Impact of industry collaboration on randomised controlled trials in oncology

Industry affiliation influence on randomized controlled trials for platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review

Background

Explicit funding and industry affiliation are believed to potentially impact medical research. There have been an increasing number of studies that have evaluated this relationship. The purpose of this study is to determine whether industry affiliation influences the outcomes of randomized controlled trials that investigate the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

Methods

A search of PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and SCOPUS was performed using the search terms "lateral epicondylitis" and "platelet-rich plasma" as well as "tennis elbow" and "platelet-rich plasma." Only studies from 2010 to present were considered. Final texts were then analyzed for industry affiliation and treatment efficacy. When determining whether a study was industry-affiliated, explicit financial supporters of the study, stated conflicts of interest, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons disclosures, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services open payments database were assessed. Study outcomes were categorized as favorable, analogous, or unfavorable based on achieving a statistically significant (P < .05) comparison between PRP and control.

Results

A total of 26 studies were used. Of these, 20 were industry nonaffiliated and 6 were industry affiliated. There were 15 studies (2 affiliated and 13 nonaffiliated) that reported PRP as favorable compared to the comparison (corticosteroid, analogous whole blood, or normal saline). The endpoints were 6 and 12 months after the use of PRP or the comparison. Quantitative data analysis yielded results that were not statistically significant between industry-nonaffiliated and affiliated groups. The P values for 6-month visual analog scale, 12-month visual analog scale, 6-month disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand, 12-month disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand, 6-month patient-related tennis elbow evaluation, and 12-month patient-related tennis elbow evaluation were 0.577, 0.635, 0.554, 0.465, 0.273, and 0.157, respectively.

Conclusion

Despite our results indicating that industry affiliation does not have an impact on outcomes of randomized controlled trials examining the treatment of lateral epicondylitis with PRP, it is important for future studies to evaluate affiliations when making treatment recommendations.

Industry affiliation does not predict outcomes of randomized controlled trials for mesenchymal stem cells in knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

This research aims to determine the influence of industry on the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) treatments in knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from 2010 onwards using the terms "knee osteoarthritis" and "mesenchymal stem cells". After identifying relevant RCTs, studies were categorized as industry-affiliated or non-industry-affiliated. They were also classified as favorable if they achieved statistically significant (p < 0.05) results with MSC injections compared to control. Chi-squared tests were employed to analyze the relationship between industry affiliation and study outcome.

RESULTS

Post exclusion criteria, 38 studies were analyzed. Of these, there were 20 (52.6%) industry affiliated (IA) and 18 (47.4%) non-industry affiliated (NIA) studies. Among the 20 IA studies, 17 (85.0%) reported favorable outcomes for MSC treatment arm, with the remaining 3 (15.0%) showing analogous (no difference between treatment arms) results. For the 18 NIA studies, 15 (83.3%) were favorable, and 3 (16.6%) were analogous. No significant difference in outcomes was observed between IA and NIA studies (p = 0.888). Analysis of patient reported outcomes also revealed no significant difference. Of note, studies using allogeneic MSCs were more likely to be IA than studies using autologous MSCs (p = 0.005) CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated no strong association between industry affiliation and the outcomes of RCTs for MSC treatments in knee OA. Despite this, the potential influence of industry ties should always be considered when applying study findings to new treatment modalities for patient care.

Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism for cancer patients in randomized controlled trials: a bibliographical analysis of funding and trial characteristics

Background

The majority of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients with cancer involve commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship overcomes feasibility limitations inherent in RCTs, such as recruitment and funding, but has attracted scrutiny for its potential for bias.

Objectives

In RCTs of VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer, how do trial characteristics compare between commercially sponsored RCTs and noncommercially sponsored RCTs?

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs that investigated at least 1 pharmacologic intervention for VTE prophylaxis in adult patients with cancer. Screening and data extraction were conducted by independent reviewers. Outcomes included trial characteristics, reporting of favorable outcomes, protocol-manuscript discrepancies, and appraisal of spin. Outcomes were compared using the independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, Pearson chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with possible bias.

