Conflict Of Interest Policies Research Articles

Pharmaceutical industry payments to healthcare professional organisations in the United Kingdom: a seven-year cross-sectional analysis of the Disclosure UK database from 2015 to 2021

Objectives This study aimed to examine the size and trends in payments from the pharmaceutical industry to healthcare professional organisations (HPOs) in the United Kingdom (UK), and to characterise the conflict of interest (COI) management plans by HPOs who received large payments. Design Cross-sectional analysis of non-research payments disclosed in the Disclosure UK database from 2015 to 2021. Setting United Kingdom. Participants 148 pharmaceutical companies disclosing payment data and HPOs receiving the largest payments. Main outcome measures Total value and median of payments per HPO; existence and content of COI policies among HPOs receiving the largest payments. Results A total of 898 HPOs received non-research payments worth £99.9 million (17.4% of non-research payments to all healthcare organisations). The median seven-year payment per HPO was £4509 (interquartile range: £943–£30,360). The annual payments nearly doubled from £9.3 million in 2015 to £17.6 million in 2021. Event payments constituted the largest share (£68.2 million, 68.2%). HPOs representing physicians received over 91.5% (£91.5 million) of all payments, while those related to endocrinology and diabetology – 16.3% (£16.3 million). Over 59.9% (£59.9 million) went to the 30 top-funded HPOs, of which only 17 (56.7%) had a publicly accessible COI policy. However, just 6 (35.3%) of these policies included provisions for payments from external organisations. Conclusions HPOs received nearly one-fifth of pharmaceutical company payments to the UK healthcare sector. These payments were concentrated among a small number of HPOs, which often lacked effective policies for management of COI and payments from the industry.

Financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guideline for headache disorders in Japan

BackgroundFinancial relationships between clinical guideline authors and pharmaceutical companies introduce conflicts of interest (COI), potentially biasing guideline recommendations. Thus, proper management of COI is paramount for clinical guideline authors. Nevertheless, little is known about COI among neurology clinical guideline authors. This study aimed to evaluate the financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and authors of Clinical Practice Guideline for Headache Disorders (CPGHD) in Japan.MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of 2016–2020 personal payments data disclosed by all pharmaceutical companies affiliated with the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. We examined amounts and fraction of personal payments to all 57 CPGHD authors and all neurologists board-certified by the Japanese Society of Neurology. Payment data was descriptively analyzed at individual author level.ResultsAmong 57 CPGHD authors, 56 (98.3%) received personal payments totaling $2.7 million from pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2020. Median five-year payments were $89,955 for CPGHD authors, while $521 for board-certified neurologists. The CPGHD chairperson and vice chairperson received substantial payments during the guideline development period. Nevertheless, because of less rigorous and transparent COI policy compared to international standard policies, only 10 authors disclosed their financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies in the guideline.ConclusionsMore than 98% of CPGHD authors received much higher personal payments from pharmaceutical companies than those to board-certified neurologists during the guideline development period in Japan.

Cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical industry payments to authors of clinical practice guidelines for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder in Japan

ObjectiveClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential for standardising patient care based on evidence-based medicine. However, the presence of financial conflicts of interest (COIs) among CPG authors can undermine their credibility....

From science-policy interface to science-policy panel: The United Nations’ strengthening of the sustainable life cycle management of chemicals

In recent years, the chemical production and waste generation have been rapidly increasing, presenting substantial hazards to the ecosystem and human well-being. To address this issue, a series of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) have been developed internationally, that provide essential decision-making support for the appropriate governance of chemicals and wastes in the participating countries. MEAs have established subsidiary bodies known as science-policy interface (SPI) institutions to provide evidence-based support and scientific assessments for environmental policies. However, the existing SPIs face limitations that hinder their ability to tackle the obstacles presented by the vast quantities of chemicals and wastes currently found in the environment. Therefore, the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly made the decision to establish a science-policy panel to promote the effective management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution (SPP-CWP). This panel is intended to be an independent intergovernmental body, similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The United Nations Environment Programme convened an ad hoc open-ended working group (OEWG) to design strategies for the SPP-CWP. Since 2022, three OEWG meetings have been conducted, and draft documents outlining the panel's scope, functions, operational principles, conflict of interest policy, institutional setup, work processes, and procedures have been formulated. In this article, we analyzed the background and development of the SPP-CWP and provided updates regarding the progress of the panel's establishment. We also suggested future trends for the SPP-CWP. We concluded that SPP-CWP will be a comprehensive and authoritative international body, providing policymakers with exhaustive reports, consequently strengthening the capacity of life cycle management of chemicals. Thus, the panel will effectively reduce or prevent waste production and pollution, promote material circulation, and minimize resource consumption, making significant contributions to the establishment of a circular economy and an environmentally friendly society.

Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.

Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. International collaboration. 44 experts. Consensus on checklist items. The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Beyond Bias: Aggregate Approaches to Conflicts of Interest Research and Policy in Biomedical Research.

Considerable efforts have been devoted to addressing the problem of conflicts of interest (COI) in health research, policy, education, and practice. An overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates that conflicts associate with deleterious outcomes for the biomedical research enterprise. Nevertheless, little has changed for research, specifically, since the Institute of Medicine's landmark Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Practice, and Education was published over a decade ago. In this article, we draw on interdisciplinary research on manufactured controversies in science-policy deliberation to argue that the development of meaningful COI policy has been stymied through argumentative "wedges" designed to delay consensus and policy formation. Argumentative wedges disrupt policy formation by mischaracterizing the evidence base, continuously redefining the terms of the debate and/or recommending overly narrow criteria for who should be allowed to participate in policy deliberation. In this article, we argue researchers and policymakers interested in better addressing the harmful effects of COI can improve their efforts through strategic efforts designed to disrupt the wedges of manufactured controversy. Additionally, we argue that efforts to address COI can be further enhanced through embracing a broader framework for COI inquiry. Specifically, we argue that aggregate approaches to COI can help to disrupt these wedges and provide a strong foundation for future policy.

Get familiar with who is impacted by excess benefit/self‐dealing rules

Among other things, a nonprofit board's conflict of interest policies are meant to shield the organization from fraud and malfeasance that can come as a result of self‐dealing—that is, a board member benefiting financially off the board's decisions and organizations' operations.

Conflict of interest policies at Australian medical schools.

Pharmaceutical industry exposure is widespread during medical training and may affect education and clinical decision-making. Medical faculties' conflict of interest (COI) policies help to limit this exposure and protect students against commercial influence. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence, content and strength of COI policies at Australian medical schools and changes since a previous assessment conducted in 2009. We identified policies by searching medical school and host university websites in January 2021, and contacted deans to identify any missed policies. We applied a modified version of a scorecard developed in previous studies to examine the content of COI policies. All data were coded in duplicate. COI policies were rated on a scale from 0 (no policy) to 2 (strong policy) across 11 items per medical school. Oversight mechanisms and sanctions were also assessed, and current policies were compared with the 2009 study. Of 155 potentially relevant policies, 153 were university-wide and two were specific to medical schools. No policies covered sales representatives, on-site sponsored education or free samples. Oversight of consultancies had improved substantially, with 76% of schools requiring preapproval. Disclosure policies, while usually present, were weak, with no public disclosure required. We found little indication that Australian medical students are protected from commercial influence on medical education, and there has been limited COI policy development within the past decade. More attention is needed to ensure the independence of medical education in Australia.

Professional boundaries between faculty/staff and students in UK higher education: students’ levels of comfort with personal and sexualised interactions

ABSTRACT The concept of ‘professional boundaries’ – widely used in sectors where professional relationships between adults are regulated – has not commonly been drawn on in higher education (HE) to understand and denote appropriate relationships between faculty or staff and students. Nevertheless, in recent years the question of how to regulate sexual and romantic relationships between faculty/staff and students has been a developing policy concern within HE institutions internationally. In order to contribute to empirically-informed policy development in this area, this article explores students’ levels of comfort with different sexualised and non-sexualised behaviours from staff/faculty, drawing on data from 1492 students from a national survey carried out in the United Kingdom, initially published in the National Union of Students’ report Power in the Academy (2018). New analysis on this data is introduced, outlining scales of ‘personal’ and ‘sexualised’ interactions, which reveal the patterns of comfort and discomfort across different demographic groups of students, most notably women, LGBTQ+ students, and Black and Asian students. The analysis identifies areas of interaction with staff/faculty that are of concern to different groups of students, calling into question existing policy frameworks such as conflict of interest policies and varying levels of regulation for undergraduate and postgraduate students. In the light of these findings, the article makes two recommendations: first, that training on professional boundaries should be included in higher education teaching qualifications, and second, for the development of shared norms around professional boundaries within academic departments and professional societies.

