Skip to content
International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer

Be the multidisciplinary world authority on lung and other thoracic cancers through colllaborative science, education, and advocacy in order to ensure optimal prevention and patient care.

$1.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$425k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$1.1MEducation$62k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $712,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,321,050 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $608,550 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k5 grants · $288k
  • $250k+1 grant · $425k
$50,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$36M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION$425,000
LUNG CANCER FOUNDATION OF AMERICA$87,500
DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE$50,000
MAYO CLINIC$50,000
FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CTR$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$50,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 33% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $50k → 16%LUNG CANCER FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $100k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $50k → 14%UT SOUTHWESTERN CASH MANAGEMENT: $20k → 14%MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $25k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER - ANSCHUTZ MEDICAL CAMPUS: $63k → 10%FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $50k → 9%LUNG CANCER FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $88k → 8%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MN
IL
MI
MA
PA
CA
CO
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $609k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 4 regions, $601k to organizations and $8k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$300k · 49% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: TRAINING

East Asia and the Pacific$158k · 26% · 2 grants · 1 person

Stated purpose: TRAINING · RESEARCH CONFERENCE ENTRY

Australia$100k · 16% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: TRAINING

South America$51k · 8% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: TRAINING

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its field
04the grantee network

7 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 12 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $425,000 · HealthLUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATIONLUNG CANCER FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $187,500 · HealthLUNG CANCER FOUNDATION OF AMERICADana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $50,000 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute IncMAYO CLINIC GROUP RETURN: $50,000 · HealthMAYO CLINIC GROUP RETURNM D ANDERSON SERVICES CORPORATION: $25,000 · HealthREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: $62,500 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSI…FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $50,000 · OtherFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER …REGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: $50,000 · OtherREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFOR…FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CTR: $50,000 · OtherFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER …THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTE: $20,000 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS…Indiana University School of Medicine: $11,682 · OtherJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $177,500 · EducationJOHNS HOPKINS UNI…
Health$737,500Other$244,182Education$177,500

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $425,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetLUNG CANCER FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $187,500 over 2y, 4.4% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $177,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMAYO CLINIC GROUP RETURN: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetM D ANDERSON SERVICES CORPORATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–24
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 12 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home