User login
Medical Centers Address Unique Needs of Young Adults With Cancer
Adam DuVall, MD, MPH, is a rare medical oncologist who trained in both adult and pediatric hematology/oncology.
This distinction, which DuVall said he shares with only a handful of oncologists in the world, matches his role at University of Chicago (UChicago) Medicine, Chicago. Since joining UChicago in 2020, DuVall has helped expand its Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology Program, which aims to provide comprehensive, one-stop care and support for patients with cancer aged from 15 to 39 years.
Started in 2012, the program is one of the oldest in a growing array of initiatives nationwide that seek to address the specific psychosocial and other support needs of patients with cancer who fall into the gap between young children and the older patients who more typically have cancer. Along with DuVall and other oncologists, UChicago’s AYA Program offers dedicated nurse practitioners, social workers, psychologists, a physical therapist, and a program administrator. A community health worker, who does home visits, helps patients coordinate travel, works with their insurance, and generally navigates the medical system, DuVall added.
The program receives about 1500-2000 visits a year, according to DuVall. What the young adult population with cancer has in common that distinguishes it from other age cohorts, he said, are its members’ particular psychosocial needs. “Going through adolescence and young adulthood without cancer, there’s plenty of things that are hard,” DuVall observed. “Put cancer on top of that, and it impacts every aspect of life.”
‘Millennials Have Higher Risk’
The proliferation of AYA programs comes as more and more studies have been published recently showing that young adults are increasingly getting cancer.
According to American Cancer Society research published in December in The Lancet Oncology, incidence rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) among young adults aged 25-49 years rose in the decade through 2017 in more than half of the 50 countries and territories examined. For the past 5 years studied, the incidence rate of early-onset CRC was highest in Australia, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, the United States, and South Korea. At the same time, the study found, rates among older adults in all of those places except South Korea were stable or declining.
Hyuna Sung, PhD, the study’s lead author, said, “Research has shown that Gen X and millennials have higher risk of multiple types of cancer compared to the older generations.”
Some of the cancers found to be increasing among younger adults are linked to “excess body obesity,” Sung said, including not only CRC but also cancers of the uterine corpus, gallbladder, kidney, pancreas, breast, and stomach cardia, as well as myeloma. Early onset of cancers not linked to obesity, such as testicular cancer and small intestinal cancer, has also been shown to be on the rise, Sung noted.
As cancer rates among young adults have risen, nonprofits have stepped in to help medical institutions open programs geared to their needs. Teen Cancer America, founded by members of rock band The Who, has partnered with 64 hospitals in 36 cities to develop AYA-focused programs, funding 85 hospital positions, according to a spokesperson. The Los Angeles–based nonprofit has also provided free consultation to 130 hospitals without formally providing a grant, the spokesperson said.
A map on Teen Cancer America’s website illustrates the nationwide spread of AYA programs, from UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, with more in between.
‘Setting Them Up for a Life of Meaning’
Michael Roth, MD, co-director of the AYA Program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, likes to say, “If you’ve seen one AYA Program, you’ve seen one AYA Program.”
In other words, offerings vary. “Most centers do not have comprehensive AYA programs,” Roth said, noting that at many sites the AYA Program might consist of oncofertility support. “That said, programs are doing the best they can, knowing that the AYA population is growing exponentially globally.”
Almost 90,000 AYA patients are diagnosed with cancer each year, and 85% will be at least 5-year survivors, Roth said. There are more than 2 million survivors of AYA cancer, he added, and if the median age of diagnosis is 30, they can live five decades beyond their cancer treatment. “Their life matters,” Roth said. “It matters during treatment. Their life after cancer matters.”
The AYA Program at MD Anderson began in 2017, and it sees more than 2000 AYAs diagnosed with cancer every year, according to Roth. The program is designed to complement the care that patients with cancer aged from 15 to 39 years or older may already be receiving from their primary treatment teams. New patients see a medical provider, a social worker, and a vocational counselor for discussions about their needs and concerns, and they have access to a nutritionist and genetic counselor.
