Announcements

We had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Emanuele Cencini, the first and corresponding author of an Editor’s Choice Article in Current Oncology (ISSN: 1718-7729). Here, he shares insights into his academic journey, research focus, and the motivation behind his recent work.

“Tumor-Associated Macrophages in Multiple Myeloma: Key Role in Disease Biology and Potential Therapeutic Implications”
by Emanuele Cencini, Anna Sicuranza, Sara Ciofini, Alberto Fabbri, Monica Bocchia and Alessandro Gozzetti
Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30(7), 6111-6133; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30070455
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1718-7729/30/7/455

Dr. Emanuele Cencini’s biography:
Dr. Emanuele Cencini graduated from the University of Siena on June 23, 2008, with a degree in medicine and surgery with a grade of 110/110 cum laude (first qualifying session). Thesis: “Identification of prognostic parameters predictive of therapeutic response in hairy cell leukemia after treatment with 2-Chlorodeoxyadenosine” (supervisor: Prof. F. Lauria). June 2014: Passed the final exam for the Specialization School in Hematology at the University of Florence on June 27, 2014, with a grade of 70/70 cum laude. Thesis: “Determination of the prognostic role of macrophage infiltration in Hodgkin’s lymphoma at diagnosis and correlation with PET re-evaluation after two cycles of treatment” (supervisor: Prof. Monica Bocchia, co-supervisor: Dr. Alberto Fabbri). April 2018: Obtained a PhD in genetics, oncology, and clinical medicine (Genomec). Coordinator: Professor Alessandra Renieri, tutor: prof. Monica Bocchia. Thesis: “Study of gene polymorphisms as predictors of treatment efficacy and toxicity in patients with indolent non-hodgkin lymphomas and mantle cell lymphoma receiving bendamustine and rituximab”. May 2019: National Scientific Qualification (ASN) as Associate Professor. Member of the “Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL)”. Author of 107 indexed publications on PubMed (h-index 21) and more than 150 abstracts for National and International meetings (more than 30 as first-author). Collaboration with ERN-EuroBloodNet for lymphoid malignancies, delegate for Hematology Unit, University of Siena. Professor at the Hematology School at the University of Siena. Principal investigator and sub-investigator in many National and international clinical trials. Lead and PI of 5 studies within Rete Toscana Linfomi. Lead and PI of 5 studies within “Rete Toscana Linfomi (RTL)”.

The following is an interview with Dr. Emanuele Cencini:

1. Could you please briefly introduce the main research content of the published paper?
Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by multiple relapse and despite the introduction of novel therapies, including proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib), monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab, isatuximab, elotuzumab), bispecific antibodies (talquetamab. Teclistamab, elranatamab) and immunomodulatory drugs (thalidomide, lenalidomide, pomalidomide) the disease becomes ultimately drug-resistant. The tumor microenvironment (TME) within the bone marrow niche includes T-cytotoxic, T-helper, reactive B-lymphoid cells and macrophages, with a complex cross-talk between these cells and the MM cells. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) have an important role in the MM pathogenesis, since they could promote plasma cells proliferation and angiogenesis. Macrophages can release pro-inflammatory cytokines, promote the recruitment of leukocytes to the site of inflammation and give a contribution to the tissue reparation and phagocytosis of foreign antigens, such as neoplastic antigens. After phagocytosis, macrophages perform an antigen-presenting cell (APC) function, by the exposure on their surface of tumor antigen together with class II major histocompatibility complex (MHC II), thus permitting its recognition by T-lymphocytes. However, an elevated macrophage number, as frequently reported in hematologic malignancies, could also contribute to tumor progression by multiple mechanisms, including angiogenesis, the reduction in CD8 T-cell proliferation, the recruitment of T-regulatory cells (T-regs) and the inhibition of apoptosis. The so-called TAM, as “bad guys”, are characterized by a complex interaction with malignant cells. TAM are identifiable by the CD68 marker but are further characterized by remarkable plasticity and were divided in the current classification into M1 (classically activated) and M2 (alternatively activated). The M1 TAM subtype could provoke a Th-1 immune response and play an antitumor effect, while M2 TAM have a low antigen-presenting capacity and could promote tumor progression by inducing immunosuppression and angiogenesis. Many studies demonstrated a correlation between TAM, disease progression, drug-resistance and reduced survival in lymphoproliferative neoplasms, including MM. MM plasma cells in vitro could favor an M2 TAM polarization. Moreover, a possible correlation between the pro-tumor effect of M2 TAM and a reduced sensitivity to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs was hypothesized. Several clinical studies confirmed CD68/CD163 double-positive M2 TAM were associated with increased microvessel density, chemoresistance and reduced survival, independently of the MM stage. In this review, we have provided an overview of the biology and clinical relevance of TAM in MM, as well as a comprehensive evaluation of a potential TAM-targeted immunotherapy.

2. Could you tell us a little bit about yourself and your current research?
I am a hematologist involved in clinical management and research for patients with lymphoproliferative disorder. Since 2013, I supported Dr. Alberto Fabbri in the management of patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. We manage about 200 newly diagnosed patients per year. Moreover, I have collaborated with Prof. Alessandro Gozzetti on some studies about drug resistance in MM. I have collaborated with Professor Cosima Tatiana Baldari's research group within the Hematology Unit, headed by Professor Monica Bocchia, on the molecular aspects of B-cell survival regulation. I am the first author of five full-length papers on clinical trials conducted within the Rete Toscana Linfomi (RTL) network, of which I am a member of the scientific board. I am the first author of a subanalysis of the FIL Elderly Project study published in the journal Hematological Oncology.

