Announcements

Peer review is the invisible foundation of academic progress. The 2025 MDPI Top Reviewers are some of the key experts who helped build it.

We are honored to recognize 1000 individuals from our global community of 210,000 reviewers across 67 countries and territories—chosen for their commitment to rigorous, constructive peer review and the consistency of their contributions throughout 2025.

The Top Reviewers provided constructive and impartial feedback that makes research stronger and more impactful, and we are grateful for it.

The names of these reviewers are listed below in alphabetical order by first name:

(Note: we respected all privacy preferences, with part of nominees opting for limited attribution.)

As Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is an open access journal, you have free and unlimited access to the full text of all articles. We welcome you to read our feature papers from the second half of 2025 in the “Cancer Pathophysiology” Section, which are listed below:

1. “Proline Metabolism in Cancer: Emerging Roles in Redox Homeostasis and Therapeutic Opportunities”
by Tyrell C. Rossman, Gunjan Purohit, Oseeyi I. Daudu and Donald F. Becker
Cancers 2025, 17(19), 3156; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17193156
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/19/3156

2. “Therapeutic Efficacy of a Very Low/Low Dose of Lenvatinib in Advanced Radioiodine-Refractory Thyroid Cancer: A Real-World Series from a Single Center”
by Vittorio Oteri, Fiorenza Gianì, Giulia Sapuppo, Stefania Panebianco, Ilenia Marturano, Giusi Blanco, Pasqualino Malandrino, Marco Russo, Francesco Frasca and Gabriella Pellegriti
Cancers 2025, 17(14), 2372; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17142372
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/14/2372

3. “Molecular Pathology of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma”
by Akram Shalaby, Navid Sadri and Yue Xue
Cancers 2025, 17(21), 3549; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17213549
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/21/3549

4. “A Validated Proteomic Signature of Basal-like Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Subtypes Obtained from Publicly Available Data”
by Cristina Furlan, Maria Suarez-Diez and Edoardo Saccenti
Cancers 2025, 17(16), 2601; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17162601
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/16/2601

5. “Refining the Role of Tumor-Associated Macrophages in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma”
by Kiyofumi Takabatake, Piao Tianyan, Takuma Arashima, Anqi Chang, Hotaka Kawai, Htoo Shwe Eain, Yamin Soe, Zin Zin Min, Masae Fujii, Keisuke Nakano et al.
Cancers 2025, 17(17), 2770; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17172770
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/17/2770

6. “MYC Regulates a DNA Repair Gene Expression Program in Small Cell Carcinoma of the Ovary, Hypercalcemic Type”
by James R. Evans, Jing Wang, Cinthia N. Reed, Joy H. Creighton, Kaylee B. Garrison, Abigail N. Robertson, Ashley Lira-Rivera, Diondre’ D. Baisden, William P. Tansey, Rafet Al-Tobasei et al.
Cancers 2025, 17(13), 2255; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17132255
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/13/2255

7. “Real-World Outcomes of Ipilimumab–Nivolumab vs. Anti-PD-1 Monotherapy in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Study”
by Gitta Pánczél, Patrik Horváth, Erijona Temaj, Kata Czirbesz, Mihály Tamás Kispál, Georgina Fröhlich and Tímea Balatoni
Cancers 2025, 17(21), 3521; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17213521
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/21/3521

8. “Dual-Target Therapeutic Strategies in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Mechanistic Insights and Clinical Potential”
by Meng Yu and Xiaodong Lu
Cancers 2025, 17(21), 3455; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17213455
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/21/3455

9. “Antigenic Dark Matter: Unexplored Post-Translational Modifications of Tumor-Associated and Tumor-Specific Antigens in Pancreatic Cancer”
by Amin Safa, Idris Vruzhaj, Marta Gambirasi and Giuseppe Toffoli
Cancers 2025, 17(21), 3506; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17213506
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/21/3506

10. “Decoding the Epigenome: Comparative Analysis of Uterine Leiomyosarcoma and Leiomyoma”
by Marie Pfaff, Philippos Costa, Haoyu Tang, Bethsebie Sailo, Anup Sharma and Nita Ahuja
Cancers 2025, 17(16), 2610; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17162610
Available online:  https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/16/2610

You can view and submit relevant papers to Cancers via https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers.

Cancers Editorial Office

We are pleased to announce that twelve new scholars were appointed as Editorial Board Members (EBMs) of Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) in June 2026. We wish our new members success in both their research and their efforts to develop the journal.

Further details about the Editorial Board of Cancers can be found at the following link: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers/editors.