Results

Of the 54 trials analyzed, 34 (63%) reported commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship was not associated with the reporting of favorable outcomes, presence of spin, retrospective registration, or protocol-manuscript discrepancy. Spin was most prevalent in the abstract conclusions (9 out of 17 [53.3%]) and manuscript conclusions (8 out of 17 [46.7%]).Commercially sponsored trials had a higher rate of intention-to-treat analysis. Noncommercially sponsored trials were more likely to report retrospective registration of trial protocol and the use of composite primary outcomes.

Conclusion

There were few significant differences between trial characteristics, suggesting that the evidence from commercially sponsored trials investigating VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer is unlikely to be subject to bias attributable to commercial sponsorship.

The Influence of Industry Affiliation on Randomized Controlled Trials of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Industry funding and corporate sponsorship have played a significant role in the advancement of orthopaedic research and technology. However, this relationship raises concerns for how industry association may bias research findings and influence clinical practice.

PURPOSE

To determine whether industry affiliation plays a role in the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating platelet-rich plasma (PRP).

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases for RCTs published between 2011 and the present comparing PRP versus hyaluronic acid, corticosteroid, or placebo for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis was performed. To determine industry affiliation, the conflict of interest, funding, and disclosure sections of publications were assessed, and all authors were assessed through the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons disclosure database and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services open payments database. Studies were classified as industry affiliated (IA) or non-industry affiliated (NIA). The outcomes of each study were rated as favorable, analogous, or unfavorable according to predefined criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies (6 IA and 31 NIA) were available for analysis. Overall, 19 studies (51.4%) reported PRP as favorable compared with other treatment options, while 18 studies (48.6%) showed no significant differences between PRP and other treatment methods. There was no significant difference in qualitative conclusions between the IA and NIA groups, with the IA group having 3 favorable studies and 3 analogous studies and the NIA group having 16 favorable studies and 15 analogous studies (P = .8881). When comparing IA versus NIA studies using 6- and 12-month Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and International Knee Documentation Committee scores, there were no significant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrated that qualitative conclusions and outcome scores were found to not be associated with industry affiliation. Although the results of this study suggest that there is no influence of industry involvement on RCTs examining PRP, it is still necessary to carefully evaluate pertinent commercial affiliations when reviewing recommendations from studies before adopting new treatment approaches, such as the use of PRP for knee osteoarthritis.

Randomized controlled trial in gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma undergoing systemic therapy over two decades

INTRODUCTION

The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the systemic treatment of gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GA-RCTs) is increasing. We aimed to describe the characteristics and evaluate the clinical benefit of GA-RCTs over the past 20 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched for RCTs of systemic treatment in GA published in eight major journals between 2001 and 2020 in PubMed. From the included studies, the characteristics and results of GA-RCTs were extracted. Clinical benefit was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

RESULTS

About 93 RCTs with 38365 patients were included. Seventy-one (76.3%) studies received external funding, with an increase from 27.3% (2001-2005) to 94.1% (2016-2020). RCTs on targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy have also increased over time, but only 14 (41.2%) were restricted to specific biomarkers. Forty-four (47.3%) studies met their primary endpoint (defined as positive RCTs), but median overall survival has not improved over time. Moreover, only 16 (36.4%) studies met the ESMO-MCBS threshold. RCTs whose study design and results met the ESMO-MCBS thresholds has not increased over time (p = 0.827 and p = 0.733, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

GA-RCTs are increasingly focused on targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy, and are more likely to receive external funding. However, the effect size has not shown significant improvement in the past 20 years. Only a few RCTs with positive results met ESMO thresholds. Future RCTs should prioritize the clinical benefits and provide direct evidence to optimize and reform GA treatment practices.

Comparative analysis of systemic oncological treatments and best supportive care for advanced gastresophageal cancer: A comprehensive scoping review and evidence map

OBJECTIVE

To identify, describe, and organize the available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments compared to best supportive care (BSC) for advanced gastresophageal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search across MEDLINE (PubMed), EMbase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Our inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies involving patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy or biological/targeted therapy compared to BSC. The outcomes included survival, quality of life, functional status, toxicity, and quality of end-of-life care.

