Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) between oncologists and industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, ultimately affecting clinical decisions and policy-making. Although there are many regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed an online 27-question-based survey in the English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs. Descriptive statistics and the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines were used to report the findings. RESULTS: ONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range, 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. Of the respondents, 40.5% reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists' perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria, ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and travel grants for attending conferences (44.5%). By contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study, which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.

Global Landscape of the Attack of Predatory Journals in Oncology.

PURPOSE: Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

Risk factors for breast cancer in women: an update review.

Breast Cancer remains, according to the World Health Organization, the most complex disease cancer in 2021 in the world and the most common cause of death among women. Based on unequivocal scientific data, the establishment of an operative program for prevention could save lives of millions women suffering from breast cancer. In this update review, we highlight the major risk factors related to breast cancer investigated in women over the last 5 years. Thus, we clarify the involvement of these risk factors in the occurrence and growth of breast cancer. Investigations of 15 studies (n = 1,254,418; six case-control studies, five cohort studies, three prospective studies, and one meta-analysis) revealed that age, family history, obesity, use of oral contraceptives, status menopausal, smoking, alcohol consumption, lifestyle, and genetics factors are significantly linked to breast cancer. Additional studies are needed to corroborate these outcomes and initiate new practices aimed at preventing breast cancer.

Potential Non-invasive Biomarkers of Helicobacter pylori-Associated Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) remains the fifth most common incident cancer with the highest incidence in East Asian countries and the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The causal association between non-cardia GC and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) has been firmly documented by clinical and epidemiological studies. According to the guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori infection, eradication therapy is strongly recommended. Early detection of GC is critical and can save lives through rapid technological advancement. At present, endoscopy remains the most efficient technique. However, it is invasive and costs highly. METHODS: An extensive bibliographic search was performed via PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and EBSCO host databases to select studies conducted within the past 8 years. Forty-six relevant analyses were encompassed in this review. RESULTS: Several non-invasive candidate biomarkers associated with H. pylori, divided into virulence markers, transcriptome markers, genomic markers, and inflammatory markers, have been shown to be potential predictors of GC at an early stage. CONCLUSION: The discovery of non-invasive biomarkers offers new perspectives for screening, early detection, and monitoring of individuals at risk.

Advances in Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer: A Focus on Non-invasive Biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. Currently, colonoscopy remains the gold standard diagnostic test for CRC detection. Nonetheless, this technique is invasive and expensive. Remarkable ongoing strategies are focusing on the development of affordable methods to diagnose CRC at earlier stages. The introduction of suitable noninvasive, sensitive and specified diagnostic tests for early CRC detection by employing biomarker analysis seems to be a fundamental need to reduce the numbers of unnecessary colonoscopies. In this review, we provide an overview of single- and multi-panel biomarkers (Genomic markers, transcriptome markers, proteomic markers, inflammatory markers, and microbiome markers) encompassing noninvasive tests in blood and stool for early CRC detection. METHODS: A bibliographic search using PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost databases was performed to find relevant published studies over the last 6 years. Forty-three pertinent studies were included in this review. RESULTS: The primary outcome highlights the sensitivity and specificity of single diagnostic biomarkers studied in blood or stool. The secondary outcome reveals the sensitivity and specificity of the biomarkers panel (combinations) in blood or stool. While some markers show better performance, others are not suitable for screening purposes. CONCLUSION: There is a need to adjust experimental and analytical tests that can interfere with a robust result to replace or supplement those markers that are currently in use. Nevertheless, robust verification and validation with large clinical cohorts are needed for successful noninvasive tests that can fulfill the role of colonoscopy.