Cancers is recruiting scholars from around the world to join our Editorial Board. To apply for membership, recommend potential candidates, or request further information, please contact the Cancers Editorial Office and provide the following files:

• A full academic CV;
• A short cover letter detailing your interest in the position.

We had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Md Tanjim Alam, first author of an Editor’s Choice Article in Cancers (ISSN: 2072-6694). Below, he shares insights into his research journey.

“The Impact of Senescence-Associated Secretory Phenotype (SASP) on Head and Neck Cancers: From Biology to Therapy”
by Md Tanjim Alam, Mishfak A. M. Mansoor, Sarah A. Ashiqueali, Pawel Golusinski, Ewelina Golusinska-Kardach, Joanna K. Strzelczyk, Blazej Rubis, Wojciech Golusinski and Michal M. Masternak
Cancers 2025, 17(24), 4024; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17244024
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/24/4024

The following is an interview with Mr. Md Tanjim Alam.

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and describe your main research focus?

I am Md Tanjim Alam, a PhD student in the Burnett School of Biomedical Sciences at the College of Medicine, University of Central Florida (UCF), USA, where I am a member of the Aging and Metabolism Laboratory led by Dr. Michał M. Masternak. My research focuses on the mechanisms underlying cellular senescence and aging, with a particular emphasis on their roles in cancer.

My work explores the complex interplay between aging and cancer, with an emphasis on how the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) shapes the tumor microenvironment, metastasis, and resistance to therapy. By integrating approaches from molecular biology, aging research, and translational oncology, I aim to identify novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets that can improve cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

2. What inspired you to pursue this particular area of cancer research?

I was really fascinated by the intriguing paradox associated with the phenomenon of cellular senescence because of its context-dependent role. Although senescence is known to be a natural defense mechanism that prevents damaged cells from proliferating, senescent cells can also accelerate the development of cancer and chronic inflammation by exhibiting the SASP. Comprehending this dual nature is crucial from a clinical and scientific standpoint.

Head and neck cancers remain among the most aggressive malignancies, with many patients experiencing recurrence and therapy resistance despite advances in treatment. I became particularly interested in understanding how aging-related biological processes influence these cancers and how targeting senescence could improve therapeutic outcomes. Working in a laboratory dedicated to aging and cancer has reinforced my belief that integrating geroscience with oncology can open entirely new avenues for precision medicine.

3. In your own words, what are the key findings or main messages of your Editor’s Choice Article?

Our review highlights the emerging role of SASP as a critical regulator of head and neck cancer biology. While cellular senescence acts as an important tumor-suppressive mechanism by permanently arresting damaged cells, senescent cells remain metabolically active and continuously secrete inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, matrix-remodeling enzymes, and extracellular vesicles collectively known as the SASP.

One of the major messages of our paper is that SASP has a context-dependent dual role. Initially, it can promote immune surveillance and suppress tumor development. However, persistent SASP signaling remodels the tumor microenvironment, enhances epithelial-mesenchymal transition, supports cancer stem cell characteristics, promotes angiogenesis, facilitates immune evasion, and contributes to resistance against chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy.

Our review also discusses emerging therapeutic approaches, including senolytic drugs that selectively eliminate senescent cells and senomorphic agents that suppress harmful SASP signaling. We believe these strategies represent promising directions for improving treatment outcomes in head and neck cancer while emphasizing the need for reliable biomarkers and personalized therapeutic approaches.

4. What current developments in your area of expertise are most exciting to you?

Cellular senescence has emerged as one of the most dynamic areas of cancer research. It was traditionally viewed as a hallmark of aging and a mechanism to suppress uncontrolled cell proliferation. However, current advances in research have provided new opportunities by providing evidence for the role of senescent cells in tumor biology, immune regulation, tissue repair, and therapeutic response. This evolving understanding is fundamentally changing how we think about cancer progression and treatment.

One area I find particularly promising is the development of senescence-targeted therapies, including senolytics and senomorphics. Rather than focusing solely on eliminating cancer cells, these approaches seek to modulate the tumor microenvironment by either selectively removing senescent cells or limiting the detrimental effects of SASP, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy, which makes them an exciting direction for translational research. I am also intrigued by advances in technologies such as single-cell sequencing, transcriptomics, and bioinformatics, which provide unprecedented insights into the heterogeneity of senescent cells to facilitate the discovery of robust biomarkers and improve patient stratification.

5. How do you see this research evolving or influencing future studies in the field?

I believe research on cellular senescence is only beginning to reveal its full therapeutic potential. One of the biggest challenges is understanding the remarkable heterogeneity of the SASP, since its composition varies across tissues, tumor types, and different stages of disease.