Flashback Foreword: KRAS Is a Selection Marker for Panitumumab Benefit in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Article Tools FLASHBACK FOREWORD Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES JCO Flashback: Predictive Value of KRAS Mutations on the Outcomes of Panitumumab Monotherapy in Colorectal Cancer. June 14, 2023 Wild-Type KRAS Is Required for Panitumumab Efficacy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. June 14, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00221 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print June 14, 2023 PMID: 37315388 Flashback Foreword: KRAS Is a Selection Marker for Panitumumab Benefit in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Andrew H. Ko, MD1,2xAndrew H. KoSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Associate Editor, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA2University of California San Francisco Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00221 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyTHE TAKEAWAYIn 2008, Amado et al1 published a biomarker analysis demonstrating the negative predictive value of KRAS mutations for outcome of antiepidermal growth factor receptor therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. These findings guide treatment decision making for colorectal cancer that continues up to the present time and also informed further discoveries relating to treatment resistance and approaches to monitoring for this disease.AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTFlashback Foreword: KRAS Is a Selection Marker for Panitumumab Benefit in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal CancerThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Andrew H. KoThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Honoraria: Research to Practice, Clinical Care Options, Medscape, BioAscent, MJH Life Sciences, Gerson Lehrman GroupConsulting or Advisory Role: ERYTECH Pharma, Imugene, SynCoreBio, Roche/Genentech, Ipsen, Five Prime Therapeutics, Tyme, Turning Point Therapeutics, Signatera, Syros PharmaceuticalsSpeakers' Bureau: Clinical Care OptionsResearch Funding: Celgene (Inst), Merck (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AbGenomics International (Inst), Apexigen (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Leap Therapeutics (Inst), BioMed Valley Discoveries (Inst), CrystalGenomics (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion JCO Flashback: Predictive Value of KRAS Mutations on the Outcomes of Panitumumab Monotherapy in Colorectal Cancer Wild-Type KRAS Is Required for Panitumumab Efficacy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Rationale for Cotargeting Hepatocyte Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer.

Article Tools UNDERSTANDING THE PATHWAY Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES Randomized Phase II Trial of Ficlatuzumab With or Without Cetuximab in Pan-Refractory, Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer. March 28, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00460 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print June 15, 2023 PMID: 37319388 Rationale for Cotargeting Hepatocyte Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer Stéphanie Kermorgant, PhD1xStéphanie KermorgantSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Spatial Signalling Group, Barts Cancer Institute–a CR-UK Centre of Excellence, Queen Mary University of London, John Vane Science Centre, London, United Kingdom https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00460 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologySUPPORTSupported by Rosetrees Trust (M314 and M346), Barts Charity (MGU0511, G-001868, G-002205), and the MRC (MR/R009732/1).AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTRationale for Cotargeting Hepatocyte Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck CancerThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).No potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion Randomized Phase II Trial of Ficlatuzumab With or Without Cetuximab in Pan-Refractory, Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer

Financial conflicts of interest between pharmaceutical companies and executive board members of internal medicine subspecialty societies in Japan between 2016 and 2020.

Pharmaceutical companies make payments to physicians such as compensations for lecturing or consulting. Of particular, financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and leaders of professional medical societies are concern in medical community. However, little was known about them in Japan. This study aimed to evaluate the magnitude and prevalence of personal payments to executive board members (EBMs)of 15 medical associations representing different subspecialties within the Japanese Society of Internal Medicine. All EBMs of 15 medical associations representing internal medicine subspecialties were collected from each association webpage. Payments to the EBMs were extracted from the pharmaceutical companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association between 2016 and 2020. We performed descriptive analysis on the payment data. Of the 353 different EBMs identified, 350 (99.2%) received one or more personal payments from the pharmaceutical companies over the 5 years. 99.2% (350) and 97.2% (343) of all EBMs received personal payments 3 years before and in the year of their board membership. A total of $70,796,014 were made to the EBMs over the 5 years. The median 5-year combined personal payments per EBM was $150,849 (interquartile range [IQR]:$73,412-$282,456). EBMs who were chairman or vice chairman of executive board received significantly larger median personal payments than those who were not ($225,685 vs. $143,885, p = 0.01 in the U test). Among the 15 societies, there were 12 (80.0%) societies with all (100%) EBMs receiving personal payments from the pharmaceutical companies. Although every society has their own conflicts of interest policy, none publicly discloses the financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and their EBMs due to their privacy. This study demonstrated that nearly all EBMs of 15 medical associations representing internal medicine subspecialties had substantial financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies in Japan over the past 5 years.

Microsatellite Instability Detection: The Current Standards, Limitations, and Misinterpretations.

Article Tools REVIEW ARTICLES Diagnostics Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/PO.23.00010 JCO Precision Oncology no. 7 (2023) e2300010. Published online June 14, 2023. PMID: 37315263 Microsatellite Instability Detection: The Current Standards, Limitations, and Misinterpretations Valentina Yakushina , PhD1,2xValentina YakushinaSearch for articles by this author; Alexandra Kavun , MSc1xAlexandra KavunSearch for articles by this author; Egor Veselovsky, MSc1,3xEgor VeselovskySearch for articles by this author; Tatiana Grigoreva , MSc1,4xTatiana GrigorevaSearch for articles by this author; Ekaterina Belova , PhD1,5xEkaterina BelovaSearch for articles by this author; Alexandra Lebedeva , MSc1xAlexandra LebedevaSearch for articles by this author; Vladislav Mileyko , MSc1xVladislav MileykoSearch for articles by this author; and Maxim Ivanov , PhD1,6xMaxim IvanovSearch for articles by this author Show More 1OncoAtlas LLC, Moscow, Russian Federation2Laboratory of Epigenetics, Research Centre for Medical Genetics, Moscow, Russian Federation3Department of Evolutionary Genetics of Development, Koltzov Institute of Developmental Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation4Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation5Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation6Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russian Federation https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.23.00010 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyCONTEXTKey ObjectiveAccurate microsatellite instability (MSI) assessment is critical for Lynch syndrome diagnostics, prognosis of disease progression, and success of chemotherapy and immunotherapy. In immunotherapy, false-positive MSI testing prevents putative responding patients from receiving effective treatment, and false-negative MSI testing leads to the prescription of ineffective therapy with its adverse effects.Knowledge GeneratedThis article provides the main advantages and limitations of the standard MSI testing methods and novel approaches in clinical practice, assesses possible sources of errors, discusses best practices and guidelines, and highlights the unsolved questions that remain sources of incorrect interpretation.RelevanceAmong novel approaches, next-generation sequencing (NGS) is considered one of the most promising; its advantages include high accuracy, an expanded spectrum of microsatellites analyzed, and simultaneous assessment of a comprehensive spectrum of clinically significant markers. In liquid biopsy, NGS-based approaches demonstrate outstanding results.SUPPORTSupported by the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 22-75-10154; https://rscf.ru/project/22-75-10154/).AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConception and design: Valentina Yakushina, Vladislav Mileyko, Maxim IvanovData analysis and interpretation: Alexandra Kavun, Egor Veselovsky, Tatiana Grigoreva, Ekaterina Belova, Alexandra LebedevaManuscript writing: All authorsFinal approval of manuscript: All authorsAccountable for all aspects of the work: All authorsAUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTThe following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/po/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Valentina YakushinaEmployment: Atlas OncodiagnosticsAlexandra KavunEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCEgor VeselovskyEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCTatiana GrigorevaEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCEkaterina BelovaEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCAlexandra LebedevaEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCVladislav MileykoEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCLeadership: OncoAtlas LLCStock and Other Ownership Interests: OncoAtlasResearch Funding: I-pharmMaxim IvanovEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Flashback Foreword: Cisplatin/Pemetrexed in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Article Tools FLASHBACK FOREWORD Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. May 05, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.02804 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print May 5, 2023 PMID: 37146425 Flashback Foreword: Cisplatin/Pemetrexed in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Thomas E. Stinchcombe , MD1,2xThomas E. StinchcombeSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Duke Cancer Institute, Division of Medical Oncology, Durham, NC2Associate Editor, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.02804 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyTHE TAKEAWAYThis phase III, noninferiority study1 investigated the novel chemotherapy combination of cisplatin and pemetrexed compared with the standard combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine demonstrating that survival was noninferior between the two platinum-based combinations, and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia was observed with cisplatin and pemetrexed. However, cisplatin and pemetrexed demonstrated a superior survival in patients with adenocarcinoma and large cell histologies and inferior survival in patients with squamous histology, and after this trial, the use of pemetrexed was restricted to patients with nonsquamous histology.AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTFlashback Foreword: Cisplatin/Pemetrexed in Non–Small-Cell Lung CancerThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Thomas E. StinchcombeThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Turning Point Therapeutics, Sanofi/Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Takeda, Eisai/H3 Biomedicine, G1 Therapeutics, Spectrum PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