The program offers psychosocial and supportive care for patients who may be facing challenges with school, work, relationships, having young children, and mental health, Roth said. Along with assessments and counseling around fertility risks and genetic predisposition, MD Anderson also provides patients in the program with a long-term survivorship plan.
“It’s not just increasing cures,” Roth observed. “We’re also setting them up for a life of meaning and happiness and productivity and health.”
Almost 40% of visits to the program are conducted virtually, according to Roth. “Our goal is to meet the patients where they are,” he said. “We want to be convenient, not be a burden.”
‘The Face of Cancer Has Changed’
Patients with AYA cancer diagnoses may be finishing up school or starting a job, developing their body image and sexual identity, or caring for young children or older parents.
“They feel incredibly isolated,” said Ann LaCasce, MD, MMSc, co-director of the Center for Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “They go into the cancer center or their community practice, and everyone is double, triple their age.”
Last year, Dana-Farber opened a Young Adult Lounge meant for patients aged 18 years or older to be able to relax and, if they wish, interact between appointments. “When you talk to these patients, they want to meet each other,” LaCasce said. “They want to share experiences.”
The Young Adults With Cancer Program at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee, opened its doors in 2019. It recently hired an interim nurse navigator, said Cathy Eng, MD, FACP, FASCO, director of the Program, which concentrates on patients aged 25-45 years.
“The face of cancer has changed,” Eng said.
She advises other oncologists to talk to their young adult patients as much as possible. “Really talk to them as an individual and see what other needs they have,” she said. “Even if they don’t tell you the first time, ask them the second time, ask them the third time.”
Christopher Cann, MD, executive director of the Young Adult Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, did his fellowship under Eng. He joined Fox Chase in 2023, and the Young Adult Cancer Program started accepting patients around the end of last year, zeroing in on patients aged 18-39 years.
Following the implementation of a new best practice advisory that pops up in the medical records system, he said, oncofertility referrals increased by 400% within 6 months.
“My hope is that if every institution throughout the country can have a young adult program, even something small like this can provide a large impact for patients,” Cann said.
The University of North Carolina (UNC) AYA Cancer Program, part of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, formed in 2015. It has expanded into a team of about 12 including a nurse practitioner, fertility counselor, and psychologist, said Jacob Stein, MD, MPH, the program’s AYA oncology liaison. UNC sees about 400 AYA patients with cancer annually, and the program interacts with slightly more than 100 of them, according to Stein.
“Our program has taken a very different approach, to target services, contact, and engagement with AYAs who we perceive to be at the highest need, either clinically or socially, for support,” he said.
Stein was the lead author on research presented last year at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in San Francisco finding that patients engaged in the program were more likely to participate in clinical trials and received higher rates of fertility preservation and palliative care than AYA patients at UNC without program contact.
Andrew Smitherman, MD, MS, medical director of the UNC AYA Cancer Center Program, said the AYA field has grown impressively since a progress review group was started in 2005, which was backed by the National Cancer Institute and LIVESTRONG Young Adult Alliance. The group developed recommendations to address AYA oncology nationwide, in hopes of acting as a catalyst for future initiatives. Clearly, others caring for patients with cancer heard the message.
“If a colleague comes to me and says, ‘Where do I start, how do I make this change at my institution,’ I usually lead with changing the culture,” Smitherman said. “Educating hospital leadership about the importance of this population, educating colleagues, finding partners. And then start thinking about ways to make structural changes, like creating space. That’s worked really well for us.”
DuVall, Sung, Roth, LaCasce, Eng, Cann, Stein, and Smitherman declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adam DuVall, MD, MPH, is a rare medical oncologist who trained in both adult and pediatric hematology/oncology.
This distinction, which DuVall said he shares with only a handful of oncologists in the world, matches his role at University of Chicago (UChicago) Medicine, Chicago. Since joining UChicago in 2020, DuVall has helped expand its Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology Program, which aims to provide comprehensive, one-stop care and support for patients with cancer aged from 15 to 39 years.