Future research should focus on identifying robust biomarkers that distinguish beneficial from harmful senescence, allowing clinicians to selectively target detrimental senescent cells while preserving their protective functions. Combining senescence-targeting strategies with immunotherapy and other precision oncology approaches may significantly improve treatment response and reduce recurrence.

More broadly, I believe integrating aging biology with oncology will become an increasingly important direction for cancer research. Understanding how aging influences the tumor microenvironment has the potential to reshape the way we approach cancer prevention and treatment

6. What qualities do you believe are most essential for a young researcher today?

The most crucial trait for any researcher is the innate desire to challenge the status quo and have a broader perspective to pose pertinent questions that are sparked by curiosity. Scientific discovery is based on curiosity. It inspires us to investigate issues that others might miss and pose insightful queries. Equally important are perseverance and resilience. Research rarely follows a straight path, and setbacks are often valuable learning opportunities rather than failures. Scientific integrity is another essential quality, because reproducible and trustworthy research ultimately benefits the entire scientific community. Today's research is also highly interdisciplinary. Young scientists should be willing to learn beyond their primary field, embrace collaboration, and continuously develop new computational and experimental skills. Effective communication and scientific networking are also very important for growing as a researcher, alongside mastering technical expertise.

7. If you could go back to the very beginning of your research career, what advice would you give to your younger self?

I would remind myself that science is a journey of continuous learning rather than a race toward immediate results or breakthrough accomplishments. Early in my career, I sometimes felt pressure to achieve milestones quickly, but meaningful research requires patience, persistence, and careful thinking. It also requires a constant zeal to stay steady on the path chosen despite the pitfalls, uncertainties and challenges associated with research.

I would also encourage myself to ask bigger questions, seek mentorship whenever possible, and never hesitate to collaborate with researchers from different disciplines. Some of the most rewarding scientific ideas emerge through teamwork and diverse perspectives.

Finally, I would emphasize maintaining balance. Scientific productivity is important, but creativity also depends on personal well-being. Staying curious, enjoying the process of discovery, and remembering the goal of serving humanity are what make research both fulfilling and impactful.

Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is a peer-reviewed, open access oncology journal published semimonthly online, with 17 Sections open for submissions. We are pleased to recommend a selection of highly cited papers published in the journal in 2024 and 2025, which have earned Highly Cited Paper recognition from Web of Science. These papers also demonstrate strong view and download metrics, reflecting their broad impact in the field of oncology. We extend our sincere gratitude to all the authors for their outstanding contributions, innovative research, and continued efforts to advance cancer research. We hope these papers, covering a wide range of topics, will offer you valuable insights and inspiration.

“Blocking Tumoral Angiogenesis VEGF/VEGFR Pathway: Bevacizumab—20 Years of Therapeutic Success and Controversy”
by Elena Chitoran, Vlad Rotaru, Daniela-Cristina Stefan, Giuseppe Gullo and Laurentiu Simion
Cancers 2025, 17(7), 1126; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17071126
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/7/1126

“Immunotherapy in Prostate Cancer: From a “Cold” Tumor to a “Hot” Prospect”
by Whi-An Kwon and Jae Young Joung
Cancers 2025, 17(7), 1064; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17071064
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/7/1064

“Advancing Cancer Treatment: A Review of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Combination Strategies”
by Valencia Mc Neil and Seung Won Lee
Cancers 2025, 17(9), 1408; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17091408
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/9/1408

“Revolutionary Cancer Therapy for Personalization and Improved Efficacy: Strategies to Overcome Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy”
by Saud Almawash
Cancers 2025, 17(5), 880; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17050880
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/5/880

“Current Progress and Future Perspectives of RNA-Based Cancer Vaccines: A 2025 Update”
by Matthias Magoola and Sarfaraz K. Niazi
Cancers 2025, 17(11), 1882; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17111882
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/11/1882

“Current Landscape and Future Directions in Cancer Immunotherapy: Therapies, Trials, and Challenges”
by Shehani Bandara and Sreejith Raveendran
Cancers 2025, 17(5), 821; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17050821
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/5/821

“Advancing Cancer Therapy with Quantum Dots and Other Nanostructures: A Review of Drug Delivery Innovations, Applications, and Challenges”
by Ashutosh Pareek, Deepanjali Kumar, Aaushi Pareek and Madan Mohan Gupta
Cancers 2025, 17(5), 878; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17050878
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/5/878