RESULTS

We included and mapped 72 studies, comprising SRs, experimental and observational designs, 12 on esophageal cancer, 51 on gastric cancer, and 10 both locations. Most compared schemes including chemotherapy (47 studies), but did not report therapeutic lines. Moreover, BSC as a control arm was poorly defined, including integral support and placebo. Data favor the use of systemic oncological treatments in survival outcomes and BSC in toxicity. Data for outcomes including quality of life, functional status, and quality of end-of-life care were limited. We found sundry evidence gaps specifically in assessing new treatments such as immunotherapy and important outcomes such as functional status, symptoms control, hospital admissions, and the quality of end-life care for all the treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

There are important evidence gaps regarding new for patients with advanced gastresophageal cancer and the effect of systemic oncological treatments on important patient-centered outcomes beyond survival. Future research should clearly describe the population included, specifying previous treatments and considering therapeutic, and consider all patient-centered outcomes. Otherwise, it will be complex to apply research results into practice.

Interactions between Australian cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To understand how and why Australian cancer physicians interact with the pharmaceutical industry.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, performed by a medical oncologist. Thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive codes.

SETTING

Given the evidence on industry influences on clinical practice and the importance to the market of oncology drugs, we sought to better understand cancer physicians' experiences. Practising consultant medical oncologists and clinical haematologists from four Australian states were interviewed over Zoom.

PARTICIPANTS

16 cancer physicians were interviewed between November 2021 and March 2022, from 37 invited (response rate 43%). Most were medical oncologists (n=12 of 16, 75%) and male (n=9 of 16, 56%).

OUTCOME MEASURES

The analysis of all interviews was based on grounded theory. Transcripts were coded and then codes formed into themes with supporting quotes. The themes were then placed into categories, used to describe the broad areas into which the themes could be grouped.

RESULTS

Six themes were identified that fell within two broad categories: cancer physicians' views and experiences of interactions and management of these interactions. Views and experiences included: the transactional nature of relationships, risks of research dependence, ethical challenges and varied attitudes based on interaction type. Management themes included: lack of useful guidance and reduced interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These led to an overarching seventh theme, on the desire for a 'middle road'. Cancer physicians identified the transactional nature of industry relationships and felt uncomfortable with several types of interactions, including those with sales representatives. Most wanted less contact with industry, and the forced separation that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic was generally welcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer physicians may have difficulty balancing the perceived need to interact with industry in modern cancer care while maintaining distance to minimise conflicts of interest. Further research is needed to assess management strategies in this area.

Understanding common key indicators of successful and unsuccessful cancer drug trials using a contrast mining framework on ClinicalTrials.gov

Clinical trials are essential to the process of new drug development. As clinical trials involve significant investments of time and money, it is crucial for trial designers to carefully investigate trial settings prior to designing a trial. Utilizing trial documents from ClinicalTrials.gov, we aim to understand the common characteristics of successful and unsuccessful cancer drug trials to provide insights about what to learn and what to avoid. In this research, we first computationally classified cancer drug trials into successful and unsuccessful cases and then utilized natural language processing to extract eligibility criteria information from the trial documents. To provide explainable and potentially modifiable recommendations for new trial design, contrast mining was applied to discoverhighly contrasted patterns with a significant difference in prevalence between successful (completion with advancement to the next phase) and unsuccessful (suspended, withdrawn, or terminated) groups. Our method identified contrast patterns consisting of combinations of drug categories, eligibility criteria, study organization, and study design for nine major cancers. In addition to a literature review for the qualitative validation of mined contrast patterns, we found that contrast-pattern-based classifiers using the top 200 contrast patterns as feature representations can achieve approximately 80% F₁ score for eight out of ten cancer types in our experiments. In summary, aligning with the modernization efforts of ClinicalTrials.gov, our study demonstrates that understanding the contrast characteristics of successful and unsuccessful cancer trials may provide insights into the decision-making process for trial investigators and therefore facilitate improved cancer drug trial design.

