Characterization of industry relationships in oncology.
clinical trials
collaboration
conflicts of interest
pharmaceutical industry
protocol development
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 09 2023
15 09 2023
Historique:
revised:
08
04
2023
received:
27
01
2023
accepted:
17
04
2023
medline:
21
8
2023
pubmed:
25
5
2023
entrez:
25
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Collaborative relationships between academic oncology and industry (pharmaceutical, biotechnology, "omic," and medical device companies) are essential for therapeutic development in oncology; however, limited research on engagement in and perceptions of these relationships has been done. Survey questions were developed to evaluate relationships between academic oncology and industry. An electronic survey was delivered to 1000 randomly selected members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a professional organization for oncologists, eliciting respondents' views around oncology-industry collaborations. The responses were analyzed according to prespecified plans. There were 225 survey respondents. Most were from the United States (70.0%), worked at an academic institution (60.1%), worked in medical oncology (81.2%), and had an active relationship with industry (85.8%). One quarter (26.7%) of respondents reported difficulty establishing a relationship with industry collaborators, and most respondents (75%) did not report having had mentorship in developing these relationships. The majority (85.3%) of respondents considered these collaborations important to their careers. Respondents generally thought that scientific integrity was preserved (92%), and most respondents (95%) had little concern over the quality of the collaborative product. Many (60%) shared concerns over potential conflict of interest if an individual with a compensated relationship promoted an industry product for clinical care/research, yet most respondents (67%) stated these relationships did not shape their interactions with patients. This study provides novel data characterizing the nature of collaborative relationships between clinicians, researchers, and industry in oncology. Although respondents considered these collaborations an important part of clinical and academic oncology, formal education or mentorship around these relationships was rare. Conflicting findings around conflict of interest highlight the importance of more dedicated research in this area. Business enterprises in health care play a central role in cancer research and care, driving the development of new medical testing, drugs, and devices. Effective working relationships among clinicians, researchers, and these industry partners can promote innovative research and enhance patient care. Study of these collaborations has been limited to date. Through distribution of a questionnaire to cancer clinicians and researchers, we found that most participants consider these relationships valuable, though they find establishing such relationships challenging partly because of gaps in educational programs in this area. Our findings also highlight the need for further policy around the potential bias these relationships can introduce.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Collaborative relationships between academic oncology and industry (pharmaceutical, biotechnology, "omic," and medical device companies) are essential for therapeutic development in oncology; however, limited research on engagement in and perceptions of these relationships has been done.
METHODS
Survey questions were developed to evaluate relationships between academic oncology and industry. An electronic survey was delivered to 1000 randomly selected members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a professional organization for oncologists, eliciting respondents' views around oncology-industry collaborations. The responses were analyzed according to prespecified plans.
RESULTS
There were 225 survey respondents. Most were from the United States (70.0%), worked at an academic institution (60.1%), worked in medical oncology (81.2%), and had an active relationship with industry (85.8%). One quarter (26.7%) of respondents reported difficulty establishing a relationship with industry collaborators, and most respondents (75%) did not report having had mentorship in developing these relationships. The majority (85.3%) of respondents considered these collaborations important to their careers. Respondents generally thought that scientific integrity was preserved (92%), and most respondents (95%) had little concern over the quality of the collaborative product. Many (60%) shared concerns over potential conflict of interest if an individual with a compensated relationship promoted an industry product for clinical care/research, yet most respondents (67%) stated these relationships did not shape their interactions with patients.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides novel data characterizing the nature of collaborative relationships between clinicians, researchers, and industry in oncology. Although respondents considered these collaborations an important part of clinical and academic oncology, formal education or mentorship around these relationships was rare. Conflicting findings around conflict of interest highlight the importance of more dedicated research in this area.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Business enterprises in health care play a central role in cancer research and care, driving the development of new medical testing, drugs, and devices. Effective working relationships among clinicians, researchers, and these industry partners can promote innovative research and enhance patient care. Study of these collaborations has been limited to date. Through distribution of a questionnaire to cancer clinicians and researchers, we found that most participants consider these relationships valuable, though they find establishing such relationships challenging partly because of gaps in educational programs in this area. Our findings also highlight the need for further policy around the potential bias these relationships can introduce.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2848-2855Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023 American Cancer Society.