“Progress in Drug Delivery Systems Based on Nanoparticles for Improved Glioblastoma Therapy: Addressing Challenges and Investigating Opportunities”
by Md Ataur Rahman, Maroua Jalouli, Mahesh Kumar Yadab and Mohammed Al-Zharani
Cancers 2025, 17(4), 701; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17040701
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/4/701

“Emerging Therapeutic Strategies to Overcome Drug Resistance in Cancer Cells”
by Pankaj Garg, Jyoti Malhotra, Prakash Kulkarni, David Horne, Ravi Salgia and Sharad S. Singhal
Cancers 2024, 16(13), 2478; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132478
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/16/13/2478

“Exploring the Role of SGLT2 Inhibitors in Cancer: Mechanisms of Action and Therapeutic Opportunities”
by Aparamita Pandey, Martín Alcaraz, Pasquale Saggese, Adriana Soto, Estefany Gomez, Shreya Jaldu, Jane Yanagawa and Claudio Scafoglio
Cancers 2025, 17(3), 466; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17030466
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/3/466

“Generation of Hydrogen Peroxide in Cancer Cells: Advancing Therapeutic Approaches for Cancer Treatment”
by Taufeeque Ali, Daniel Li, Thilini Nimasha Fernando Ponnamperumage, Alexis Kimberly Peterson, Jatin Pandey, Kulsum Fatima, John Brzezinski, Julia Anna Rose Jakusz, Hanlun Gao, Gilbert Edward Koelsch et al.
Cancers 2024, 16(12), 2171; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16122171
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/16/12/2171

“Robotic-Assisted Colon Cancer Surgery: Faster Recovery and Less Pain Compared to Laparoscopy in a Retrospective Propensity-Matched Study”
by Chun-Yu Lin, Yi-Chun Liu, Chou-Chen Chen, Ming-Cheng Chen, Teng-Yi Chiu, Yi-Lin Huang, Shih-Wei Chiang, Chang-Lin Lin, Ying-Jing Chen, Chen-Yan Lin et al.
Cancers 2025, 17(2), 243; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17020243
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/2/243

“Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy for Adrenal Tumors: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis on Perioperative Outcomes”
by Giuseppe Esposito, Barbara Mullineris, Giovanni Colli, Serena Curia and Micaela Piccoli
Cancers 2025, 17(1), 150; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17010150
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/1/150

“Application of Nanoparticles for Magnetic Hyperthermia for Cancer Treatment—The Current State of Knowledge”
by Marzena Szwed and Agnieszka Marczak
Cancers 2024, 16(6), 1156; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16061156
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/16/6/1156

“Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Drug Therapeutic Status, Advances and Challenges”
by Shunzhen Zheng, Siew Wee Chan, Fei Liu, Jun Liu, Pierce Kah Hoe Chow, Han Chong Toh and Wanjin Hong
Cancers 2024, 16(8), 1582; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16081582
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/16/8/1582

“Recent Advances in the Clinical Translation of Small-Cell Lung Cancer Therapeutics”
by Subhadeep Das and Shayak Samaddar
Cancers 2025, 17(2), 255; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17020255
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/2/255

“Neutrophils and Neutrophil-Based Drug Delivery Systems in Anti-Cancer Therapy”
by Hicham Wahnou, Riad El Kebbaj, Soufyane Hba, Zaynab Ouadghiri, Othman El Faqer, Aline Pinon, Bertrand Liagre, Youness Limami and Raphaël Emmanuel Duval
Cancers 2025, 17(7), 1232; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17071232
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/7/1232

“Recent Advances in Therapeutic Strategies to Improve Colorectal Cancer Treatment”
by William H. Gmeiner
Cancers 2024, 16(5), 1029; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16051029
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/16/5/1029

You can browse more high-impact research by visiting our Most Cited & Viewed section, where all full-text articles are freely accessible: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers/most_cited.

We invite you to read these papers and consider Cancers for your next manuscript submission. To learn more about our journal and submit your research, please visit: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers.

Cancers Editorial Office

June is Cancer Survivorship Awareness Month (also known as National Cancer Survivors Month)—a time when organizations and individuals around the world come together to honor the resilience of cancer survivors and raise awareness about the ongoing physical, emotional, and financial challenges they face. On this occasion, we acknowledge the strength of millions of individuals living with and beyond cancer. We also want to highlight some of the high-quality research on cancer survivorship published across MDPI’s oncology journal cluster, including Cancers, Current Oncology, Onco, Targets, and Precision Oncology. We hope that sharing these findings will provide valuable insights for everyone interested in advancing survivorship care, education, and long-term outcomes.

