{"title":"制药业资助和前列腺癌化疗试验:系统综述","authors":"Amirreza Heydari , Behnam Shakiba , Asaad Moradi , Saeed Esmaeil Soofian , Nasrollah Abian , Kazem Heidari , Robab Maghsoudi","doi":"10.1016/j.ctarc.2023.100739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Clinical trials are increasingly supported by industries while previous studies have shown that industry-supported studies have more favorable results than studies with other sources of funding. In the present study, we investigated the association of industrial funding on the results of clinical trials regarding chemotherapy in prostate cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify clinical trials comparing chemotherapy with treatments such as hormone therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and placebo in patients with metastatic or non-metastatic prostate cancer. Data were extracted by two reviewers on the financial resources and the positive or negative results of chemotherapy in each study. The quality of articles was evaluated and compared based on Cochrane Critical Appraisal Tool. The trials were divided into two groups; industry funded and those not funded by industry. Association of industry funding and positive outcome was presented as odds ratio.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In this study, out of the 91 studies, 80.2% were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 19.8% were funded by government agencies. The end result of 61.6% of the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies was an increase in survival due to chemotherapy, whereas only 27.8% of the studies sponsored by government agencies reported positive results (P-value=0.010). In fact, industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant positive results for survival (OR: 4.17; CI, 1.34–12.99). In general, there was no significant difference in the degree of bias between the two groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>According to this study, despite of the similar quality of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies, positive results were more common in studies related to pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, this point should be taken into account when making a decision on the best treatment approach.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9507,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment and research communications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmaceutical industry funding and chemotherapy trials for prostate cancer: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Amirreza Heydari , Behnam Shakiba , Asaad Moradi , Saeed Esmaeil Soofian , Nasrollah Abian , Kazem Heidari , Robab Maghsoudi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ctarc.2023.100739\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Clinical trials are increasingly supported by industries while previous studies have shown that industry-supported studies have more favorable results than studies with other sources of funding. In the present study, we investigated the association of industrial funding on the results of clinical trials regarding chemotherapy in prostate cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify clinical trials comparing chemotherapy with treatments such as hormone therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and placebo in patients with metastatic or non-metastatic prostate cancer. Data were extracted by two reviewers on the financial resources and the positive or negative results of chemotherapy in each study. The quality of articles was evaluated and compared based on Cochrane Critical Appraisal Tool. The trials were divided into two groups; industry funded and those not funded by industry. Association of industry funding and positive outcome was presented as odds ratio.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In this study, out of the 91 studies, 80.2% were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 19.8% were funded by government agencies. The end result of 61.6% of the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies was an increase in survival due to chemotherapy, whereas only 27.8% of the studies sponsored by government agencies reported positive results (P-value=0.010). In fact, industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant positive results for survival (OR: 4.17; CI, 1.34–12.99). In general, there was no significant difference in the degree of bias between the two groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>According to this study, despite of the similar quality of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies, positive results were more common in studies related to pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, this point should be taken into account when making a decision on the best treatment approach.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer treatment and research communications\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer treatment and research communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468294223000618\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer treatment and research communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468294223000618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Pharmaceutical industry funding and chemotherapy trials for prostate cancer: A systematic review
Introduction
Clinical trials are increasingly supported by industries while previous studies have shown that industry-supported studies have more favorable results than studies with other sources of funding. In the present study, we investigated the association of industrial funding on the results of clinical trials regarding chemotherapy in prostate cancer.
Methods
A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify clinical trials comparing chemotherapy with treatments such as hormone therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and placebo in patients with metastatic or non-metastatic prostate cancer. Data were extracted by two reviewers on the financial resources and the positive or negative results of chemotherapy in each study. The quality of articles was evaluated and compared based on Cochrane Critical Appraisal Tool. The trials were divided into two groups; industry funded and those not funded by industry. Association of industry funding and positive outcome was presented as odds ratio.
Results
In this study, out of the 91 studies, 80.2% were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 19.8% were funded by government agencies. The end result of 61.6% of the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies was an increase in survival due to chemotherapy, whereas only 27.8% of the studies sponsored by government agencies reported positive results (P-value=0.010). In fact, industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant positive results for survival (OR: 4.17; CI, 1.34–12.99). In general, there was no significant difference in the degree of bias between the two groups.
Conclusion
According to this study, despite of the similar quality of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies, positive results were more common in studies related to pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, this point should be taken into account when making a decision on the best treatment approach.
期刊介绍：
Cancer Treatment and Research Communications is an international peer-reviewed publication dedicated to providing comprehensive basic, translational, and clinical oncology research. The journal is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, policy, and treatment of cancer and provides a global forum for the nurturing and development of future generations of oncology scientists. Cancer Treatment and Research Communications publishes comprehensive reviews and original studies describing various aspects of basic through clinical research of all tumor types. The journal also accepts clinical studies in oncology, with an emphasis on prospective early phase clinical trials. Specific areas of interest include basic, translational, and clinical research and mechanistic approaches; cancer biology; molecular carcinogenesis; genetics and genomics; stem cell and developmental biology; immunology; molecular and cellular oncology; systems biology; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; cancer policy; and integration of various approaches. Our mission is to be the premier source of relevant information through promoting excellence in research and facilitating the timely translation of that science to health care and clinical practice.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
