Financial relationships between industry and principal investigators of US cooperative group randomized cancer clinical trials.

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) could bias the potentially practice-changing oncologic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of tomorrow. This investigation characterized the FCOIs of the principal investigators (PIs) of all currently accruing trials of the four (adult) cooperative groups of the National Clinical Trials Network. For our study, the PI list was first compiled, and each name was then searched in the CMS Open Payments database. For each transaction (general payments (GPs) or research funding (RF)), the amount/number/source of payments was recorded. Results showed that from 2014 to 2019, the 91 PIs collectively accepted nearly one-third of a billion dollars ($10 477 023 GPs and $320 096 233 RF). The mean and median GP was $6505 and $945, respectively, and $301 693 and $49 824 RF, respectively. Multivariable Gamma regression analysis revealed that higher GP sums were associated with RCTs involving any type of systemic therapy, and higher RF sums with medical oncologist PIs, trials with phase III components, and RCTs involving radiotherapy (P < .05 for all). Both higher-volume GPs and RF were predicted by PIs having accepted payment(s) from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their RCT (P < .001 GP, P = .008 RF). Taken together, the main message of this investigation is that FCOIs may be particularly high in PIs of phase III systemic therapy trials, especially if the PI accepted payments from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their trial. Such RCTs should be thoroughly scrutinized by medical journals, the FDA, and insurance companies for potential "industry bias" that could influence the integrity of their conclusions.

US adults with diabetes mellitus: Variability in oral healthcare utilization.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients are advised to have at least one dental examination per year. It is unclear to what extent different subgroups of US diabetic adults closely follow this recommendation. Thus, we assessed dental care utilization and related factors in a representative sample of US diabetic adults from rural and urban counties. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Survey logistic regression was used to account for the complex sampling design. RESULTS: Among 40,585 eligible participants, 24,887 (60% of the population) had at least one dental visit for any reason within the past year. The lowest compliance was observed among edentulous participants (27%, adjusted OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.22-0.31 vs. fully dentate). Dental compliance was also negatively associated with having a lower income or education, ever being a smoker, or having barriers to access to care. Rural residents had lower dental compliance compared to urban residents, particularly those without healthcare coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Dental compliance among US adult diabetic individuals was low, particularly among rural residents, and as compared to other recommended diabetic care practices. Future public health interventions may target rural individuals without healthcare coverage, smokers and edentulous individuals. There is a need to integrate dental and medical care to facilitate cross-talks among different health professionals, so that educational preventive messages are reinforced at every healthcare visit.

National practice patterns of proton versus photon therapy in the treatment of adult patients with primary brain tumors in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns of care associated with the administration of proton versus photon therapy for adult patients with primary brain tumors in a large national cohort from the United States. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for newly diagnosed primary brain tumors (2004-2014) in adult patients aged 18 and older receiving proton or photon radiotherapy. Clinical features, patient demographics and treatment parameters were extracted. Differences between groups were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In total, 73,073 patients were analyzed (n = 72,635 [99.4%] photon therapy, n = 438 [0.6%] proton therapy). On multivariable analysis of photon versus proton therapy, several factors predicted for receipt of proton therapy, including younger age (p = .041), highest income quartile (p = .007), treatment at academic institutions (p < .001), in regional facilities outside the Midwest/South (p < .001), diagnosis in more recent years (p = .003), fewer comorbidities (p < .001) and non-glioblastoma histology (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There are several significant socioeconomic variables that influence receipt of proton therapy for primary brain tumors. Although not implying causation, the socioeconomic findings discovered herein should be taken into account when delivering cancer care to all patients.