Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically. METHODS: A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353

Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe

Objective To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe. Design Document content analysis. Setting European Medicines Agency. Participants Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19. Main outcome measures Whether written information on a product addressed patients’ commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports). Results 29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public. Conclusions The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians

Bilateral diffuse pulmonary infiltrates secondary to malignant peritoneal mesothelioma – A rare clinical presentation

© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).Diffuse pulmonary metastasis secondary to primary peritoneal malignant mesothelioma is rarely reported in the literature. In this report we describe a 59-year-old Caucasian women with no known previous asbestos exposure presenting with bilateral diffuse pulmonary opacities in association with primary malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. The diagnosis was confirmed by ultrasound guided abdominal and bronchoscopy, trans-bronchial lung biopsy. The biopsy demonstrated positive staining with AE1/3, CK7, CK5/6, WT1, calretinin and D2 40. The cells were negative for BerEP4, PAX8, CA125, ER, CD34, ERG, P63, P40, Melan A, Gata3 and mammaglobin. The morphology and immunohistochemical profile supported a diagnosis of epithelioid malignant mesothelioma

Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: diagnosis and treatment with a view to the future

Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) is a lethal disease with a poor 5-year survival. Systemic treatments can be used to control symptoms and prolong life. Cytotoxic chemotherapies are commonly administered, with combination treatments, such as fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) or nab paclitaxel and gemcitabine showing the largest clinical benefits. Newer genomic classifications of PDAC may provide a rationale for targeted therapies or immunotherapies, although at present these remain largely experimental. This review discusses the evidence behind the currently used regimens, while introducing the potential future of pancreatic cancer car

Australian Cancer Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Survey of Attitudes and Interactions

PURPOSE: Interactions between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry may create conflicts of interest that can adversely affect patient care. We aimed to survey cancer physicians regarding their attitudes toward and interactions with industry. METHODS: We surveyed Australian cancer physicians between December 2020 and February 2021, questioning how often they interacted with industry and their attitudes toward this. We also assessed factors associated with accepting payments from industry and the amount received, and opinions on policies and industry influence. We used logistic and linear regression to examine links between attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS: There were 116 responses (94 complete). Almost half (n = 53 of 115, 46.1%) felt that there was a positive relationship between cancer physicians and industry. Most (n = 79 of 104, 76.0%) interacted with industry at least once a month, and 67.7% (n = 63 of 93) had received nonresearch payments from industry previously, with a median value of 2,000 Australian dollars over 1 year. Most respondents believed that interactions could influence prescribing while simultaneously denying influence on their own prescribing (n = 66 of 94, 70.2%). Those who judged general sales representative interactions (odds ratio [OR] 9.37 [95% CI, 1.05 to 83.41], P = .045) or clinician sponsorship (OR 3.22 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.30], P = .049) to be more acceptable also met with sales representatives more frequently. Physicians were more likely to accept industry payments when they deemed sponsorship of clinicians for conferences (OR 10.55 [95% CI, 2.33 to 47.89], P = .002) or honoraria for advisory board membership more acceptable (OR 3.91 [95% CI, 1.04 to 14.74], P = .04) or when they had higher belief in industry influence over own prescribing (OR 25.51 [95% CI, 2.70 to 241.45], P = .005). CONCLUSION: Australian cancer physicians interact with industry frequently, and those who feel positive about these interactions are likely to do so more often. More research is needed to understand the motivations behind these interactions

Australia and New Zealand’s responsibilities in improving oncology services in the Asia-Pacific: A call to action

Abstract Aim To review the expected increasing demand for cancer services among low and middle‐income countries (LMICs) in the Asia‐Pacific (APAC), and to describe ways in which Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) can provide support to improve cancer outcomes in our region. Methods We first review the current and projected incidence of cancer within the APAC between 2018 and 2040, and the estimated demand for chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. We then explore potential ways in which ANZ can increase regional collaborations to improve cancer outcomes. Results We identify 6 ways that ANZ can collaborate with LMICs to improve cancer care in the APAC through the ANZ Regional Oncology Collaboration Strategy: Increasing education and institutional collaborations in the APAC region through in‐country training, twinning partnerships, observerships and formalised training programs in order to increase cancer care quality and capacity. Promoting and assisting in the establishment and maintenance of population‐based cancer registries in LMICs. Increasing research capacity in LMICs through collaboration and promoting high quality global oncology research within ANZ. Engaging and training Australian and New Zealand clinicians in global oncology, increasing awareness of this important career path, and increasing health policy engagement. Increasing web‐based endeavours through virtual tumour boards, web‐based advocacy platforms and web‐based teaching programs. Continuing to leverage for funding through professional bodies, government, industry, not‐for‐profit organisations and local hospital funds. Conclusion We propose the creation of an Australian and New Zealand Interest Group to provide formalised and sustained collaboration between researchers, clinicians and stakeholdersDr. BrookeWilson received funding as an International Fellow from the National Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia