Financial Relationships With Industry of Editorial Board Members of the Three Journals of the American Society for Radiation Oncology

Abstract

To quantitate financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) among radiation oncology peer-reviewers, specifically editorial board members of the 3 American Society for Radiation Oncology journals. The public Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database delineates payments in 3 categories (general payments, research funding, and company ownership). After excluding non-US and non-MDs, names of board members were searched. Values of each FCOI were extracted for 2013 to 2015 and compiled. Of 85 board members, 65 (76%) received any form of payment during the overall period. The majority of delivered payments were general payments: 59 (69%) received at least 1 general payment during these 3years. In each year, 9 board members (11%) received research funding, and 3 board members (4%) reported company ownership. Over the studied period, all board members received a sum total of $5,387,985; this was composed of $665,801 (12%) in general payments, $3,758,968 (70%) in research funding, and $963,216 (18%) in company ownership. The mean general payment and research funding amounts (all members) were $2,621 and $14,741, respectively. Median (interquartile range) general payments and research funding only in board members receiving payments were $419 ($91-$5072) and $56,250 ($13,345-$200,000), respectively. When assessing general payments according to amount, the vast majority of editorial board members received lower-quantity or no such payments, along with a smaller proportion that received higher-volume payments. The most frequent sources of general payments were Varian,Elekta, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Merck and Varian were the most frequent funding sources for research payments. In this population, the majority of FCOIs were general payments, but research funding comprised the highest monetary sums. Large-volume FCOIs do not apply to the vast majority of editorial board members, implying that the maintained integrity of academic peer-review is likely not influenced to a large extent by FCOIs.