A Case of Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Pembrolizumab in Metaplastic Breast Cancer

Article Tools CASE REPORTS Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/PO.22.00506 JCO Precision Oncology no. 7 (2023) e2200506. Published online May 17, 2023. PMID: 37196220 A Case of Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Pembrolizumab in Metaplastic Breast Cancer Anita Gul , MD1xAnita GulSearch for articles by this author; J. Jaime Alberty-Oller , MD, FACS2xJ. Jaime Alberty-OllerSearch for articles by this author; Jagbir Sandhu, MD1xJagbir SandhuSearch for articles by this author; Everick Ayala-Bustamante, MD2xEverick Ayala-BustamanteSearch for articles by this author; and Sylvia Adams , MD3xSylvia AdamsSearch for articles by this author Show More 1New York Medical College, Metropolitan Hospital, New York, NY2SUNY Downstate Health Sciences Center, Kings County Hospital, Brooklyn, NY3Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.22.00506 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyDATA SHARING STATEMENTAll the data supporting the findings in this case report are contained within the text.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConception and design: Anita Gul, Jagbir Sandhu, Sylvia AdamsCollection and assembly of data: Anita Gul, J. Jaime Alberty-Oller, Jagbir Sandhu, Everick Ayala-BustamanteData analysis and interpretation: Anita Gul, Jagbir Sandhu, Everick Ayala-Bustamante, Sylvia AdamsManuscript writing: All authorsFinal approval of manuscript: All authorsAccountable for all aspects of the work: All authorsAUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTThe following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/po/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).J. Jaime Alberty-OllerHonoraria: HologicConsulting or Advisory Role: HologicTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: HologicSylvia AdamsConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Merck (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Novartis (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Exceptional Response to Dual Colony-Stimulating Factor 1 Receptor/PD-L1 Targeting After Primary Resistance to PD-1 Inhibition in a Patient With a Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

Exceptional Response to Dual Colony-Stimulating Factor 1 Receptor/PD-L1 Targeting After Primary Resistance to PD-1 Inhibition in a Patient With a Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

Response to Repotrectinib After Development of NTRK Resistance Mutations on First- and Second-Generation TRK Inhibitors.

Article Tools CASE REPORTS Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/PO.22.00697 JCO Precision Oncology no. 7 (2023) e2200697. Published online June 1, 2023. PMID: 37262390 Response to Repotrectinib After Development of NTRK Resistance Mutations on First- and Second-Generation TRK Inhibitors Monica F. Chen , MD1,2xMonica F. ChenSearch for articles by this author; Soo-Ryum Yang, MD3xSoo-Ryum YangSearch for articles by this author; Jinru Shia , MD3xJinru ShiaSearch for articles by this author; Jeffrey Girshman , MD4xJeffrey GirshmanSearch for articles by this author; Sippy Punn, RN5xSippy PunnSearch for articles by this author; Clare Wilhelm , PhD1xClare WilhelmSearch for articles by this author; Mark G. Kris, MD1xMark G. KrisSearch for articles by this author; Emiliano Cocco , PhD6xEmiliano CoccoSearch for articles by this author; Alexander Drilon , MD1,2xAlexander DrilonSearch for articles by this author; and Nitya Raj , MD5xNitya RajSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Thoracic Oncology Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY2Early Drug Development Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY3Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY4Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY5Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY6Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL*M.F.C. and S.-R.Y. contributed equally to this work as cofirst authors. A.D. and N.R. contributed equally to this work as cosenior authors. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.22.00697 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologySUPPORTSupported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (R01CA226864 to E.C. and A.D; and P30CA008748 to M.F.C., S.-R.Y., J.S., J.G., M.G.K., A.D., N.R.); and Nonna’s Garden Foundation (to A.D.).AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTThe following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/po/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Monica F. ChenStock and Other Ownership Interests: NordiskSoo-Ryum YangHonoraria: Prime EducationConsulting or Advisory Role: InVitaeJinru ShiaConsulting or Advisory Role: PAIGE.AIMark G. KrisConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen, Merus, BerGenBioTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech, AstraZenecaOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/markgkris/summaryEmiliano CoccoEmployment: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Entos Pharmaceuticals, Institutional Biosafety CommitteeResearch Funding: Innocare, Erasca IncAlexander DrilonStock and Other Ownership Interests: Treeline BiosciencesHonoraria: Pfizer, Loxo/Bayer/Lilly, IASLC, Helsinn Therapeutics, BeiGene, Remedica, TP Therapeutics, Verastem, Ignyta/Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Liberum, Lungevity, NIH, PER, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, Clinical Care Options/NCCN, Lung Cancer Research Foundation, Associazione Italiana Oncologia Toracica (AIOT), Chugai Pharma, Sirio Libanes Hospital, Answers in CME, Research to Practice, i3 Health, RV MaisConsulting or Advisory Role: Ignyta, Loxo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Blueprint Medicines, Genentech/Roche, BeiGene, Hengrui Therapeutics, Exelixis, Bayer, Tyra Biosciences, Takeda/Millennium, BerGenBio, MORE Health, Lilly, AbbVie, 14ner Oncology/Elevation Oncology, Monopteros Therapeutics, Novartis, EMD Serono/Merck, Repare Therapeutics, Melendi, Archer, Nuvalent, Inc, Janssen, Amgen, Merus, Axis Pharma, Medscape, Liberum, Med Learning, PeerView, EPG Health, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Ology Medical Education, Ology Medical Education, Clinical Care Options, touchIME, Entos, Prelude Therapeutics, Applied Pharmaceutical Science, Treeline Biosciences, Monte Rosa TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Foundation MedicinePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Wolters Kluwer (Royalties for Pocket Oncology)Other Relationship: Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Merus, Boehringer IngelheimNitya RajConsulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, HRA Pharma, Advanced Accelerator Applications/Novartis, ProgenicsResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Xencor (Inst), Corcept Therapeutics (Inst), ITM Isotope Technologies Munich (Inst), Camarus AB (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Flashback Foreword: Bevacizumab + Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in NSCLC

