Trends in Disclosures of Industry Sponsorship
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida (United States)
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas (United States)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California (United States)
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland (United States)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (United States)
Purpose: To examine trends in the reporting of industry funding of oncology trials by primary therapeutic intervention studied: local, targeted, or nontargeted systemic. Methods and Materials: We reviewed oncologic trials published in 10 journals for the years 1994, 2004, and 2014 to determine the frequency of declarations of industry funding for cancer research. Logistic modeling was used to assess associations between reported industry funding and investigation characteristics, such as type of primary intervention, cancer site, study endpoint, number of participants, geographic location of corresponding author, journal impact factor, trial phase, and year of publication. Results: Reporting of industry funding increased over time (odds ratio [OR] 6.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.82-12.35). Compared with systemic trials, those investigating local therapies were less likely to report industry funding (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.14-0.15), whereas studies examining targeted interventions were more likely to report industry funding (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.38-3.66). Studies investigating gynecologic (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.15-0.88) and pediatric cancers (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02-0.27) were less likely to report funding by industry when compared with hematologic cancers. Phase 2 (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.52) and phase 3 (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.37) studies were less likely to report industry funding than phase 1 studies. Trials investigating interventions for metastatic disease (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.73-3.79) were more likely to have reported industry funding compared with studies examining the primary/definitive disease setting. Conclusion: Industry funding was reported in more than one-third of oncology trials examined in this study, and the proportion of trials reporting industry funding increased over time. The potential ramifications for these patterns of funding for the future direction of cancer research should be examined, especially given the disproportionate distribution of industry funding among therapeutic intentions, cancer types, and treatment modalities.
- OSTI ID:
- 22648724
- Journal Information:
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 95, Issue 4; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0360-3016
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Changes in the American Interventional Radiology Literature: Comparison over a 10-Year Time Period
The Clinical Development of Molecularly Targeted Agents in Combination With Radiation Therapy: A Pharmaceutical Perspective