3. How do you evaluate research trends in this field, and what advice would you give to early-career researchers who are interested in this research area?
Treatment of lymphoid malignancies, including NHL and MM, has changed dramatically in recent years with the introduction of CAR-T cell therapy and bispecific antibodies. The current challenge is no longer only which drug to use first, but how to design optimal treatment sequencing, especially for relapsed/refractory cases.
In addition, the importance of real-world data is increasing. Many patients encountered in daily practice differ from those enrolled in clinical trials and real-world data should be carefully considered for clinical decision-making.
For early-career researchers, hematology represents an example of patient management from bench to bedside. Clinical and scientific/translational aspects intersect and are both essential to providing each patient with the best treatment strategy.

4. Why did you choose the Current Oncology journal as a platform for publishing your work, and how was your experience?
Me and my colleagues chose Current Oncology because this journal has a relevant impact factor, is PubMed indexed and is very interested to real-world studies and reviews about lymphoid malignancies, including NHL,m HL and MM. The journal publishes many clinically relevant studies, and we think that it was an appropriate choice for our present and future research. The submission was easy and the peer-review process was rapid. In addition, the reviewers’ comments were helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. I was involved as a co-author in another published manuscript about cutaneous lymphomas and I am the corresponding author of a recently submitted manuscript focused on new prognostic factors for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

5. How do you think open access way of publishing impacts authors?
Open access publishing could increase the visibility of our paper and allows us to reach a wider audience without barriers. It is particularly relevant for real-world analysis in hematology, since published results can significantly influence clinical practice and could represent the backbone for future studies.
Open access could increase paper visibility and favor collaboration between experts in the field.

6. In your opinion, which research topics will be of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?
Macrophages play a crucial role in the interactions between antineoplastic therapy and the immune system. Immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy have been shown to modulate TAM function. In addition, TAM can also contribute to tumor resistance to chemo- and radiotherapy by promoting tumor cell survival and proliferation. Understanding the interactions between macrophages and various cancer therapies is crucial for developing more effective treatment strategies for lymphoproliferative disorders. The study of tumor microenvironment before CAR-T cell therapy could represent an interesting research field for patients with NHL and MM. Finally, CAR-Ms, that represent human primary macrophages armed with transduced chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) could be an important weapon for heavily pre-treated cases, according to their abilities, such as phagocytosis of selective antigen-expressing tumor cells and production of pro-inflammatory factors. 

We had the pleasure of speaking with Prof. Seamus O’Reilly, the winner of the Current Oncology Outstanding Reviewer award in 2025. In this interview, he shares his experiences with peer review, his research interests, and his academic journey.

The following is our interview with Prof. Seamus O’Reilly:

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers?
I am a medical oncologist at Cork University Hospital/University College Cork Cancer Centre with a subspecialist interest in breast cancer. I am Clinical Lead at Cancer Trials Ireland which is Ireland’s national cancer clinical trials organisation. Until recently I was a member of the Executive Board of the Breast International Group which orchestrates clinical trials among 50 groups on 5 continents. My research interests include clinical trials, oncology practice including dental oncology and the palliative care oncology interface, and sustainability integration into cancer care. I have been an active participant in the peer-review community for many years, and I consider it one of the most important contributions an academic clinician can make to their field.

2. What motivates you to serve as a reviewer for Current Oncology, and what do you find most rewarding about the peer-review process?
Peer review in academic publishing is an important gatekeeper for scientific integrity. This integrity is a pivotal pillar of trust, particularly patient trust, upon which all clinical research is based. Being a peer reviewer contributes to this ecosystem and supports the critical infrastructure of trust without which we cannot innovate and improve patient outcomes. Current Oncology peer review exposes me to a range of oncology related developments from clinical trials to psychooncology—such interdisciplinary exposure broadens my perspectives, assists with ongoing research projects and identifies new ones. It exposes me to a range of scientific rigor and innovation in study design and research methodology.

3. When reviewing manuscripts, what aspects do you typically focus on (e.g., originality, methodological rigour, logical structure, ethical compliance, etc.)?
I pay close attention to methodological rigour first—if the study design or statistical analysis is flawed, the conclusions cannot be trusted regardless of how well the paper is written. Beyond that, I look at originality: does this work add meaningfully to what is already known? I also consider logical structure and clarity of argument, the appropriateness of the conclusions relative to the data presented, and ethical compliance, particularly around patient consent and data reporting standards. I try always to read a manuscript with the question in mind: would I trust this evidence when making a clinical decision?

4. For young scholars who are just beginning to participate in peer review, what specific advice would you offer?
Start by reading the journal’s reviewer guidelines carefully—each publication has its own standards and scope. When you read the manuscript, try to separate your personal opinions about the topic from an objective assessment of the work itself. Criticism is easier than craftsmanship and the work that you’re reading often reflects years or more of involvement and investment by the research team so be constructive in your comments rather than critical. Your goal is to help the authors produce the best possible version of their paper. It is also worth reviewing the peer review comments of other reviewers when you receive them at the end of the review process. Finally, never agree to review a paper if you have a conflict of interest, even a minor one—the integrity of the process depends on it.