Started in 2012, the program is one of the oldest in a growing array of initiatives nationwide that seek to address the specific psychosocial and other support needs of patients with cancer who fall into the gap between young children and the older patients who more typically have cancer. Along with DuVall and other oncologists, UChicago’s AYA Program offers dedicated nurse practitioners, social workers, psychologists, a physical therapist, and a program administrator. A community health worker, who does home visits, helps patients coordinate travel, works with their insurance, and generally navigates the medical system, DuVall added.
The program receives about 1500-2000 visits a year, according to DuVall. What the young adult population with cancer has in common that distinguishes it from other age cohorts, he said, are its members’ particular psychosocial needs. “Going through adolescence and young adulthood without cancer, there’s plenty of things that are hard,” DuVall observed. “Put cancer on top of that, and it impacts every aspect of life.”
‘Millennials Have Higher Risk’
The proliferation of AYA programs comes as more and more studies have been published recently showing that young adults are increasingly getting cancer.
According to American Cancer Society research published in December in The Lancet Oncology, incidence rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) among young adults aged 25-49 years rose in the decade through 2017 in more than half of the 50 countries and territories examined. For the past 5 years studied, the incidence rate of early-onset CRC was highest in Australia, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, the United States, and South Korea. At the same time, the study found, rates among older adults in all of those places except South Korea were stable or declining.
Hyuna Sung, PhD, the study’s lead author, said, “Research has shown that Gen X and millennials have higher risk of multiple types of cancer compared to the older generations.”
Some of the cancers found to be increasing among younger adults are linked to “excess body obesity,” Sung said, including not only CRC but also cancers of the uterine corpus, gallbladder, kidney, pancreas, breast, and stomach cardia, as well as myeloma. Early onset of cancers not linked to obesity, such as testicular cancer and small intestinal cancer, has also been shown to be on the rise, Sung noted.
As cancer rates among young adults have risen, nonprofits have stepped in to help medical institutions open programs geared to their needs. Teen Cancer America, founded by members of rock band The Who, has partnered with 64 hospitals in 36 cities to develop AYA-focused programs, funding 85 hospital positions, according to a spokesperson. The Los Angeles–based nonprofit has also provided free consultation to 130 hospitals without formally providing a grant, the spokesperson said.
A map on Teen Cancer America’s website illustrates the nationwide spread of AYA programs, from UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, with more in between.
‘Setting Them Up for a Life of Meaning’
Michael Roth, MD, co-director of the AYA Program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, likes to say, “If you’ve seen one AYA Program, you’ve seen one AYA Program.”
In other words, offerings vary. “Most centers do not have comprehensive AYA programs,” Roth said, noting that at many sites the AYA Program might consist of oncofertility support. “That said, programs are doing the best they can, knowing that the AYA population is growing exponentially globally.”
Almost 90,000 AYA patients are diagnosed with cancer each year, and 85% will be at least 5-year survivors, Roth said. There are more than 2 million survivors of AYA cancer, he added, and if the median age of diagnosis is 30, they can live five decades beyond their cancer treatment. “Their life matters,” Roth said. “It matters during treatment. Their life after cancer matters.”
The AYA Program at MD Anderson began in 2017, and it sees more than 2000 AYAs diagnosed with cancer every year, according to Roth. The program is designed to complement the care that patients with cancer aged from 15 to 39 years or older may already be receiving from their primary treatment teams. New patients see a medical provider, a social worker, and a vocational counselor for discussions about their needs and concerns, and they have access to a nutritionist and genetic counselor.
The program offers psychosocial and supportive care for patients who may be facing challenges with school, work, relationships, having young children, and mental health, Roth said. Along with assessments and counseling around fertility risks and genetic predisposition, MD Anderson also provides patients in the program with a long-term survivorship plan.