The Invisible Hand of Industry

Over the last decades, federal funding for medical research has decreased, while industry funding has increased. The majority of clinical trials are now industry funded. Involvement of industry raises documented concerns of reporting and publication bias, data suppression, and conclusions that may more favorably align with funder motivations rather than study results. However, industry involvement may also lead to scientific innovation, efficiency, and a more rapid timeline to bring new developments to patients. Through a careful review of a manuscript, the reader can understand the nature of industry involvement and interpret the results in this context.

Industry Funding of Oncology Randomised Controlled Trials: Implications for Design, Results and Interpretation

AIMS

Most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology are now funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We explore the extent to which RCT design, results and interpretation differ between industry-funded and non-industry-funded RCTs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional analysis, a structured literature search was used to identify all oncology RCTs published globally during 2014-2017. Industry funding was identified based on explicit statements in the publication. Descriptive statistics were used to compare elements of trial methodology and output between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs.

RESULTS

The study sample included 694 RCTs; 71% were funded by industry. Industry-funded trials were more likely to test systemic therapy (97% versus 62%; P < 0.001), palliative-intent therapy (71% versus 41%; P < 0.001) and study breast cancer (20% versus 12%; P < 0.001). Industry-funded trials were larger (median sample size 474 versus 375; P < 0.001) and more likely to meet their primary end point (49% versus 41%; P < 0.001). Among positive trials, there were no differences in the magnitude of benefit between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs. Trials funded by industry were published in journals that had a significantly higher median impact factor (21, interquartile range 7, 28) than non-industry-funded trials (impact factor 12, interquartile range 5, 24; P = 0.005); this persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of oncology RCTs are now funded by industry. Industry-funded trials are larger, more likely to be positive, predominantly test systemic therapies in the palliative setting and are published in higher impact journals than trials without industry support.

A History of Anti-VEGF Inhibitors in the Ophthalmic Literature: A Bibliographic Review

Purpose:

This work aimed to analyze the 100 most-cited articles on antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) inhibitors.

Methods:

A literature search for anti-VEGF inhibitors using the Web of Science was completed using the bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed literature published in Ophthalmology, the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, and Lancet. Primary outcomes were the most frequently cited articles and journals with the most citations as well as the specific drug and disease process studied.

Results:

There were 42 696 cumulative citations among the top 100 articles. The articles were published between 2004 to 2016, with most articles published in 2006. Ophthalmology published the greatest number of articles among the top 100 at 48, whereas the New England Journal of Medicine has the most citations per publication at 1714. Ranibizumab was the medication researched in most articles at 56, followed by bevacizumab at 48, aflibercept at 10, and pegaptanib at 9. Forty-two articles investigated treatment of age-related macular degeneration, followed by 24 investigating diabetic macular edema, 10 for retinal vein occlusion, 8 for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 2 for retinopathy of prematurity and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy, and 1 for corneal neovascularization.

Conclusions:

As evidenced by the considerable number of citations accumulated over the past 20 years, anti-VEGF inhibitors have led to significant research in ophthalmology.

Evolution of the Randomized Clinical Trial in the Era of Precision Oncology

IMPORTANCE

The randomized clinical trial (RCT) in oncology has evolved since its widespread adoption in the 1970s. In recent years, concerns have emerged regarding the use of putative surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), and marginal effect sizes.

OBJECTIVE

To describe contemporary trends in oncology RCTs and compare these findings with earlier eras of RCT design and output.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of systemic therapy RCTs in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer published in 7 major journals between 2010 and 2020. This strategy replicates prior work and allows for comparison of trends with RCTs published between 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Data on RCT design, funding, results, and reporting were extracted from the published RCT report. Findings from the current period (2010-2020) were compared with data from RCTs published from 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to analyze temporal trends.