5. Based on your experience reviewing manuscripts, what suggestions do you have for authors to make their manuscripts more readable and engaging?
There is no substitute for clarity. Authors should state their research question explicitly in the introduction and ensure that every section of the paper flows logically from it. Abstracts are often the first — and sometimes only—part that readers engage with, so they deserve particular care. Most papers are not completely deep read by readers, so the abstract is the most significant part of the paper. Graphics matter—a graphic abstract will facilitate amplification of the paper by the authors and readers, and also by funders. It also helps with social media dissemination of your work.
Equally tables and figures should be self-explanatory, with clear legends. Avoid unnecessary jargon and resist the temptation to over-interpret results: let the data speak, and be candid about limitations. A well-written discussion that honestly situates findings within the existing literature is far more persuasive than one that overclaims. Spend time curating a broad reference list which readers can use to read beyond the paper; such references can also assist with introduction and discussion sections in the paper. Always horizon scan the literature before you submit to ensure your list is up to date.

6. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?
AI tools will undoubtedly take on more of the administrative and screening functions in the review process—checking for statistical errors, plagiarism, and formatting compliance. This is broadly welcome, as it frees reviewers to focus on the higher-order judgements that require genuine clinical and scientific expertise. English is the language of science but 95% of the world’s population are not-native English speakers—I always admire the standard of English in the papers I read from this global majority. I have noted that over time grammar and text nuances have improved in standard and suspect this relates to AI tools which can assist greatly in this area.
I do not think AI will replace the nuanced, experience-informed assessment that a skilled human reviewer brings. If anything, the value of expert peer review may increase as the volume of submissions grows and automated pre-screening becomes standard. While studies have shown that authors who use AI are more productive, they are also less likely to be involved in the interdisciplinary research that leads to innovation. What will be important is that journals and authors are transparent about how these tools are used.

7. How has your experience been with Current Oncology as a reviewer? What kind of support would you like to see from the journal?
My experience with Current Oncology has been very positive. The editorial team is responsive and professional, and the submission and review platform is straightforward to use. In terms of support, the use of publication templates which means that the manuscript you peer review reflects what will ultimately be in print is helpful for both authors and reviewers and speeds up the acceptance to publication time frame.
I think all journals could benefit from providing structured feedback templates that help reviewers cover the key domains consistently, as well as more systematic acknowledgement of reviewer contributions—not necessarily through payment, but through recognition that is meaningful to academic careers such as ORCID acknowledgments which are visible to grant agencies and to institutions. Peer review is an important part of the hidden curriculum in clinical research—establishment of early career traineeships should be an integral part of all scientific journals.

We had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Shannon Salvador, who is the corresponding author of the cover article published in Volume 32, Issue 11 of Current Oncology (ISSN: 1718-7729). Here, she will share insights into her academic journey, research focus, and the motivation behind her recent work.

“HPV Testing, Self-Collection, and Vaccination: A Comprehensive Approach to Cervical Cancer Prevention”
by Shannon Salvador on behalf of an Advisory Committee of Federal and Provincial Experts in Support of Reducing Cervical Cancer Incidence and Advancing Equitable Healthcare for All
Curr. Oncol. 2025, 32(11), 594; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32110594
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1718-7729/32/11/594

Dr. Shannon Salvador is a gynecologic oncologist working at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, QC. She completed her medical training at the University of British Columbia with residency in obstetrics and gynecology and subspecialty training in gynecologic oncology. She also earned an MSc in epidemiology and clinical research from Stanford University. Currently serving as the President of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada (GOC), Dr. Salvador’s work is deeply rooted in implementation science and health equity. Her expertise centers on utilizing technology and evidence-based medicine to dismantle barriers for under-screened individuals, ensuring that life-saving screening is accessible to all populations.

The following is an interview with Dr. Salvador:

1. Could you please briefly introduce the main research content of the published paper?

This paper provides a comprehensive, evidence-based roadmap aimed at reversing the rising incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cancers, with a primary focus on achieving the elimination of cervical cancer. Despite cervical cancer being almost entirely preventable, it remains the fastest-growing cancer in Canada, highlighting a significant gap between our clinical capabilities and current healthcare delivery.

Our report outlines a multi-level strategy focused on four critical pillars:

• Optimizing Vaccination: Addressing suboptimal national coverage—currently at approximately 64%—by advocating for the 90% target through expanded funding, public education, and the adoption of evidence-based single-dose schedules for youth;
• Transitioning to Primary HPV Screening: Moving the standard of care from cytology-based Pap smears to primary HPV DNA testing, which offers superior sensitivity for detecting precancerous lesions;
• Implementing Self-Collection: Validating and integrating self-sampling as a tool to dismantle systemic barriers—such as geographic isolation, clinical trauma, or lack of primary care access—that disproportionately affect under-screened and marginalized populations;
• Strengthening Data Systems: Emphasizing the requirement for robust, population-based registries to monitor vaccination uptake, identify under-screened individuals, and ensure a seamless pathway for follow-up and care.