Références
Riechelmann RP, Wang L, O'Carroll A, Krzyzanowska MK. Disclosure of conflicts of interest by authors of clinical trials and editorials in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(29):4642-4647. doi:10.1200/jco.2007.11.2482
Moses H, 3rd, Matheson DHM, Cairns-Smith S, George BP, Palisch C, Dorsey ER. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA. 2015;313(2):174-189. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.15939
Marshall DC, Moy B, Jackson ME, Mackey TK, Hattangadi-Gluth JA. Distribution and patterns of industry-related payments to oncologists in 2014. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(12):djw163. doi:10.1093/jnci/djw163
Wright K, Meyers DE, Chisamore TM, et al. Industry relationships with medical oncologists: who are the high-payment physicians? JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18(7):e1164-e1169. doi:10.1200/op.21.00756
Stahel RA, Lacombe D, Cardoso F, et al. Current models, challenges and best practices for work conducted between European academic cooperative groups and industry. ESMO Open. 2020;5(2):e000628. doi:10.1136/esmoopen-2019-000628
Ehrismann D, Patel D. University-industry collaborations: models, drivers and cultures. Swiss Med Wkly. 2015;145:w14086. doi:10.4414/smw.2015.14086
El-Hussuna A, Tolani MA. Current status and future perspectives of collaboration in surgical research: a Scoping review of the evidence. Surgery. 2021;170(3):748-755. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2021.04.031
Bowersox NW, Williams V, Kawentel L, Kilbourne AM. Sustaining effective research/operational collaborations: lessons learned from a National Partnered Evaluation Initiative. Healthc (Amst). 2021;9(4):100588. doi:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100588
Whiting C, Cavers S, Bassendowski S, Petrucka P. Using two-eyed seeing to explore interagency collaboration. Can J Nurs Res. 2018;50(3):133-144. doi:10.1177/0844562118766176
Society for NeuroOncology. 2022. Accessed May 16. 2023.https://www.soc-neuro-onc.org/WEB/WEB/About.aspx
Barrett NJ, Boehmer L, Schrag J, et al. An assessment of the feasibility and utility of an ACCC-ASCO implicit bias training program to enhance racial and ethnic diversity in cancer clinical trials. JCO Oncol Pract. 2023;19(4):Op2200378-e580. doi:10.1200/op.22.00378
Greenlee RT, Goodman MT, Lynch CF, Platz CE, Havener LA, Howe HL. The occurrence of rare cancers in U.S. adults, 1995-2004. Public Health Rep. 2010;125(1):28-43. doi:10.1177/003335491012500106
Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Trama A, Martínez-García C; RARECARE Working Group. The burden of rare cancers in Europe. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:285-303.
Kawai A, Goto T, Shibata T, et al. Current state of therapeutic development for rare cancers in Japan, and proposals for improvement. Cancer Sci. 2018;109(5):1731-1737. doi:10.1111/cas.13568
Boothby A, Wang R, Cetnar J, Prasad V. Effect of the American Society of Clinical Oncology's conflict of interest policy on information overload. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(12):1653-1654. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2706
Mitchell AP, Basch EM, Dusetzina SB. Financial relationships with industry among National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline authors. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(12):1628-1631. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2710
Mitchell AP, Mishra AA, Dey P, et al. The association between drug industry payments and NCCN guideline panel membership. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(15_Suppl l):2068. doi:10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.2068
Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2(2):Mr000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000033.pub3
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289(4):454-465. doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.454
FitzGerald C, Hurst S. Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):19. doi:10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8
Hall WJ, Chapman MV, Lee KM, et al. Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Publ Health. 2015;105(12):e60-e76. doi:10.2105/ajph.2015.302903a
Gopal DP, Chetty U, O'Donnell P, Gajria C, Blackadder-Weinstein J. Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making. Future Healthc J. 2021;8(1):40-48. doi:10.7861/fhj.2020-0233