RESULTS

The cohort included 298 RCTs (132 [44%] breast, 111 [37%] non-small cell lung cancer, 55 [19%] colorectal cancer). Experimental treatment included molecular inhibitor (171 of 298 [57%]), cytotoxic (83 of 298 [28%]), hormone (15 of 298 [5%]), and immune (24 of 298 [8%]) therapies. Sixty-nine percent (206 of 298) of RCTs were of palliative intent. The most common primary end point is now PFS; this has increased substantially over time (from 0% [0 of 167] to 18% [25 of 137] to 42% [125 of 298]; P < .001). Of 298 RCTs, 265 (89%) are now funded by industry (previously 95 of 167 [57%] and 107 of 137 [78%]; P < .001). Fifty-eight percent (173 of 298) of trials met their primary end point. Among positive trials, median improvement in overall survival and PFS was 3.4 and 2.9 months, respectively. More than one-third (117 of 298 [39%]) of reports used a professional medical writer; this increased substantially during the study period (from 3 of 27 [11%] in 2010 to 12 of 18 [67%] in 2020; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study suggests that contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate end points and are almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The increasing role of medical writers warrants attention. To demonstrate that new cancer treatments are high value, the oncology community needs to consider the extent to which study end points and target effect size provide meaningful benefit to patients.

The disclosure slide-Informative or obligatory, 5 years of SSO Cancer Symposium oral presentations

BACKGROUND

Financial disclosure (FD) highlights potential conflicts of interest but is often overlooked at academic conferences.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 2015-2019 Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Symposium oral presentation slide and/or verbal FD frequency, duration, and content.

RESULTS

Of 963 presentations, 331 (34%) omitted disclosure slide/verbalization. 575 (60%) included a slide, 551 (57%) gave verbal disclosure and 133 (14%) stated relevance. 164 presentations (17%) cited 1 + FD. 2019 had greater median FDs/talk than 2015-2018 (3.50 vs. 2.00; p = .010). Compared to 2015-2018, 2019 yielded shorter median slide display of all disclosures (2.00 s vs. 2.47 s; p = .006), median 1 + FD display (3.37 s vs. 4.81 s; p = .04) and median 1 + FD verbalization (2.81 s vs. 3.66 s; p = .54). 2019 all disclosure verbalization increased (1.97 s vs. 1.14 s; p < .001). Multivariable modeling showed longer display with 2015-2018 (+1.3 s, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.06 to 2.5 s, p = .04), <4 authors (+3.2 s, 95% CI: 2.1-4.3 s; p < .001) and longer verbalization with 2019 (+0.8 s, 95% CI: 0.2-1.4 s; p = .01), relevance (+1.0 s, 95% CI: 0.4-1.6 s; p = .002), ≤ 4 authors (+0.8 s, 95% CI: 0.3-1.3 s, p < .001) and noncommercial FD (+3.8 s, 95% CI: 2.0-5.0 s; p < .001). The five most cited commercial entities were in 39% of talks.

CONCLUSION

Presenters' FDs were brief or omitted. Despite FD increase, disclosure time decreased. Improved FD attention will highlight potential COIs.

Self-reported Financial Conflict of Interest in Nephrology Clinical Practice Guidelines

INTRODUCTION

There is ongoing controversy concerning the potential influence of industry and financial conflict of interest (FCOI) in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). The influence of industry in renal guideline development has been discussed in the past with emphasis on the National Kidney foundation (NKF) and Kidney and Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines. In this study we evaluate the self-reported FCOI among guideline panel members in Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CPGs.

METHODS

We examined 10 of the most recent KDIGO CPGs developed between 2009 and 2018. Using disclosure lists, we catalogued FCOIs for panelists for each individual CPG. The categories were Advisor/Consultant, Honoraria, Travel Stipend, Grant/Research Support, Speaker, Equity Interest, Employee, Board of Trustees, Royalties, Advisory Board, Employment, Ownership, Data Monitoring Committee, Expert Testimony, and Development of Education Materials. We also reviewed FCOIs for members of evidence review team (ERT). We also catalogued the company involved in each disclosure. One conflict describes 1 instance of participation of an individual in 1 category in each guideline. "Company" describes a commercial, industry, or institute affiliation reported in each episode.

