Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Oct 1;99(2):280-285. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.202. Epub 2017 Jan 26.

Industry Funding Among Leadership in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology in 2015.

Author information

1
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
2
Department of Radiation Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center University of Miami Health System, Miami, Florida.
3
New York University, New York, New York.
4
Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
5
Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
6
Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
7
Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine and Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut.
8
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
9
Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: thomasch@ohsu.edu.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To quantify and determine the relationship between oncology departmental/division heads and private industry vis-à-vis potential financial conflict of interests (FCOIs) as publicly reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database.

METHODS AND MATERIALS:

We extracted the names of the chairs/chiefs in medical oncology (MO) and chairs of radiation oncology (RO) for 81 different institutions with both RO and MO training programs as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges. For each leader, the amount of consulting fees and research payments received in 2015 was determined. Logistic modeling was used to assess associations between the 2 endpoints of receiving a consulting fee and receiving a research payment with various institution-specific and practitioner-specific variables included as covariates: specialty, sex, National Cancer Institute designation, PhD status, and geographic region.

RESULTS:

The majority of leaders in MO were reported to have received consulting fees or research payments (69.5%) compared with a minority of RO chairs (27.2%). Among those receiving payments, the average (range) consulting fee was $13,413 ($200-$70,423) for MO leaders and $6463 ($837-$16,205) for RO chairs; the average research payment for MO leaders receiving payments was $240,446 ($156-$1,234,762) and $295,089 ($160-$1,219,564) for RO chairs. On multivariable regression when the endpoint was receipt of a research payment, those receiving a consulting fee (odds ratio [OR]: 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.22-13.65) and MO leaders (OR: 5.54; 95% CI: 2.62-12.18) were more likely to receive research payments. Examination of the receipt of consulting fees as the endpoint showed that those receiving a research payment (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 2.23-13.99) and MO leaders (OR: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.21-8.13) were more likely to receive a consulting fee.

CONCLUSION:

Leaders in academic oncology receive consulting or research payments from industry. Relationships between oncology leaders and industry can be beneficial, but guidance is needed to develop consistent institutional policies to manage FCOIs.

PMID:
28366578
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.202
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center