“It’s not just increasing cures,” Roth observed. “We’re also setting them up for a life of meaning and happiness and productivity and health.”
Almost 40% of visits to the program are conducted virtually, according to Roth. “Our goal is to meet the patients where they are,” he said. “We want to be convenient, not be a burden.”
‘The Face of Cancer Has Changed’
Patients with AYA cancer diagnoses may be finishing up school or starting a job, developing their body image and sexual identity, or caring for young children or older parents.
“They feel incredibly isolated,” said Ann LaCasce, MD, MMSc, co-director of the Center for Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “They go into the cancer center or their community practice, and everyone is double, triple their age.”
Last year, Dana-Farber opened a Young Adult Lounge meant for patients aged 18 years or older to be able to relax and, if they wish, interact between appointments. “When you talk to these patients, they want to meet each other,” LaCasce said. “They want to share experiences.”
The Young Adults With Cancer Program at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee, opened its doors in 2019. It recently hired an interim nurse navigator, said Cathy Eng, MD, FACP, FASCO, director of the Program, which concentrates on patients aged 25-45 years.
“The face of cancer has changed,” Eng said.
She advises other oncologists to talk to their young adult patients as much as possible. “Really talk to them as an individual and see what other needs they have,” she said. “Even if they don’t tell you the first time, ask them the second time, ask them the third time.”
Christopher Cann, MD, executive director of the Young Adult Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, did his fellowship under Eng. He joined Fox Chase in 2023, and the Young Adult Cancer Program started accepting patients around the end of last year, zeroing in on patients aged 18-39 years.
Following the implementation of a new best practice advisory that pops up in the medical records system, he said, oncofertility referrals increased by 400% within 6 months.
“My hope is that if every institution throughout the country can have a young adult program, even something small like this can provide a large impact for patients,” Cann said.
The University of North Carolina (UNC) AYA Cancer Program, part of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, formed in 2015. It has expanded into a team of about 12 including a nurse practitioner, fertility counselor, and psychologist, said Jacob Stein, MD, MPH, the program’s AYA oncology liaison. UNC sees about 400 AYA patients with cancer annually, and the program interacts with slightly more than 100 of them, according to Stein.
“Our program has taken a very different approach, to target services, contact, and engagement with AYAs who we perceive to be at the highest need, either clinically or socially, for support,” he said.
Stein was the lead author on research presented last year at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in San Francisco finding that patients engaged in the program were more likely to participate in clinical trials and received higher rates of fertility preservation and palliative care than AYA patients at UNC without program contact.
Andrew Smitherman, MD, MS, medical director of the UNC AYA Cancer Center Program, said the AYA field has grown impressively since a progress review group was started in 2005, which was backed by the National Cancer Institute and LIVESTRONG Young Adult Alliance. The group developed recommendations to address AYA oncology nationwide, in hopes of acting as a catalyst for future initiatives. Clearly, others caring for patients with cancer heard the message.
“If a colleague comes to me and says, ‘Where do I start, how do I make this change at my institution,’ I usually lead with changing the culture,” Smitherman said. “Educating hospital leadership about the importance of this population, educating colleagues, finding partners. And then start thinking about ways to make structural changes, like creating space. That’s worked really well for us.”
DuVall, Sung, Roth, LaCasce, Eng, Cann, Stein, and Smitherman declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adam DuVall, MD, MPH, is a rare medical oncologist who trained in both adult and pediatric hematology/oncology.
This distinction, which DuVall said he shares with only a handful of oncologists in the world, matches his role at University of Chicago (UChicago) Medicine, Chicago. Since joining UChicago in 2020, DuVall has helped expand its Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology Program, which aims to provide comprehensive, one-stop care and support for patients with cancer aged from 15 to 39 years.
Started in 2012, the program is one of the oldest in a growing array of initiatives nationwide that seek to address the specific psychosocial and other support needs of patients with cancer who fall into the gap between young children and the older patients who more typically have cancer. Along with DuVall and other oncologists, UChicago’s AYA Program offers dedicated nurse practitioners, social workers, psychologists, a physical therapist, and a program administrator. A community health worker, who does home visits, helps patients coordinate travel, works with their insurance, and generally navigates the medical system, DuVall added.
