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

Stella K. Yoo, Awad A. Ahmed, Jan Ileto, Nicholas Zaorsky, Curtiland Deville, Emma B. Holliday, Lynn D. Wilson, Reshma Jagsi, Charles R. Thomas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)280-285
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume99
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2017

Fingerprint

consulting
leadership
Radiation Oncology
Medical Oncology
Fees and Charges
Industry
industries
seats
radiation
Research
confidence
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
intervals
Conflict of Interest
Organizational Policy
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.)
National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
logistics
American Medical Association

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiation
  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Yoo, Stella K. ; Ahmed, Awad A. ; Ileto, Jan ; Zaorsky, Nicholas ; Deville, Curtiland ; Holliday, Emma B. ; Wilson, Lynn D. ; Jagsi, Reshma ; Thomas, Charles R. / Industry Funding Among Leadership in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology in 2015. In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2017 ; Vol. 99, No. 2. pp. 280-285.
@article{b8584525284a41be8bff0c437c02cf49,
title = "Industry Funding Among Leadership in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology in 2015",
abstract = "Purpose To quantify and determine the relationship between oncology departmental/division heads and private industry vis-{\`a}-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.",
author = "Yoo, {Stella K.} and Ahmed, {Awad A.} and Jan Ileto and Nicholas Zaorsky and Curtiland Deville and Holliday, {Emma B.} and Wilson, {Lynn D.} and Reshma Jagsi and Thomas, {Charles R.}",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.202",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "99",
pages = "280--285",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics",
issn = "0360-3016",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Industry Funding Among Leadership in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology in 2015. / Yoo, Stella K.; Ahmed, Awad A.; Ileto, Jan; Zaorsky, Nicholas; Deville, Curtiland; Holliday, Emma B.; Wilson, Lynn D.; Jagsi, Reshma; Thomas, Charles R.

In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 99, No. 2, 01.10.2017, p. 280-285.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Industry Funding Among Leadership in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology in 2015

AU - Yoo, Stella K.

AU - Ahmed, Awad A.

AU - Ileto, Jan

AU - Zaorsky, Nicholas

AU - Deville, Curtiland

AU - Holliday, Emma B.

AU - Wilson, Lynn D.

AU - Jagsi, Reshma

AU - Thomas, Charles R.

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016498753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85016498753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.202

DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.202

M3 - Article

VL - 99

SP - 280

EP - 285

JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

SN - 0360-3016

IS - 2

ER -