Article Tools FLASHBACK FOREWORD Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Bevacizumab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone in Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. April 26, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.02790 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print April 26, 2023 Flashback Foreword: Bevacizumab + Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in NSCLC Thomas E. Stinchcombe , MD1,2xThomas E. StinchcombeSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Associate Editor, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA2Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.02790 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyTHE TAKEAWAYThis randomized phase II trial1 compared carboplatin and paclitaxel alone (the control arm) with carboplatin and paclitaxel with bevacizumab at two doses in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks was the dose selected for future clinical trials, and an excessive rate of toxicity was observed in the subset of patients with squamous histology, leading to the exclusion of patients with NSCLC with squamous histology from future trials of bevacizumab in NSCLC.AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTFlashback Foreword: Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Bevacizumab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone in Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung CancerThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Thomas E. StinchcombeThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Turning Point Therapeutics, Sanofi/Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Takeda, Eisai/H3 Biomedicine, G1 Therapeutics, Spectrum PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Bevacizumab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone in Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Perspective: Examining Conflicts of Interest for Professional Service within the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

Judgments and integrity uphold professionalism. Failure to manage professional conflicts of interest (COIs) may undermine trust in an individual, practitioner, or institution. This perspective article examines standards for nutrition researchers and practitioners to manage COIs for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) process. Thereafter, this article analyzes a study published by Mialon etal. that raised concerns about the expert advisory committee selection process and management of COIs for 20 professionals appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the USDA, who served on a federal government advisory committee to review evidence for the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) 2020 scientific report. The analysis found that Mialon etal. enumerated COIs for each DGAC member with industry, removed from the original context, which prevented readers from assessing the COI risk. Moreover, the USDA ethics office concluded that "the 20 committee members were in full compliance with the federal ethics rules applicable to special government employees." I conclude that Mialon etal. could use institutional mechanisms to encourage the USDA and HHS to strengthen future COI policies and procedures, aligned with the 2022 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report recommendations to improve the DGA 2025 to 2030 process.

Authors' conflicts of interest in Nepalese healthcare journals.

Most biomedical journals now require authors to declare their conflicts of interest (COI), especially financial ones, before they accept the manuscript for submission. This study aims to examine the COI policies of Nepalese healthcare journals. The sample constituted journals indexed in Nepal Journals Online (NepJOL) as of June 2021. Of the 68 that met our inclusion criteria, 38(55.9%) journals endorsed the COI policy of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Thirty-six (52.9%) journals had a policy for reporting the COI. Financial COI was the only type of COI mentioned. All journals in Nepal are encouraged to request the authors to declare the COI for better transparency.