Ultimately, the paper argues that elimination is only achievable through a coordinated, system-wide approach that integrates clinical innovation with equitable access.

2. Could you tell us a little bit about your current research?

My current research is rooted in implementation science, with a specific focus on optimizing outreach strategies for marginalized and geographically isolated populations. We are drawing significant insights from successful international models, such as Australia’s experience, where large portions of the population live outside major urban centers.

Like Canada, these regions face logistical barriers to traditional clinic-based screening. My work investigates the most effective methods for integrating HPV self-collection as a primary tool to dismantle these barriers, ensuring that individuals can access high-sensitivity screening regardless of their proximity to a major medical hub. A major component of this research involves evaluating the infrastructure required for robust, population-based databases. These registries are essential for longitudinal patient tracking, ensuring that individuals who screen positive are seamlessly connected to follow-up care and that our prevention efforts are measurable and sustainable across diverse demographics.

3. How do you evaluate research trends in this field, and what advice would you give to early career researchers who are interested in this research area?

We are currently seeing a paradigm shift from purely clinical research to implementation science and health equity as the primary drivers of progress. The trend is moving toward “precision public health”—using high-sensitivity tools like HPV DNA testing and self-collection kits to reach specifically those who have historically been left behind. We are also seeing a much stronger emphasis on the economic modeling of prevention, proving that the upfront cost of elimination strategies is far outweighed by the long-term health system savings.

For early career researchers in policy change and advocacy, my advice is to embrace radical collaboration. Policy change is not achieved in a vacuum; it requires working across multidisciplinary teams—oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, and community leaders—as well as bridging the gap between research and advocacy groups.

4. Why did you choose Current Oncology as a platform for publishing your work, and how was your experience? Would you consider publishing your future research in Current Oncology?

We chose Current Oncology because this article was part of a dedicated Special Issue: “Action and Impact: Prevention and Screening Strategies Contributing to the Elimination of Cervical Cancer”. This provided a unique opportunity for our paper to be presented within a collection of research specifically focused on the elimination of cervical cancer, with a significant highlight on the unique challenges and opportunities within the Canadian system.

The journal’s broad readership was a key factor, as it allowed our research to reach a multidisciplinary audience—including surgical and medical oncologists, primary care providers, and oncology nurses—who are all essential to a successful national prevention strategy. Finally, the speed of the peer-review and publication process was outstanding. The rapid turnaround meant the paper was available almost immediately to support urgent advocacy efforts and inform policy discussions when the evidence was most needed. Given this high level of professional collaboration and the tangible impact of the publication, I would certainly consider Current Oncology for my future research.

5. How do you think the open access way of publishing impacts authors?

For researchers focused on health equity and implementation science, the open access model is transformative. It removes financial barriers for community stakeholders—patient partners, advocacy groups, and health workers—who are essential to the elimination effort. Since our research emphasizes community-led solutions like HPV self-collection, the data must be accessible to those outside of traditional academia. Open access empowers community leaders and patient advocates to read the evidence directly and use it as a tool for self-advocacy. By democratizing science, we accelerate the transition from the research page to real-world engagement, ensuring that those most impacted by healthcare inequities have the facts needed to drive change from the ground up.

6. In your opinion, which research topics will be of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?

I believe AI and digital health will fundamentally transform cancer screening from a passive process into an active, predictive system. In the coming years, I expect the research community to focus on utilizing artificial intelligence to optimize registries by identifying high-risk individuals and predicting where targeted interventions are most needed. This includes streamlining the delivery and tracking of HPV self-collection kits through digital platforms, which is vital for the significant portion of under-screened individuals who currently lack primary care providers and need a direct link to the health system. Furthermore, digital databases will allow for real-time monitoring of vaccination rates and clinical outcomes, facilitating more agile, evidence-based policy-making to ensure our elimination strategies remain effective. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure these technological advancements are implemented equitably so that progress in digital health translates directly into reaching our global cervical cancer elimination targets.

We had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Gang Wang, who is the corresponding author of the cover article published in Volume 33, Issue 1 of Current Oncology (ISSN: 1718-7729). Here, he will share insights into his academic journey, research focus, and the motivation behind his recent work.

“Machine Learning in Biomarker-Driven Precision Oncology: Automated Immunohistochemistry Scoring and Emerging Directions in Genitourinary Cancers”
by Matthew Yap, Ioana-Maria Mihai and Gang Wang
Curr. Oncol. 2026, 33(1), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol33010031
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1718-7729/33/1/31

Dr. Gang Wang is a clinical pathologist at BC Cancer and a Clinical Professor at the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the University of British Columbia. His clinical and research work focuses on genitourinary malignancies, with an emphasis on biomarker development and precision oncology.

Dr. Wang’s research program centers on identifying and validating tissue-based biomarkers that predict disease progression and treatment response, particularly in bladder, prostate, and renal cancers. His work increasingly integrates digital pathology and artificial intelligence to enable quantitative, reproducible biomarker assessment and to support personalized treatment strategies. He has led and collaborated on multiple funded projects, including AI-driven approaches for biomarker discovery and prediction of therapy response.