RESULTS

One hundred two (66.4%) of the total 151 panelists reported FCOI. A total of 662 conflicts were disclosed. Being a consultant or advisor was the most common category. One hundred fifty-one companies were associated with FCOI disclosure. One company was most frequently reported, involving 60 (9%) of 662 conflicts. Of the 52 members in the ERT, there was 1 instance of FCOI.

CONCLUSION

FCOI is prevalent in KDIGO guidelines with almost two thirds of the panelists self-reporting FCOI. The evidence review team had only 1 instance of FCOI.

Financial conflicts of interest among National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guideline panelists in 2019

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evidence-based guidelines that serve as a standard of care in oncology practice, reimbursements, and quality improvement initiatives. To our knowledge, the extent of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines have not been systemically evaluated. The current study evaluated the extent of FCOIs in the NCCN CPGs for the most common malignancies in the United States.

METHODS

The authors examined the latest 2019 versions of the NCCN CPGs for the 10 most common cancers by incidence in the United States. Using disclosure lists, they catalogued the FCOIs for the panelists under various categories outlined in the CPG. The authors also tabulated the companies and institutions involved in each panel disclosure. An "episode" describes 1 instance of participation of a panelist in 1 company in 1 category of each guideline. "Affiliation" describes an industrial, commercial, or institutional affiliation reported by a panelist in each episode.

RESULTS

Of the 491 panelists on the CPG panel, 483 (98.3%) completed FCOI disclosures. A total of 224 (46.4%) reported at least 1 FCOI episode. A total of 1103 episodes were disclosed with an average of 4.9 episodes reported per panelist with FCOIs. Acting as part of scientific advisory boards, as a consultant, or as an expert witness was the most common FCOI category (19.9%). A total of 191 companies were associated with 1103 episodes of FCOI. The top companies were Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, and AstraZeneca. Among cancers, the prevalence of FCOIs was highest for lung cancer (56%), bladder cancer (52%), pancreatic cancer (52%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (50%), kidney cancer (49%), colorectal cancer (43%), breast cancer (42%), melanoma (40%), prostate cancer (38%), and uterine cancer (32%). Among the panelists with FCOIs, 26%, 17%, and 57%, respectively, reported 1, 2, and >3 episodes. There were 127 episodes noted among the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs who reported FCOIs (mean, 6.4 episodes). The chairs and/or vice chairs of CPGs for uterine cancer, pancreatic cancer, melanoma, and prostate cancer were not found to have any FCOIs.

CONCLUSIONS

FCOIs are very prevalent among NCCN CPG panelists. In nearly one-half of the CPGs, the majority of the panelists had at least 1 FCOI. Greater than one-half of the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs reported multiple FCOIs. Further research studies are necessary to determine the impact of these FCOIs.

Pro-Con Perspectives on Ethics in Surgical Research: Update from the 39th Annual Surgical Infection Society Meeting

Background: Surgical research is potentially invasive, high-risk, and costly. Research that advances medical dogma must justify both its ends and its means. Although ethical questions do not always have simple answers, it is critically important for the clinician, researcher, and patient to approach these dilemmas and surgical research in a thoughtful, conscientious manner. Methods: We present four ethical issues in surgical research and discuss the opposing viewpoints. These topics were presented and discussed at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society as pro-con debates. The presenters of each opinion developed a succinct summary of their respective reviews for this publication. Results: The key subjects for these pro-con debates were: (1) Should patients be enrolled for time-sensitive surgical infection research using an opt-out or an opt-in strategy? (2) Should patients who are being enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing surgery with a non-operative intervention pay the costs of their treatment arm? (3) Should the scientific community embrace open access journals as the future of scientific publishing? (4) Should the majority of funding go to clinical or basic science research? Important points were illustrated in each of the pro-con presentations and illustrated the difficulties that are facing the performance and payment of infection research in the future. Conclusions: Surgical research is ethically complex, with conflicting demands between individual patients, society, and healthcare economics. At present, there are no clear answers to these and the many other ethical issues facing research in the future. Answers will only come from continued robust dialogue among all stakeholders in surgical research.