“Revolutionizing Oncology Through AI: Addressing Cancer Disparities by Improving Screening, Treatment, and Survival Outcomes via Integration of Social Determinants of Health”
by Amit Kumar Srivastav, Aryan Singh, Shailesh Singh, Brian Rivers, James W. Lillard, Jr. and Rajesh Singh
Cancers 2025, 17(17), 2866; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17172866

“Barriers and Enablers to Engaging with Long-Term Follow-Up Care Among Canadian Survivors of Pediatric Cancer: A COM-B Analysis”
by Holly Wright, Sharon H. J. Hou, Brianna Henry, Rachelle Drummond, Kyle Mendonça, Caitlin Forbes, Iqra Rahamatullah, Jenny Duong, Craig Erker, Michael S. Taccone et al.
Curr. Oncol. 2025, 32(8), 427; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32080427

“Effects of Exercise on Depression and Anxiety in Lung Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”
by Cuiqing Zhao, Xifeng Tao, Bingkai Lei, Yifan Zhang, Gen Li, Yuanyuan Lv and Laikang Yu
Curr. Oncol. 2025, 32(6), 304; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32060304

“Nonregular Physical Activity and Handgrip Strength as Indicators of Fatigue and Psychological Distress in Cancer Survivors”
by Ilaria Pepe, Alessandro Petrelli, Francesco Fischetti, Carla Minoia, Stefania Morsanuto, Livica Talaba, Stefania Cataldi and Gianpiero Greco
Curr. Oncol. 2025, 32(5), 289; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32050289

“Unraveling the Burden of Pancreatic Cancer in the 21st Century: Trends in Incidence, Mortality, Survival, and Key Contributing Factors”
by Jakob Zottl, Christian Günther Sebesta, Elena Tomosel, Marie-Christine Sebesta and Christian Sebesta
Cancers 2025, 17(10), 1607; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17101607

“The Influence of Poverty and Rurality on Colorectal Cancer Survival by Race/Ethnicity: An Analysis of SEER Data with a Census Tract-Level Measure of Persistent Poverty”
by Steven S. Coughlin, Meng-Han Tsai, Jorge Cortes, Malcolm Bevel and Marlo Vernon
Curr. Oncol. 2025, 32(5), 248; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32050248

“From Diagnosis to Survivorship: The Role of Social Determinants in Cancer Care”
by Abiha Abdullah, Zeyu Liu and Michele Molinari
Cancers 2025, 17(7), 1067; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17071067

“Fraction of Genome Altered, Age, Microsatellite Instability Score, Tumor Mutational Burden, Cancer Type, Metastasis Status, and Choice of Cancer Therapy Predict Overall Survival in Multiple Machine Learning Models”
by Guillaume Mestrallet
Onco 2025, 5(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/onco5010008

“Predicting Response to Treatment and Survival in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Using Machine Learning and Radiomics: A Systematic Review”
by Sabrina Piedimonte, Mariam Mohamed, Gabriela Rosa, Brigit Gerstl and Danielle Vicus
Cancers 2025, 17(3), 336; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17030336

“Survival Patterns and Prognostic Factors in Lip Cancer Patients: A 15-Year Single-Center Experience from Northeastern Brazil”
by Guilherme Carlos Beiruth Freire, Luiz Eduardo Rodrigues Juliasse, Salomão Israel Monteiro Lourenço Queiroz, Ruthinéia Diógenes Alves Uchôa Lins, Carlos Fernando Mourão and Bruno César de Vasconcelos Gurgel
Onco 2025, 5(1), 4; https://doi.org/10.3390/onco5010004

“Cancer Survivorship: Transforming Challenges into Quality Living” Guest Editors: Dr. Christine Maheu and Dr. Tania Estapé Submission deadline: 31 August 2026	“Psychological Factors and Cancer Survivorship” Guest Editors: Dr. Deidre B. Pereira and Dr. Ashley P. Ghiaseddin Submission deadline: 30 September 2026
“Cancer Rehabilitation: Innovations in Practice & Enhancing Survivorship Care” Guest Editors: Dr. David M. Langelier and Dr. Sara Parke Submission deadline: 15 November 2026	“Rehabilitation Opportunities in Cancer Survivorship” Guest Editors: Dr. Marie Carmen Valenza and Dr. Alejandro Heredia-Ciuro Submission deadline: 31 December 2026

“Advances in Pediatric and Adolescent Psycho-Oncology” Edited by Dr. Lori Wiener and Dr. Amanda L. Thompson This is a Reprint of the Special Issue Advances in Pediatric and Adolescent Psycho-Oncology that was published in Cancers.