The following is an interview with Dr. Wang:

1. Could you please briefly introduce the main research content of the published paper?

This review really focuses on a very practical problem in pathology—how we can make biomarker assessment more consistent and quantitative. Immunohistochemistry is something we rely on every day in clinical practice, but it does have well-known limitations, especially around variability between observers and across laboratories.

In the paper, we look at how machine learning, particularly within digital pathology, can help address these issues by enabling automated and reproducible scoring of biomarkers on whole-slide images. We first discuss areas where this is already quite mature—such as ER/PR, HER2, PD-L1, and Ki-67—and then shift toward emerging applications in genitourinary cancers.

A big part of the message is that while the technology is clearly promising and increasingly robust, there’s still a gap between technical capability and clinical implementation. Bridging that gap—through validation, standardization, and workflow integration—is really the next step.

2. Could you tell us a little bit about your current research?

My work is broadly in precision oncology, with a particular focus on genitourinary cancers. I’m very interested in how we can better use the data we already generate—whether it’s pathology slides, imaging, or clinical information—to improve prediction of treatment response and outcomes.

A large part of my research involves digital pathology and AI, especially around quantitative biomarker assessment. At the same time, I’ve been increasingly working on integrating different data types—for example, combining pathology with imaging or clinical data—to build more comprehensive, clinically relevant models.

Because I’m also actively involved in clinical service and departmental leadership; I tend to approach research with a strong emphasis on translation. The goal is not just to develop models, but to make sure they can actually be used in practice and improve patient care.

3. How do you evaluate research trends in this field, and what advice would you give to early career researchers who are interested in this research area?

The field has evolved quite a bit over the past few years. Earlier work was often focused on developing algorithms and demonstrating performance, but now there’s a clear shift toward clinical applicability—things like reproducibility, external validation, and integration into real workflows.

There’s also a growing recognition that no single data type is sufficient. The future is really in multimodal approaches—bringing together pathology, imaging, and molecular data to better reflect the biology of the disease.

For early career researchers, I think one of the most important things is to stay grounded in clinically meaningful questions. It’s easy to get drawn into technical aspects, but the most impactful work usually comes from addressing real clinical needs. Building strong collaborations is also essential because this is inherently a multidisciplinary field. And finally, paying attention to data quality and validation is critical—those are often the hardest parts, but also the most important.

4. Why did you choose Current Oncology as a platform for publishing your work, and how was your experience? Would you consider publishing your future research in Current Oncology?

We chose Current Oncology mainly because of its clinical focus and broad audience. Our work sits at the intersection of pathology, oncology, and AI, so it was important to publish somewhere that reaches clinicians as well as researchers.

The experience was very positive. The review process was efficient, and the feedback was constructive. Overall, it felt like a supportive environment for this type of translational work. I would certainly consider publishing there again, especially for projects that have a strong clinical component.

5. How do you think open access way of publishing impacts authors?

I think open access has had a very positive impact overall. It allows research to be accessed much more widely, which is particularly important in fields like oncology where findings can have direct clinical implications.

From an author’s perspective, it definitely helps with visibility and dissemination. At the same time, there are practical considerations around publication costs, which can be a barrier for some groups. So while the model is very beneficial in terms of access, there’s still work to be done to make it equitable.

6. In your opinion, which research topics will be of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?

I think we’ll continue to see strong interest in multimodal approaches that combine different types of data to better understand disease biology and predict outcomes. Digital pathology and computational analysis of tissue will remain a major area, especially as we move toward more quantitative and standardized assessments.

Another important direction is the tumor microenvironment and spatial biology—understanding not just what biomarkers are present, but how they are organized and interact within tissue.

But perhaps, most importantly, there will be increasing focus on implementation—how to take these tools and actually use them in clinical practice. That includes validation, regulation, and workflow integration. In the end, the real impact will come from tools that can reliably support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

To commemorate World Cancer Day 2026, MDPI is pleased to introduce the “World Cancer Day 2026 Webinar Series”. Reflecting the global theme “United by Unique”, this series highlights how every story, discovery, and voice contributes to strengthening the global fight against cancer.

In our April session, we welcome leading voices in head and neck cancer research to share impactful insights, raise awareness, and highlight recent advances in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

Through this series, we aim to empower the global community with knowledge, inspire collaboration, and support ongoing efforts to address cancer worldwide. Together, we honor every patient’s journey, recognize every researcher’s contribution, and reinforce the power of collective action in the fight against cancer.

Date: 30 April 2026
Time: 17:00 CEST | 11:00 EDT | 23:00 CST Asia
Webinar ID: 824 5069 5488
Webinar Secretariat: journal.webinar@mdpi.com
Website: https://sciforum.net/event/WCD2026-3

Register now for free!

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email on how to join the webinar. Registrations with academic institutional email addresses will be prioritized.

Unable to attend? Register anyway, and we will let you know when the recording is available for viewing.

Webinar Keynote Speakers:

• Dr. Kousik Kumar Kesh, Department of Pathology, St. Louis University, USA;
• Dr. Richard Yuxiong Su, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R, China;
• Dr. Jennifer Anderson, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, USA;
• Dr. Jay J. Liao, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, USA;
• Dr. Wendell G. Yarbrough, Department of Otolaryngology (Head and Neck Surgery), School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, USA;
• Dr. Joshua D. Smith, Department of Otolaryngology (Head and Neck Surgery), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, USA.