Role of industry funders in oncology RCTs published in high-impact journals and its association with trial conclusions and time to publication

Background

Previous studies have shown that industry funded trials are associated with pro-industry conclusions and publication bias. Less is known about the role of industry funders and their influence on trial conclusions and time to publication.

Methods

We identified all industry funded RCTs published in six high-impact clinical journals between 2014 and 2016 to estimate the prevalence of the role of industry funders in trial design, data collection, data analyses, data interpretation and manuscript writing. Ordinal logistic regression was used to assess the association between the role of industry funders and trial conclusions, which was classified on a five-point scale. Cox proportional-hazards were used to examine the effect of role of funder on time to publication.

Results

Of the 255 eligible RCTs, industry funders had a role in trial design in 179 (70.2%) trials, data collection in 160 (62.7%) trials, data analyses in 173 (67.8%) trials, data interpretation in 135 (52.9%) trials and manuscript writing in 168 (65.9%) trials. Trials with any role of industry funders had 3.6 times (95% CI 2.0-6.6) higher odds of having positive conclusions compared with those without role of industry funders. In trials with any role of industry funders, positive trials were published more rapidly than negative trials (hazard ratio = 4.3; 95% CI 2.7-6.7, P < 0.001), while for trials without role of industry funders, there was no association (hazard ratio = 1.07; 95% CI 0.57-1.99, P = 0.84).

Conclusion

The involvement of industry funders is common in all stages of clinical trials and was associated with more positive conclusions and more rapid publication of RCTs with positive results.

The commercialization of the biomedical sciences: (mis)understanding bias

The growing commercialization of scientific research has raised important concerns about industry bias. According to some evidence, so-called industry bias can affect the integrity of the science as well as the direction of the research agenda. I argue that conceptualizing industry's influence in scientific research in terms of bias is unhelpful. Insofar as industry sponsorship negatively affects the integrity of the research, it does so through biasing mechanisms that can affect any research independently of the source of funding. Talk about industry bias thus offers no insight into the particular epistemic shortcomings at stake. If the concern is with the negative effects that industry funding can have on the research agenda, conceptualizing this influence as bias obscures the ways in which such impact is problematic and limits our ability to offer solutions that can successfully address the concerns raised by the growing role of private funding in science.

Randomised controlled trials as part of clinical care: A seven-step routinisation framework proposal

Evidence translation in wound care relies on the need for evidence generation. Clinical practice may generate evidence only if evidence-generating research projects, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), became routinised in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to identify optimal trial-related practices to routinise trial-related activities in Melbourne-located wound clinics as reported by clinicians and researchers. We conducted a secondary analysis of the available data on how to routinise RCTs in clinical care, with a focus on enablers and suggestions provided by the participants during face-to-face and telephone interviews. Data were obtained from a qualitative observational study nested within a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial on clinical effectiveness of aspirin as an adjunct to compression therapy in healing chronic venous leg ulcers (ASPiVLU). We developed a seven-step Routinisation of Trials in Clinical Care Framework. These steps include: (1) pre-trial clinical site assessment, (2) optimising pre-recruitment arrangements, (3) developing and updating trial-related skills, (4) embedding RCT recruitment as part of routine clinical care, (5) promoting teamwork and trial-related collaboration, (6) addressing trial-related financial issues, and (7) communicating trial results to clinicians.

Meaningful and Accurate Disclosure of Conflict of Interest at the ASTRO National Meeting: A Need for Reassessment of Current Policies

PURPOSE:

Conflict of interest (COI) disclosure is essential to research integrity. The average reading comprehension in English is 3.8 words per second (wps). This study examines presenters at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) national meeting over a recent 3-year period to determine whether disclosure is presented accurately and in a manner that allows the audience to comprehend the content.

METHODS:

We examined videos of presentations as well as slides from 2014 to 2016 from the ASTRO virtual meeting, noting whether a COI slide was presented, the duration the slide was visible, and the number of disclosures. Disclosures were cross-referenced for discrepancies with the publicly reported Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Using a cutoff of 4 wps, we noted how many presentations were presented at speeds of ≤ 4 wps and > 4 wps.