June is designated as Cancer Immunotherapy Awareness Month, a time when global activities aim to increase awareness of cancer immunotherapy and support research and development efforts. We would like to take this opportunity to extend our sincere appreciation to all researchers who have contributed to cancer immunotherapy. In particular, we are pleased to share some of the high-quality and innovative research findings in the field of cancer immunotherapy, as published in Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694). We hope this announcement provides useful insights for those working in this area. The list of relevant papers can be found below.

“Basic and Clinical Evidence for Perioperative Immunotherapy in Resectable HNSCC”
by Shota Sakaue, Michihisa Kono, Takumi Kumai, Takahiro Inoue, Hisataka Ominato and Miki Takahara
Cancers 2026, 18(11), 1845; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18111845

“Liquid Biopsy Biomarkers for Predicting and Monitoring Immunotherapy Response in Lung Cancer”
by Viola Bianca Serio, Tommaso Regoli, Elisa Frullanti and Maria Palmieri
Cancers 2026, 18(11), 1840; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18111840

“Redefining the Treatment Landscape of Advanced Endometrial Cancer in the Era of Immunotherapy and Precision Oncology”
by Martina Cassaniti, Ilaria Morelli, Anna Chiara Boschi, Simona Scodes, Giuseppe Comerci, Claudia Casanova and Stefano Tamberi
Cancers 2026, 18(11), 1837; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18111837

“Combination Immunotherapy and Yttrium-90 Radioembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Biological Rationale, Clinical Evidence, and Future Directions”
by Edward Wolfgang Lee and Ravneet Nagra
Cancers 2026, 18(11), 1817; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18111817

“Prognostic Significance of Inflammatory Biomarkers in First-Line Immunotherapy for Metastatic Melanoma: Multicentric Study”
by Branko Dujovic, Aleksandar Popovic, Amina Jalovcic Suljevic, Bojana Cikota-Aleksic, Mirjana Balic, Igor Salatic, Jovana Pavlica, Philipp Schnecko, Tanja Mesti, Muamer Terzo et al.
Cancers 2026, 18(11), 1722; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18111722

“Current Status and Progress of Targeted and Immunotherapy for DSRCT”
by Tian Wei, Qidi Zhao and Yan Li
Cancers 2026, 18(11), 1711; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18111711

“In-Treatment Kinetics of Peripheral Blood Immune Markers in PD-L1 High Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Prognostic Relevance for Immunotherapy Outcomes”
by Ioannis P. Trontzas, Ioanna-Evdokia Galani, Emmanouil Panagiotou, Efthymia Theofani, Anastasia Georganta, Konstantinos G. Kyriakoulis, Anastasia Palaiologou, Ioannis Vathiotis, Constantin Tamvakopoulos, Evangelos Andreakos et al.
Cancers 2026, 18(10), 1623; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18101623

“EZH2-Associated Hypermethylated Gene Signature Predicts Immunotherapy Response and Implicates DUSP5 in Tumor-Immune Regulation in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer”
by Mingzhan Xue, Sujitha Jeya, Reem Elasad, Sarra Mestiri, Fares Al Ejeh and Mariam Al-Muftah
Cancers 2026, 18(10), 1606; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18101606

“Modeling Urothelial Carcinoma and Immunotherapy Response Using Organoid Platforms: From Epithelial Tumor Organoids to Multilineage Systems”
by Jorge O. Múnera
Cancers 2026, 18(9), 1338; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18091338

“Emerging Immunotherapy and Antibody-Derived Therapeutics for the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Review”
by Alicia Yunxin Hou, Dina Elantably, Rami Manochakian, Vamsidhar Velcheti, Shenduo Li, Yujie Zhao and Yanyan Lou
Cancers 2026, 18(8), 1291; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18081291

“Immunotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma” Edited by Naoshi Nishida, Masatoshi Kudo https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-0365-6690-0 This is a Reprint of the Special Issue “Immunotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma” that was published in Cancers.

We are pleased to share that Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) was awarded an increased Impact Factor of 4.8 in the 2025 Journal Citation Reports™ released by Clarivate™ in June 2026. Cancers ranks in Q2 (92 among 333 titles) in the “Oncology” category.

The 2025 Journal Impact Factor is calculated by dividing the number of citations received in 2025 by all publications in the journal from 2023 and 2024 by the total number of citable publications from those same years.

To learn more, visit our journal statistics website for detailed metrics or consult our news article for general information.