Conference: 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Society for Clinical Investigation (ESCI)
Date: 3–5 June 2026
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

MDPI will participate as an exhibitor at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Society for Clinical Investigation. We welcome researchers and professionals to visit our booth and engage with our team.

The 60th Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM) of the European Society for Clinical Investigation (ESCI) will be held from 3 to 5 June 2026. It can bring together 500–600 scientists, medical professionals, and innovation leaders from across Europe and beyond to explore the theme “Research in Action: Building Healthier Futures”. The scientific program will feature a rich blend of disciplines—spanning cardiovascular science, endocrinology, obesity, metabolism and MASLD, mitochondrial biology, oncology and immunology, rheumatology, and neurosciences. This year, we will shine a spotlight on life transitions in women, unravelling health and disease journeys from pregnancy to menopause. The program will also highlight today’s most transformative biomedical breakthroughs, from AI-enabled diagnostics to gene editing and precision therapies.

The following open access journals will be represented:

• Reports;
• Medicina;
• Diagnostics;
• JPM;
• BioMed;
• Complications;
• Pharmacy;
• NeuroSci;
• JCRM;
• Current Oncology;
• JCM;
• Physiologia;
• Proteomes;
• Diseases.

If you are planning to attend the above event, please feel free to start a conversation with us. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person and answering any questions that you may have. For more information, please visit https://barcelo.eventsair.com/QuickEventWebsitePortal/esci-2026/web.

We are honored to announce that Prof. Dr. William Gerwick will serve as the Chair of the 2026 Tu Youyou Award Committee.

A world-renowned authority in marine natural products chemistry and pharmacology, Professor Gerwick is a Distinguished Professor at both the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of California San Diego (UCSD). His pioneering work at the intersection of ocean sciences and drug discovery makes him a fitting leader for an award centered on transformative medicinal breakthroughs.

Under Professor Gerwick’s stewardship, the 2026 Tu Youyou Award Committee will focus on recognizing innovative and impactful research in natural products chemistry and medicinal chemistry, particularly work with the potential to drive meaningful advances in both scientific understanding and human health.

To provide further insight into his perspectives, we include below an interview with Professor Gerwick, in which he reflects on his scientific journey, his views on the field, and his vision for the Tu Youyou Award.

A Conversation with the Chair

1. Could you please introduce yourself and your research journey?

My research focuses on the natural products of marine algae and cyanobacteria, their application in medicine, their biosynthesis using genomic approaches, and innovative methods in the structure elucidation of natural products.

I received my BS degree from the University of California at Davis, my PhD from the University of California at San Diego, and conducted postdoctoral work at the University of Connecticut. After a couple of years in a junior faculty position at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Puerto Rico, I spent 21 years as Professor of Pharmacy at Oregon State University. In 2005, I returned to my PhD institution at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at UC San Diego, where I am currently a Distinguished Professor of Oceanography and Pharmaceutical Sciences.

Throughout my career, I have been dedicated to advancing the field through both leadership and mentorship. I have served as president of the American Society of Pharmacognosy, chaired and co-chaired several major research conferences, and served as an associate editor for the Journal of Natural Products. I am a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and of the American Society of Pharmacognosy. I have trained over 100 doctoral and postdoctoral students, and my research group has published nearly 500 papers and more than 25 patents on topics in the natural product sciences and medicinal chemistry.

2. What motivated you to accept the role of Chair of the 2026 Tu Youyou Award Committee?

Of course, I am a huge supporter of all awards that are given in recognition of excellent scientific research, and especially so in the natural products sciences and medicinal chemistry. However, this award is truly special in that it recognizes scientific excellence as well as impact, and is given in the name of an individual, Tu Youyou, who clearly had many challenges along the path to reach the pinnacle of her success. Not only was she the first Chinese person to win a Nobel prize in this area, but she was also the first Chinese woman to receive a Nobel prize, and this was achieved without graduate education in China or elsewhere. It’s a true testament to what can be achieved by hard work, determination, and vision. To read the history of her extraordinary approach to discovering novel antimalarial compounds from Traditional Chinese Medicine is truly inspirational. It is, therefore, the inspiration provided by the extraordinary life and career of Tu Youyou that motivated me to accept the Chair of the Award Committee for 2026.

3. How do you view the role of natural products chemistry and medicinal chemistry in today’s scientific landscape, and what major advances over the past decade have shaped this field?

A quite remarkable integration of fields is currently transforming natural products science and medicinal chemistry. In natural products, we are seeing integration of different omics methods, from metabolites to proteins to nucleic acids. Sophisticated biological and pharmacological approaches are driving the discovery of exquisitely potent and selective natural products. Advances are being made to integrate molecular-level recognition of natural products with chemical ecological studies, and sophisticated methods of structure determination using Artificial Intelligence or pioneering new tools such as microED are being applied with increasing frequency. High-level synthetic methodologies, such as protecting group-free synthetic routes, are enhancing medicinal chemistry, accelerating the identification of lead molecules with attractive pharmaceutical properties at an increasing pace.

4. How do you consider the balance between fundamental discovery (e.g., new molecules or mechanisms) and practical impact (e.g., therapeutic applications)?