RESULTS:

The final data set consisted of 401 presentations delivered by 364 presenters. Using a threshold of 4 wps, 34.0% of presenters had COI slides shown too fast for the average audience to comprehend. Moreover, 16.3% of US physicians incorrectly underreported industry funding received. Of these presentations with discrepancies, 32.6% did not have a COI slide, 39.5% failed to disclose any COI, 27.9% partially disclosed COIs, and 11.6% contained multiple discrepancies. The number of wps were correlated with having a discrepancy on multivariable regression ( P = .046; odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.19).

CONCLUSION:

A substantial minority of presentations at ASTRO lack meaningful disclosure, and a surprising number incorrectly reported COIs. Additional guidance may be needed to promote more meaningful and accurate disclosure of COIs at major national meetings in oncology.

Pharmacovigilance in oncology

Background Side effects of cancer therapy are one of the most important issues faced by cancer patients during their illness. Pharmacovigilance, namely the science and activities aimed at monitoring the safety of drugs, is particularly important in oncology, due to the intrinsic biologic toxicity of antineoplastic agents, their narrow therapeutic windows, and the high doses and rigid timing of treatment regimens. Aim of the review To identify the main issues in carrying out an effective pharmacovigilance activity in oncology. Method We searched PubMed for articles about pharmacovigilance in relation to chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted therapy for cancer, using MeSH terms and text words. We also searched Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Micromedex, the Cochrane Library, two pharmacovigilance databases and the gray literature for articles published in 2012-2018. Overall, 137 articles were considered potentially relevant and were critically appraised independently by two authors, leading to the inclusion of 44 relevant studies, guidelines and reviews. Another 10 important research reports were included in the review. Results Eight critical issues of pharmacovigilance in oncology were identified. These issues pertain to: terminology; range of side effects; targeted therapy and immunotherapy; chemoradiotherapy; generic drugs and biosimilars; drug interactions, pharmacogenetics and polypharmacy; special patient categories; and under-reporting of ADRs. Conclusion The importance of pharmacovigilance in oncology must be highlighted with every effort, to improve safety and offer cancer patients every possible help to improve their quality of life during such a critical period of their lives.

Role of cooperative groups and funding source in clinical trials supporting guidelines for systemic therapy of breast cancer

Introduction

Clinical research is conducted by academia, cooperative groups (CGs) or pharmaceutical industry. Here, we evaluate the role of CGs and funding sources in the development of guidelines for breast cancer therapies.

Results

We identified 94 studies. CGs were involved in 28 (30%) studies while industry either partially or fully sponsored 64 (68%) studies. The number of industry funded studies increased over time (from 0% in 1976 to 100% in 2014; p for trend = 0.048). Only 10 (11%) government or academic studies were identified. Studies conducted by GCs included a greater number of subjects (median 448 vs. 284; p = 0.015), were more common in the neo/adjuvant setting (p < 0.0001), and were more often randomized (p = 0.018) phase III (p < 0.0001) trials. Phase III trial remained significant predictor for CG-sponsored trials (OR 7.1 p = 0.004) in a multivariable analysis. Industry funding was associated with higher likelihood of positive outcomes favoring the sponsored experimental arm (p = 0.013) but this relationship was not seen for CG-sponsored trials (p = 0.53).

Materials and Methods

ASCO, ESMO, and NCCN guidelines were searched to identify systemic anti-cancer therapies for early-stage and metastatic breast cancer. Trial characteristics and outcomes were collected. We identified sponsors and/or the funding source(s) and determined whether CGs, industry, or government or academic institutions were involved. Chi-square tests were used for comparison between studies.

Conclusions

Industry funding is present in the majority of studies providing the basis for which recommendations about treatment of breast cancer are made. Industry funding, but not CG-based funding, was associated with higher likelihood of positive outcomes in clinical studies supporting guidelines for systemic therapy.