• Awad A Ahmed, Emma B Holliday, Mohamad Fakhreddine, Stella K Yoo, Curtiland Deville, and Reshma Jagsi.
• Department of Radiation Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
• Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2016 Jul 15; 95 (4): 1093-101.

PurposeTo examine trends in the reporting of industry funding of oncology trials by primary therapeutic intervention studied: local, targeted, or nontargeted systemic.Methods And MaterialsWe 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.ResultsReporting 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.ConclusionIndustry 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.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

9 keywords...

hide…