Global Landscape of the Attack of Predatory Journals in Oncology

PURPOSE

Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

FGFR Pathway Inhibition in Gastric Cancer: The Golden Era of an Old Target?

Gastric cancer (GC) is the third leading cause of cancer-associated death worldwide. The majority of patients are diagnosed at an advanced/metastatic stage of disease due to a lack of specific symptoms and lack of screening programs, especially in Western countries. Thus, despite the improvement in GC therapeutic opportunities, the survival is disappointing, and the definition of the optimal treatment is still an unmet need. Novel diagnostic techniques were developed in clinical trials in order to characterize the genetic profile of GCs and new potential molecular pathways, such as the Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor (FGFR) pathway, were identified in order to improve patient's survival by using target therapies. The aim of this review is to summarize the role and the impact of FGFR signaling in GC and to provide an overview regarding the potential effectiveness of anti-FGFR agents in GC treatment in the context of precision medicine.

Impact of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy in Patients With Male Breast Cancer: A Multicenter International Analysis

Purpose

Breast cancer in men accounts for approximately 1% of all breast cancers. Breast cancer trials have routinely excluded men. The aim of this analysis was to determine the effect of different treatment factors, in particular, postoperative radiation therapy (RT) on long-term outcomes.

Methods and Materials

Seventy-one patients with male breast cancer treated in 5 closely cooperating institutions between 2003 and 2019 were analyzed.

Results

Almost all patients (95%) underwent surgical resection. Forty-two patients (59%) received chemotherapy, and 59 (83%) received adjuvant hormonal therapy. Of the 71 patients, 52 (73%) were treated with RT. The rate of recurrence was 20% in the whole cohort, with a locoregional recurrence rate of 3%. In the entire group, the 5-year local control (LC) was 95%, whereas 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) were 62% and 96%, respectively. There was a lower rate of relapses after adjuvant RT (19% vs 32%, P = .05) without in-field relapse after postoperative RT (0%) versus 10% in patients without RT (P = .02). In the multivariate analysis performed, hormonal therapy administration was found to have a possible significant effect on LC and PFS. Administration of adjuvant RT and stage affect PFS. In patients who received RT, there were no grade 3 or 4 acute toxicities.

Conclusions

Adjuvant RT is an effective and safe treatment for male breast cancer patients with no infield relapses and better PFS. Hormonal therapy administration was found to have a possible effect on LC and PFS.