While the 17th IHPBA World Congress in Singapore is yet to convene, important questions remain about the long-term governance, resourcing, accountability, and measurement of its liver-cancer equity legacy project.
SINGAPORE — Before the 17th IHPBA World Congress opens at Suntec Singapore Convention & Exhibition Centre on 28‑31 October 2026, its organisers face a question that extends beyond the meeting: who will continue its liver cancer equity project after delegates leave? A US$5,000 seed grant, announced by ICCA and BestCities on 27 August, provides an opportunity to examine how congress ambitions become lasting programmes.
The planned work includes regional equity forums, an assessment framework and a heatmap to identify disparities in hepatocellular carcinoma care. Grant funding is intended to support activities including participation by delegates from low‑ and middle‑income countries. These plans establish a direction; their delivery depends on the resources and responsibilities behind them.
The strategic question is what the grant unlocks. Does it attract further funding, clinical expertise, administrative support, or access to institutional networks? What will IHPBA contribute to itself? The published announcement and case study do not provide a cost breakdown. Establishing which commitments are confirmed, who provides them, and how long they last would clarify whether the programme can continue beyond Singapore.
Legacy planning also has a longer history. IHPBA traces its broader commitment to a 2022 strategic planning session, followed by its 2024 Cape Town initiative on liver cancer care. That history predates the award, but the timing of Singapore’s specific commitments remains unclear: were they built into the original bid, developed during planning or formalised through the grant application? This matters to associations deciding when to involve partners.
“A successful congress legacy depends not only on good intentions, but confirmed resources, clear ownership structures, defined timelines and agreed metrics for post‑event delivery.”
Ownership is equally important. IHPBA says its African initiative has been handed to E‑AHPBA for continuation. Singapore’s proposed regional forum raises similar questions: who will convene it, approve spending, and provide ongoing secretariat support? Leadership during the congress needs a structure that survives changing volunteer roles. Participating regional institutions also need a voice in setting priorities and implementing the work.
Success also needs an agreed timetable. A first‑year review could examine resources secured and institutions using the framework. A second‑year review could assess changes introduced in response to identified gaps. By year three, evaluation could explore improvements in access to care where comparable data exist. These are potential reporting checkpoints, not announced IHPBA targets. Partners must establish baselines and identify who collects, evaluates and publishes results.
The published case study does not specify numerical targets or dated post‑congress milestones. These details require confirmation through interviews. The project’s leaders should explain what success looks like, whether measures have been agreed and how progress will be assessed.
Documenting those commitments now would create a basis for returning in 2027. The value of Singapore’s test will lie in showing what continued, what changed, and who remained accountable after the congress.