The support and dedication of all the editors, reviewers, authors, and readers are an integral part of the journal’s performance. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who have contributed to the journal.

Prof. Dr. Karel Kostev is the Senior Scientific Principal for Epidemiology Research at IQVIA in Frankfurt (Germany). After completing his studies in sociology and statistics at the University of Freiburg i.Br., he obtained a doctorate degree in evidence-based medicine at the University of Leipzig. He subsequently pursued postdoctoral studies in epidemiology at the University of Marburg and was appointed as a professor at the University Hospital of Marburg. He also holds various SAS certifications. He has been working at IMS health/IQVIA for 25 years and has extensive experience in managing and performing epidemiological analyses using observational data. He is the author or co-author of more than 800 papers. His core research specialization is the epidemiology of chronic diseases (diabetes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, MAFLD, cancer, depression, dementia, epilepsy, and others). Prof. Dr. Kostev also offers epidemiology seminars at the University Hospital Marburg.

The following is an interview with Prof. Dr. Karel Kostev.

1. What motivated you to become a reviewer for Cancers, and what do you find most rewarding about the peer-review process?
My background is in epidemiology, with a focus on real-world evidence—comorbidity, risk factors, survival analysis, and population-level outcomes in cancer patients. When I looked at the landscape of oncology journals, Cancers stood out immediately: it publishes a genuinely large volume of real-world studies from across the globe, covering exactly the kind of epidemiological work I understand deeply. That made it a natural fit. What motivates me most, however, is something more specific: the turnaround speed. Cancers moves from submission to publication with a speed that has become almost exceptional in today’s scientific publishing environment. I have seen manuscripts languish in review at other journals for six months, a year, sometimes longer—during which time important findings sit unpublished and unavailable to clinicians, policymakers, and other researchers who need them. My core motivation is to help authors publish sound, methodologically rigorous studies quickly. That is a concrete contribution I can make, and it is deeply rewarding.

2. In your opinion, what are the key elements of a truly constructive and high-quality peer-review report?
The most important quality is that a review must be genuinely useful to the authors—not a gatekeeping exercise, but a collaborative one. That means being specific: if there is a methodological concern, I describe exactly what the problem is, why it matters for the validity of the conclusions, and ideally what the authors can do about it. Vague objections waste everyone’s time. I also believe strongly in proportionality: not every issue warrants rejection. A study can have a solid epidemiological design, a well-described cohort, appropriate statistical methods, and a genuinely new finding, yet still have minor terminological imprecision or a suboptimal table layout. Those are fixable, and they should be fixed—not used as a pretext to delay or reject. I distinguish clearly between what must be addressed for scientific validity and what would simply improve the presentation. The goal is always to help a good study reach publication in the best possible shape.

3. When evaluating a manuscript, what specific aspects (e.g., methodology, data integrity, novelty) do you pay the closest attention to?
As an epidemiologist, methodology is unquestionably my first priority—and within methodology, study design comes before everything else. I ask immediately: is the design appropriate for the research question? Is this a cohort study, a case–control, a cross-sectional analysis? Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined and epidemiologically justified? Then I move to statistics: are the chosen tests appropriate for the data structure, the outcome type, and the sample size? Are confounders adequately addressed, whether through matching, adjustment, or stratification? Is survival analysis, where used, conducted with correct methods—Kaplan–Meier, Cox regression, competing risks where appropriate? The second area I scrutinize closely is the use of epidemiological terminology. This may sound minor, but it is not: confusing incidence with prevalence, or describing association as causation, are substantive errors that distort how findings are interpreted. Novelty matters too—but I evaluate it in context. A well-executed population study from a country or a patient subgroup not previously described in the literature has real value, even if the clinical question itself is not entirely new.

4. Balancing peer review with your own research and academic commitments can be challenging. How do you manage your time effectively to maintain such a high standard of review?
Honestly, the speed of Cancers’ process is itself a structural help here. Because the journal operates efficiently and the editorial team is responsive, reviewing does not drag on with repeated back-and-forth over many months, which is where a large amount of reviewer time gets invisibly consumed at slower journals. I accept an invitation only when I am certain I can deliver a substantive report within the requested timeframe—I decline when I cannot, because a late or superficial review defeats the entire purpose. In practice, I approach each manuscript in two passes: a first read to understand the overall design, data source, and main findings, and a second, more detailed pass focused specifically on methodology, statistics, and terminology. Because epidemiological review follows a fairly consistent logic, I have developed an internal checklist over the years that makes the process efficient without making it mechanical. I am also honest about my scope: when a manuscript involves a biological dimension outside my expertise, I note that clearly so the editor can seek complementary input.

