Trends in Disclosures of Industry Sponsorship

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 fre...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics biology, physics, 2016-07, Vol.95 (4), p.1093-1101
Hauptverfasser: Ahmed, Awad A., MD, Holliday, Emma B., MD, Fakhreddine, Mohamad, MD, Yoo, Stella K., MD, Deville, Curtiland, MD, Jagsi, Reshma, MD, DPhil
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1101
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1093
container_title International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
container_volume 95
creator Ahmed, Awad A., MD
Holliday, Emma B., MD
Fakhreddine, Mohamad, MD
Yoo, Stella K., MD
Deville, Curtiland, MD
Jagsi, Reshma, MD, DPhil
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.061
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_osti_scitechconnect_22648724</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0360301616002303</els_id><sourcerecordid>1800705017</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-b0e94e86c16332066a58ec0fa54955592110169c4abf4ab1417b21c3ca503cbb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtr3TAQhUVpaW6T_oNSDN10Y3f08mNTKOkrEOgiCXQnbHlM5PpKrsYO3H9fGadddJOFEELnzJz5hrE3HAoOvPwwFm6MoZsLkV4FiAJK_owdeF01udT653N2AFlCLtP3GXtFNAIA55V6yc5ExSVUjT6w_Dai7ylzPvvsyE6B1oiUhSG78v1KSzxlN3PwFCLdu_mCvRjaifD1433O7r5-ub38nl__-HZ1-ek6t0rpJe8AG4V1aXkppYCybHWNFoZWq0Zr3Qi-TdBY1XZDOlzxqhPcSttqkLbr5Dl7t9cNtDhD1i1o723wHu1ihChVXQmVVO931RzD7xVpMcc0Ak5T6zGsZHgNUIEGXiWp2qU2BqKIg5mjO7bxZDiYLYwZzY7TbDgNCJNwJtvbxw5rd8T-n-kvvyT4uAsw0XhwGLew6C32Lm5Z--Ce6vB_ATs572w7_cIT0hjW6BNpww0lg7nZVrptlJcAQoKUfwBSvZqE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1800705017</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Trends in Disclosures of Industry Sponsorship</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ahmed, Awad A., MD ; Holliday, Emma B., MD ; Fakhreddine, Mohamad, MD ; Yoo, Stella K., MD ; Deville, Curtiland, MD ; Jagsi, Reshma, MD, DPhil</creator><creatorcontrib>Ahmed, Awad A., MD ; Holliday, Emma B., MD ; Fakhreddine, Mohamad, MD ; Yoo, Stella K., MD ; Deville, Curtiland, MD ; Jagsi, Reshma, MD, DPhil</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0360-3016</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-355X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.061</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27130795</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Bibliometrics ; Clinical Trials as Topic - economics ; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS ; Disclosure ; Drug Industry - economics ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; Humans ; METASTASES ; NEOPLASMS ; Neoplasms - drug therapy ; PEDIATRICS ; Radiology ; RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE ; REVIEWS ; SIMULATION ; THERAPY</subject><ispartof>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2016-07, Vol.95 (4), p.1093-1101</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-b0e94e86c16332066a58ec0fa54955592110169c4abf4ab1417b21c3ca503cbb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-b0e94e86c16332066a58ec0fa54955592110169c4abf4ab1417b21c3ca503cbb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360301616002303$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27130795$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/22648724$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ahmed, Awad A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holliday, Emma B., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fakhreddine, Mohamad, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoo, Stella K., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deville, Curtiland, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jagsi, Reshma, MD, DPhil</creatorcontrib><title>Trends in Disclosures of Industry Sponsorship</title><title>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics</title><addtitle>Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic - economics</subject><subject>COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS</subject><subject>Disclosure</subject><subject>Drug Industry - economics</subject><subject>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>METASTASES</subject><subject>NEOPLASMS</subject><subject>Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>PEDIATRICS</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</subject><subject>REVIEWS</subject><subject>SIMULATION</subject><subject>THERAPY</subject><issn>0360-3016</issn><issn>1879-355X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtr3TAQhUVpaW6T_oNSDN10Y3f08mNTKOkrEOgiCXQnbHlM5PpKrsYO3H9fGadddJOFEELnzJz5hrE3HAoOvPwwFm6MoZsLkV4FiAJK_owdeF01udT653N2AFlCLtP3GXtFNAIA55V6yc5ExSVUjT6w_Dai7ylzPvvsyE6B1oiUhSG78v1KSzxlN3PwFCLdu_mCvRjaifD1433O7r5-ub38nl__-HZ1-ek6t0rpJe8AG4V1aXkppYCybHWNFoZWq0Zr3Qi-TdBY1XZDOlzxqhPcSttqkLbr5Dl7t9cNtDhD1i1o723wHu1ihChVXQmVVO931RzD7xVpMcc0Ak5T6zGsZHgNUIEGXiWp2qU2BqKIg5mjO7bxZDiYLYwZzY7TbDgNCJNwJtvbxw5rd8T-n-kvvyT4uAsw0XhwGLew6C32Lm5Z--Ce6vB_ATs572w7_cIT0hjW6BNpww0lg7nZVrptlJcAQoKUfwBSvZqE</recordid><startdate>20160715</startdate><enddate>20160715</enddate><creator>Ahmed, Awad A., MD</creator><creator>Holliday, Emma B., MD</creator><creator>Fakhreddine, Mohamad, MD</creator><creator>Yoo, Stella K., MD</creator><creator>Deville, Curtiland, MD</creator><creator>Jagsi, Reshma, MD, DPhil</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160715</creationdate><title>Trends in Disclosures of Industry Sponsorship</title><author>Ahmed, Awad A., MD ; Holliday, Emma B., MD ; Fakhreddine, Mohamad, MD ; Yoo, Stella K., MD ; Deville, Curtiland, MD ; Jagsi, Reshma, MD, DPhil</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-b0e94e86c16332066a58ec0fa54955592110169c4abf4ab1417b21c3ca503cbb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic - economics</topic><topic>COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS</topic><topic>Disclosure</topic><topic>Drug Industry - economics</topic><topic>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>METASTASES</topic><topic>NEOPLASMS</topic><topic>Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>PEDIATRICS</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</topic><topic>REVIEWS</topic><topic>SIMULATION</topic><topic>THERAPY</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ahmed, Awad A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holliday, Emma B., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fakhreddine, Mohamad, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoo, Stella K., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deville, Curtiland, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jagsi, Reshma, MD, DPhil</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ahmed, Awad A., MD</au><au>Holliday, Emma B., MD</au><au>Fakhreddine, Mohamad, MD</au><au>Yoo, Stella K., MD</au><au>Deville, Curtiland, MD</au><au>Jagsi, Reshma, MD, DPhil</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Trends in Disclosures of Industry Sponsorship</atitle><jtitle>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys</addtitle><date>2016-07-15</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1093</spage><epage>1101</epage><pages>1093-1101</pages><issn>0360-3016</issn><eissn>1879-355X</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27130795</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.061</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0360-3016
ispartof International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2016-07, Vol.95 (4), p.1093-1101
issn 0360-3016
1879-355X
language eng
recordid cdi_osti_scitechconnect_22648724
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Bibliometrics
Clinical Trials as Topic - economics
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
Disclosure
Drug Industry - economics
Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine
Humans
METASTASES
NEOPLASMS
Neoplasms - drug therapy
PEDIATRICS
Radiology
RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
REVIEWS
SIMULATION
THERAPY
title Trends in Disclosures of Industry Sponsorship
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T18%3A58%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Trends%20in%20Disclosures%20of%20Industry%20Sponsorship&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20radiation%20oncology,%20biology,%20physics&rft.au=Ahmed,%20Awad%20A.,%20MD&rft.date=2016-07-15&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1093&rft.epage=1101&rft.pages=1093-1101&rft.issn=0360-3016&rft.eissn=1879-355X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.061&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_osti_%3E1800705017%3C/proquest_osti_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1800705017&rft_id=info:pmid/27130795&rft_els_id=S0360301616002303&rfr_iscdi=true