Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Sep 15;129(18):2848-2855.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.34852. Epub 2023 May 25.

Characterization of industry relationships in oncology

Rebecca A Harrison  1 , Nazanin K Majd  2 , Margaret O Johnson  3 , Diana L Urbauer  4 , Vinay Puduvalli  2 , Mustafa Khasraw  3
Affiliations

Characterization of industry relationships in oncology

Rebecca A Harrison et al. Cancer. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: clinical trials; collaboration; conflicts of interest; pharmaceutical industry; protocol development.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The majority of respondents (59.9%) supported the concern that a compensated relationship constitutes a COI if the specific industry products are promoted in clinical research or patient care, while over half (67.6%) shared that their relationships with industry did not shape their own proposals, therapies, or discussions with patients. When asked why, respondents selected having an institutional formal conflict management policy (23.9%), having collaborations with many industry partners so that if there is a conflict it will be equalized among them, and not allowing these relationships to influence decisions (49.3%) as reasons for navigating these relationships. Most respondents shared that their institutions had a formal COI-reporting policy (81.8%), with most requiring annual COI reporting (68.8%) as opposed to per-contact reporting (28.5%) or other reporting methods (2.8%). About one quarter (26.6%) reported their institutions had optional reporting guidelines.

Thirty-nine percent of respondents felt their institutions did not provide sufficient guidance around COI in industry relationships and that current standards and guidance on COI in these relationships are inadequate (39.5%). Notably, most respondents did not share a significant concern that their industry relationships had significant influence over the clinical care they provided (Figure 4).

Disclosures: RAH: honoraria- EMD Serono, Pfizer; NKM: Research Funding to institution- EMD Serono, Celularity, Advisory board- Celularity. Consultant- Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma; VP: Clinical trial support – Servier, Karyopharm, Samus Therapeutics, Radiomedix, Research support -Karyopharm, Bexion, SK Lifesciences, JINbio, Consultancy – Servier, Insightec, Novocure, NewBio, Orbus Therapeutics, Equity – Gilead, Amarin; MK: Research Funding to Institution- BMS, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, BioNTech, Celldex, Astellas, CNS Pharmaceuticals, Honoraria- JAX lab for genomic research, Johnson and Johnson, Voyager therapeutics, George Clinical

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Participation and flow of the study.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
How important has your relationship with industry been to your career?
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Level of satisfaction with industry relationships in terms of their ability to (a) changing decisions by industry partner, (b) advancing science, (c) improving clinical care.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Level of concern around industry relationships influencing clinical care.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Riechelmann RP, et al., Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest by Authors of Clinical Trials and Editorials in Oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007. 25(29): p. 4642–4647. - PubMed
    1. Moses H 3rd, et al., The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. Jama, 2015. 313(2): p. 174–89. - PubMed
    1. Marshall DC, et al., Distribution and Patterns of Industry-Related Payments to Oncologists in 2014. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2016. 108(12). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wright K, et al., Industry Relationships With Medical Oncologists: Who Are the High-Payment Physicians? JCO Oncol Pract, 2022. 18(7): p. e1164–e1169. - PubMed
    1. Stahel RA, et al., Current models, challenges and best practices for work conducted between European academic cooperative groups and industry. ESMO Open, 2020. 5(2): p. e000628. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types