The program receives about 1500-2000 visits a year, according to DuVall. What the young adult population with cancer has in common that distinguishes it from other age cohorts, he said, are its members’ particular psychosocial needs. “Going through adolescence and young adulthood without cancer, there’s plenty of things that are hard,” DuVall observed. “Put cancer on top of that, and it impacts every aspect of life.”
‘Millennials Have Higher Risk’
The proliferation of AYA programs comes as more and more studies have been published recently showing that young adults are increasingly getting cancer.
According to American Cancer Society research published in December in The Lancet Oncology, incidence rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) among young adults aged 25-49 years rose in the decade through 2017 in more than half of the 50 countries and territories examined. For the past 5 years studied, the incidence rate of early-onset CRC was highest in Australia, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, the United States, and South Korea. At the same time, the study found, rates among older adults in all of those places except South Korea were stable or declining.
Hyuna Sung, PhD, the study’s lead author, said, “Research has shown that Gen X and millennials have higher risk of multiple types of cancer compared to the older generations.”
Some of the cancers found to be increasing among younger adults are linked to “excess body obesity,” Sung said, including not only CRC but also cancers of the uterine corpus, gallbladder, kidney, pancreas, breast, and stomach cardia, as well as myeloma. Early onset of cancers not linked to obesity, such as testicular cancer and small intestinal cancer, has also been shown to be on the rise, Sung noted.
As cancer rates among young adults have risen, nonprofits have stepped in to help medical institutions open programs geared to their needs. Teen Cancer America, founded by members of rock band The Who, has partnered with 64 hospitals in 36 cities to develop AYA-focused programs, funding 85 hospital positions, according to a spokesperson. The Los Angeles–based nonprofit has also provided free consultation to 130 hospitals without formally providing a grant, the spokesperson said.
A map on Teen Cancer America’s website illustrates the nationwide spread of AYA programs, from UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, with more in between.
‘Setting Them Up for a Life of Meaning’
Michael Roth, MD, co-director of the AYA Program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, likes to say, “If you’ve seen one AYA Program, you’ve seen one AYA Program.”
In other words, offerings vary. “Most centers do not have comprehensive AYA programs,” Roth said, noting that at many sites the AYA Program might consist of oncofertility support. “That said, programs are doing the best they can, knowing that the AYA population is growing exponentially globally.”
Almost 90,000 AYA patients are diagnosed with cancer each year, and 85% will be at least 5-year survivors, Roth said. There are more than 2 million survivors of AYA cancer, he added, and if the median age of diagnosis is 30, they can live five decades beyond their cancer treatment. “Their life matters,” Roth said. “It matters during treatment. Their life after cancer matters.”
The AYA Program at MD Anderson began in 2017, and it sees more than 2000 AYAs diagnosed with cancer every year, according to Roth. The program is designed to complement the care that patients with cancer aged from 15 to 39 years or older may already be receiving from their primary treatment teams. New patients see a medical provider, a social worker, and a vocational counselor for discussions about their needs and concerns, and they have access to a nutritionist and genetic counselor.
The program offers psychosocial and supportive care for patients who may be facing challenges with school, work, relationships, having young children, and mental health, Roth said. Along with assessments and counseling around fertility risks and genetic predisposition, MD Anderson also provides patients in the program with a long-term survivorship plan.
“It’s not just increasing cures,” Roth observed. “We’re also setting them up for a life of meaning and happiness and productivity and health.”
Almost 40% of visits to the program are conducted virtually, according to Roth. “Our goal is to meet the patients where they are,” he said. “We want to be convenient, not be a burden.”
‘The Face of Cancer Has Changed’
Patients with AYA cancer diagnoses may be finishing up school or starting a job, developing their body image and sexual identity, or caring for young children or older parents.
