial interests directly or indirectly related to this work.
Ethics Approval This study was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. MCC Regulatory granted approval for this evaluation project as non-human subjects research and is exempt from IRB approval
Data and/or Code availability
Data and/or code are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
References
- 1.Siegel RL, Kratzer TB, Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Jemal A (2025) Cancer statistics, 2025. CA Cancer J Clin 75(1):10–45. 10.3322/caac.21871 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cancer Facts and Figs (2025) https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2025/2025-cancer-facts-and-figures-acs.pdf (2025). Accessed
- 3.Tonorezos E, Devasia T, Mariotto AB, Mollica MA, Gallicchio L, Green P et al. (2024) Prevalence of cancer survivors in the united States. J Natl Cancer Inst 116(11):1784–1790. 10.1093/jnci/djae135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.CDC (2024) Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/php/data-statistics/adult-data-cigarettes/index.html Accessed 2024
- 5.Pingali C, Yankey D, Elam-Evans LD, Markowitz LE, Valier MR, Fredua B et al. (2022) National vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13–17 Years - National immunization Survey-Teen, united States, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 71(35):1101–1108. 10.15585/mmwr.mm7135a1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.CDC (2024) Adult Obesity Facts. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult-obesity-facts/index.html Accessed 2025
- 7.Han X, Robinson LA, Jensen RE, Smith TG, Yabroff KR (2021) Factors associated with Health-Related quality of life among cancer survivors in the united States. JNCI Cancer Spectr 5(1). 10.1093/jncics/pkaa123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Firkins J, Hansen L, Driessnack M, Dieckmann N (2020) Quality of life in chronic cancer survivors: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Surviv 14(4):504–517. 10.1007/s11764-020-00869-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Klein WM, Bloch M, Hesse BW, McDonald PG, Nebeling L, O’Connell ME et al. (2014) Behavioral research in cancer prevention and control: a look to the future. Am J Prev Med 46(3):303–311. 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68(1):7–30. 10.3322/caac.21442 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ringborg U (2019) Translational cancer research - a coherent cancer research continuum. Mol Oncol 13(3):517–520. 10.1002/1878-0261.12450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf 42(2):377–381. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Pfund C, Byars-Winston A, Branchaw J, Hurtado S, Eagan K (2016) Defining attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relationships. AIDS Behav 20(Suppl 2):238–248. 10.1007/s10461-016-1384-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Diggs-Andrews KA, Mayer DCG, Riggs B (2021) Introduction to effective mentorship for early-career research scientists. BMC Proc.;15(Suppl 2):7. 10.1186/s12919-021-00212-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data and/or code are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.