5. What advice would you give to early career researchers who are just beginning as peer reviewers?
Learn to read a methods section the way a detective reads a crime scene. Everything important is there, and everything suspicious is also there. For those of us working in epidemiology and real-world evidence, this means developing a sharp eye for study design choices and understanding why those choices matter: why a retrospective cohort is not the same as a prospective one, why the definition of the index date in a database study can introduce or eliminate bias, and why missing data handling is never a footnote issue. I would also encourage early career reviewers to read extensively beyond their immediate subspecialty. Cancer epidemiology spans cardiovascular comorbidity, pharmacoepidemiology, health economics, and survival methodology—broad reading makes you a more versatile and more credible reviewer. And perhaps most practically: remember that the authors are colleagues. Your job is not to find reasons to reject. It is to read their work as carefully as you would want someone to read yours, and to help them make it better.

6. How have you seen the landscape of oncology research evolve during your time as a reviewer?
From an epidemiological standpoint, the single most significant shift has been the explosion of real-world evidence studies, driven by the expanding availability of large administrative databases, cancer registries, electronic health records, and linked datasets. When I began reviewing, population-based analyses of cancer outcomes were relatively rare; today they constitute a substantial fraction of the submissions I evaluate. This is broadly positive, it means that findings from randomized trials are being tested against the messy reality of clinical practice, in real patient populations with the comorbidities and treatment heterogeneity that trials deliberately exclude. The methodological sophistication of these studies has also grown: propensity score methods, competing risks analysis, and time-varying covariates are now routinely encountered where they would once have been exceptional. The challenge, which I encounter often as a reviewer, is that the growth in volume has not always been matched by growth in methodological literacy. Epidemiological errors—particularly around causal language, selection bias, and confounding—remain stubbornly common and correcting them is one of the most concrete contributions I can make.

7. From your perspective as an expert, what is one of the most critical gaps in current cancer research?
The gap that I encounter most consistently, both in my own work and in manuscripts I review, is the insufficient attention paid to comorbidity in cancer research. The typical cancer patient—particularly as the population ages—is not a person with cancer alone. They have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or any combination thereof. These comorbidities affect treatment eligibility, treatment tolerance, competing risks of death, and quality of life in ways that profoundly shape real-world outcomes. Yet a great many studies still analyze cancer patients as though comorbidity were a nuisance variable to be adjusted away rather than a substantive dimension of the clinical picture. There is also a persistent gap in how we handle competing causes of death in survival analyses: cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality tell different stories and conflating them or choosing between them without epidemiological justification leads to conclusions that can genuinely mislead clinical practice. These are not exotic methodological concerns—they are foundational, and they deserve more systematic attention.

8. Cancers is a fully open access journal. What do you see as the primary benefits of open access publishing for the global oncology community?
Open access matters enormously for epidemiological research in particular, because so much of what we study is inherently global and population specific. A paper describing cancer survival disparities in a middle-income country, or comorbidity patterns in an elderly population in Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia, should be freely available to researchers and clinicians in those regions—not locked behind a subscription that their institution cannot afford. Real-world evidence is only genuinely useful if it can reach the real world. Beyond equity, open access accelerates the feedback loop between research and practice: a clinician who encounters an unusual comorbidity pattern in their patients can immediately access the latest epidemiological literature on that topic rather than waiting for institutional access or requesting reprints. For systematic reviews and meta-analyses—which are increasingly central to evidence-based oncology guidelines—open access also removes a significant source of publication bias by making studies from lower-resource settings visible and retrievable.

9. How do you feel high-quality peer review directly impacts the overall integrity and progression of cancer research worldwide?
In real-world evidence research, the consequences of poor peer review are very direct and very practical. An epidemiological study that confuses association with causation, or that draws survival conclusions from a design incapable of supporting them, does not just represent an academic error—it can inform clinical guidelines, hospital protocols, or health policy decisions that affect patients. High-quality peer review is the mechanism by which methodological errors are caught before they enter the permanent scientific record and propagate through citations and secondary analyses. For cancer epidemiology specifically, where findings are often used to estimate population-level disease burden, identify high-risk groups, or evaluate the real-world effectiveness of treatments, methodological rigor is inseparable from public health relevance. Beyond error prevention, I believe rigorous review also raises the overall standard of the field: when authors know their methodology will be scrutinized carefully—their choice of design, their statistical approach, their use of epidemiological language—they invest more care in getting those things right from the start. That cumulative effect, multiplied across thousands of manuscripts over many years, genuinely matters.