Many individuals are excellent scientists and mentors, and have essential roles in developing our culture that values science and the scientific method. It should also be pointed out that not all scientific discoveries are going to have a broad societal impact, but they are nevertheless critical to the overall body and structure of science. But it is a truly remarkable individual who makes a key scientific discovery, recognizes its potential value to society in general, and then has the skills and determination to bring it forward as a useful product. That was the type of person the Tu Youyou is, and that is the type of person who is honored by the prize in her name.

5. What do you see as the key challenges or opportunities currently facing the field?

We are on the crux of an amazing revolution in many of the sciences, including natural products and medicinal chemistry; the purposeful application of Artificial Intelligence to solving many of the difficulties involved in the search for new pharmaceuticals from Nature. AI is transforming how we select organisms for study, what pharmaceutical targets to go after, rapidly resolving the chemical structures of new compounds, identifying efficient routes to their chemical synthesis, understanding their molecular mechanisms of action, and finally, designing their clinical application. The role of people in these pursuits is changing. Increasingly, the human role will be providing overall vision: what can we do? What should we do? And it is important to remember that AI is providing hypotheses, not truth. Scientists with expert domain knowledge will be critical for discerning the correctness of hypotheses put forth by AI. Altogether, advances in technology, expanding knowledge, and the appropriate use of AI methods are preparing society to be able to address emerging diseases, such as pandemics, as well as conditions that are not effectively treated by currently existing therapeutics.

6. How do you expect the Tu Youyou Award to contribute to the advancement of natural product chemistry, medicinal chemistry, and human health over the coming years?

The Tu Youyou Award is potentially transformative for the broad fields of natural products science and medicinal chemistry as it brings a significantly increased level of visibility to these topics and their contributions to human health. It will be crucial to have excellent communication to news agencies, social media and other communication outlets so that the general public is informed and educated on the high impact of these natural product/medicinal chemistry contributions. This will bring increased funding, attract promising students, and generally enrich the interface of these fields with the health sector.

7. What message would you like to convey to the research community and the public during this open nomination phase?

This prize gives broad societal visibility to the role that natural products have had in shaping a majority of our current medicines, as well as understanding the life forms with whom we share the planet. Further, it recognizes a woman scientist working under sub-optimal conditions who could persevere and make discoveries of global impact. The prize and what it represents, therefore, inspires current and future generations to engage in the study of Nature and its relationship to Human Health, to overcome adversity, and to aspire to making one’s life impactful.

About the Tu Youyou Award

Established in 2016, the Tu Youyou Award seeks to honor those who excel in the fields of natural products chemistry and medicinal chemistry. This award offers a total prize of CHF 100,000, which will be equally divided among the winners if there is more than one, with each recipient receiving an award medal and a certificate.

The 2026 Tu Youyou Award is open for nominations until 31 October 2026. We encourage all eligible candidates to participate in this prestigious recognition, as this award not only honors individual achievement but also encourages further scientific exchange, exploration and discovery in critical areas of medicine.

If you are interested in participating, please visit the Tu Youyou Award website for more information on the nomination requirements.

Conference: The 2026 Annual Congress of the European Association for Cancer Research
Date: 8–11 June 2026
Location: Budapest, Hungary

We are pleased to announce that MDPI will participate in the 2026 Annual Congress of the European Association for Cancer Research (EACR 2026), held in Budapest, Hungary, from 8 to 11 June 2026.

The 2026 Annual Congress of the European Association for Cancer Research (EACR 2026) is a four-day congress dedicated to basic, preclinical and translational cancer research across a wide range of topics. The conference will highlight the latest research and bring together the cancer research community to inspire innovation and build knowledge, connections and collaborations.

The following MDPI journals will be represented at the conference:

• Cancers;
• JPM;
• Current Oncology;
• Onco;
• JCM;
• Cells;
• Diseases;
• Epigenomes;
• CIMB;
• Biologics;
• Life;
• Gastrointestinal Disorders;
• Clinics and Practice;
• DNA;
• IJMS;
• Diagnostics.

If you are planning to attend the above conference, please feel free to start an online conversation with us. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person at booth #101 and answering any questions that you may have. For more information about the conference, please visit the following website: https://2026.eacr.org/.

We would like to congratulate Dr. Akhil Shukla on winning the Current Oncology Travel Award. We had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Shukla in an interview.

Dr. Akhil Shukla is a postdoctoral researcher at the CHU de Québec–Université Laval (CHUQ-UL), specializing in prostate cancer and cancer immunology. He earned his PhD in cell biology from Université de Sherbrooke, Canada. His dissertation focused on the NLRC5-dependent anti-tumor immune response. Prior to this, Dr. Shukla completed a Master’s degree in biotechnology at Panjab University, studying antioxidant enzymes, which laid the foundation for his research. Throughout his academic journey, he has contributed significantly to the understanding of the roles of different targets in cancer immune surveillance and therapeutic strategies. Currently, Dr. Shukla is a molecular oncology researcher affiliated with the CHUQ-UL. His research focuses on the metabolic drivers of prostate cancer progression, and their role in remodeling metabolism in aggressive prostate cancer.