“They feel incredibly isolated,” said Ann LaCasce, MD, MMSc, co-director of the Center for Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “They go into the cancer center or their community practice, and everyone is double, triple their age.”
Last year, Dana-Farber opened a Young Adult Lounge meant for patients aged 18 years or older to be able to relax and, if they wish, interact between appointments. “When you talk to these patients, they want to meet each other,” LaCasce said. “They want to share experiences.”
The Young Adults With Cancer Program at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee, opened its doors in 2019. It recently hired an interim nurse navigator, said Cathy Eng, MD, FACP, FASCO, director of the Program, which concentrates on patients aged 25-45 years.
“The face of cancer has changed,” Eng said.
She advises other oncologists to talk to their young adult patients as much as possible. “Really talk to them as an individual and see what other needs they have,” she said. “Even if they don’t tell you the first time, ask them the second time, ask them the third time.”
Christopher Cann, MD, executive director of the Young Adult Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, did his fellowship under Eng. He joined Fox Chase in 2023, and the Young Adult Cancer Program started accepting patients around the end of last year, zeroing in on patients aged 18-39 years.
Following the implementation of a new best practice advisory that pops up in the medical records system, he said, oncofertility referrals increased by 400% within 6 months.
“My hope is that if every institution throughout the country can have a young adult program, even something small like this can provide a large impact for patients,” Cann said.
The University of North Carolina (UNC) AYA Cancer Program, part of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, formed in 2015. It has expanded into a team of about 12 including a nurse practitioner, fertility counselor, and psychologist, said Jacob Stein, MD, MPH, the program’s AYA oncology liaison. UNC sees about 400 AYA patients with cancer annually, and the program interacts with slightly more than 100 of them, according to Stein.
“Our program has taken a very different approach, to target services, contact, and engagement with AYAs who we perceive to be at the highest need, either clinically or socially, for support,” he said.
Stein was the lead author on research presented last year at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in San Francisco finding that patients engaged in the program were more likely to participate in clinical trials and received higher rates of fertility preservation and palliative care than AYA patients at UNC without program contact.
Andrew Smitherman, MD, MS, medical director of the UNC AYA Cancer Center Program, said the AYA field has grown impressively since a progress review group was started in 2005, which was backed by the National Cancer Institute and LIVESTRONG Young Adult Alliance. The group developed recommendations to address AYA oncology nationwide, in hopes of acting as a catalyst for future initiatives. Clearly, others caring for patients with cancer heard the message.
“If a colleague comes to me and says, ‘Where do I start, how do I make this change at my institution,’ I usually lead with changing the culture,” Smitherman said. “Educating hospital leadership about the importance of this population, educating colleagues, finding partners. And then start thinking about ways to make structural changes, like creating space. That’s worked really well for us.”
DuVall, Sung, Roth, LaCasce, Eng, Cann, Stein, and Smitherman declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Greater Transparency of Oncologists’ Pharma Relationships Needed
The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”
Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.
Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.
What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.
Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest
To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.
“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”
Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.
From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.
Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.
The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.
“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.
Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect
A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.
That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.
“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”
The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.
Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.
The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.
A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments
While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.
For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.
The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.
Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”
For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.
From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.
The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.
When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.
“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”
Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.
“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.
“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”
Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”
Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”
Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.
Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.
What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.
Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest
To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.
“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”
Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.
From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.
Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.
The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.
“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.
Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect
A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.
That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.
“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”
The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.
Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.
The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.
A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments
While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.
For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.
The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.
Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”
For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.
From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.
The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.
When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.
“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”
Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.
“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.
“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”
Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”
Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”
Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.
Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.
What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.
Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest
To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.
“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”
Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.
From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.
Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.
The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.
“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.
Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect
A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.
That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.
“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”
The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.
Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.
The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.
A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments
While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.
For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.
The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.
Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”
For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.
From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.
The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.
When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.
“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”
Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.
“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.
“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”
Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”
Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
FROM ASCO 2024