The following is an interview with Dr. Akhil Shukla:

1. Congratulations on winning the Current Oncology Travel Award. Could you briefly introduce yourself and your current research at the current institution of the winner?
   I am Akhil Shukla, a postdoctoral researcher at the CHUQ-UL in Québec City, Canada. My research focuses on understanding the metabolic adaptations that facilitate tumor progression. Specifically, my work aims to uncover the underlying metabolic mechanisms exploited by aggressive prostate cancer cells to sustain their growth and evade therapeutic interventions. By identifying key metabolic vulnerabilities in these cancer cells, I aim to contribute to the development of novel targeted treatment strategies. Ultimately, my goal is to translate these findings into practical clinical applications that improve patient outcomes in everyday oncology practice, bridging the gap between laboratory discoveries and real-world cancer care settings.
2. When and how did you become aware of the Current Oncology journal? Could you briefly introduce which conference or conferences you plan to attend with this award?
   I first learned about Current Oncology during my graduate studies, where I frequently encountered articles that adeptly connected molecular research with the practical management of cancer patients. This exposure underscored the journal's multidisciplinary approach and strong commitment to publishing research with direct clinical relevance, which deeply resonated with my focus on translational oncology.
   Receiving the Current Oncology Travel Award will allow me to attend the EACR 2026 Congress, a leading international forum that gathers experts in tumor biology, metabolism, and translational cancer research to present my research. At this congress, I will present our latest findings on metabolic remodeling in prostate cancer, a project that investigates how metabolic changes contribute to tumor aggressiveness and therapeutic resistance. This opportunity will not only enable me to share our work with leading researchers but also to engage in meaningful scientific exchanges, fostering collaborations that can accelerate the translation of metabolic insights into innovative clinical strategies. Ultimately, this experience will enhance my ability to bridge laboratory discoveries and real-world oncology practice, advancing the development of targeted interventions that improve patient care.
3. Attending international conferences is an essential part of scientific collaboration and growth. How do you plan to promote the Current Oncology journal at the conference? And what do you hope to contribute or gain from the discussion?
   At the conference, I plan to promote Current Oncology in several ways. In my poster, I will acknowledge the Travel Award and highlight the journal as a venue that actively supports clinically relevant translational cancer research. I also intend to mention the journal when discussing publication options with colleagues and collaborators, particularly early career researchers looking for a peer‑reviewed, oncology‑focused open‑access platform.
   Through scientific discussions, I hope to receive valuable feedback on our methods, identify potential collaborators for multicenter projects, and gain insights into how similar questions are addressed at other institutions and within various health systems. In return, I aspire to contribute by sharing our experiences, offering constructive feedback, and actively engaging in discussions to bridge the gap between research and routine cancer care.
4. As a scientific researcher, how do you balance life and research work?
   Balancing research with life outside the laboratory requires continuous attention and effort to establish a sustainable routine. I set aside time for focused work and keep evenings and weekends free from work to relax. This involves deliberately setting aside time for deep focus while ensuring that evenings and weekends are free from work-related commitments to promote mental rest. Living in Québec City, I enjoy outdoor activities and regular exercise, which help me stay strong and maintain a clear view when research gets tough. It is also important to have a supportive team where we can share problems, celebrate small wins, and respect each other's limits. This mix of personal discipline and teamwork keeps me productive and happy, making it easier to balance my work and personal life.
5. As the winner of this award, would you like to take a moment to share your thoughts with our readers or express gratitude towards those who have played a significant role in your research accomplishments?
   Winning the Current Oncology Travel Award is a significant step in my career. This award helps us share our findings on metabolic changes in prostate cancer with researchers at a global stage. It also provides opportunities to talk and work with top experts from different countries. I am very thankful for the support from the editors and the selection committee of Current Oncology and MDPI. Their support helps young researchers, such as myself, in cancer research. I am also grateful for the guidance of my supervisors, Dr. Étienne Audet-Walsh and Dr. Frédéric Pouliot, and the team from Québec, Canada, China and Brazil. Their help improved this project. Most importantly, this award honors the patients who participated in our studies. Their involvement was crucial to our research. The award inspires me to continue conducting research that connects laboratory discoveries with real patient care improvements. I also appreciate the personal support of my family and friends, which keeps me motivated in this challenging but rewarding field.
6. In your view, how can academic journals and publishers further support early career researchers and the broader academic community?
   Academic journals and publishers are crucial for nurturing a supportive and productive research culture, especially for early career researchers who often encounter unique challenges. In addition to offering financial support, such as travel awards and fee waivers, these entities can enhance the academic journey by promoting transparent, constructive, and timely peer review processes. These processes serve as gatekeeping mechanisms and educational opportunities. By incorporating mentorship-style reviews, editorial insights, and accessible training resources, including webinars on study design, statistics, and reporting standards, journals can transform publishing into a formative experience that builds researchers’ skills and confidence. Additionally, involving early career researchers in peer review and editorial activities fosters professional growth, demystifies the publication process, and enriches the diversity and quality of scholarly evaluation. Rigorous methodologies, open data practices, and interdisciplinary collaboration ensure that research outputs are reproducible, clinically relevant, and impactful, ultimately bridging the gap between molecular discoveries and patient-centered outcomes. This approach not only empowers emerging scientists but also strengthens the integrity and translational potential of broader scientific enterprises.