For the first time, data accrued over a decade show that the involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in clinical breast cancer research may have significantly influenced study design, focus, and results, according to a study published in the April 1 issue of Cancer.
For the first time, data accrued over a decade show that the involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in clinical breast cancer research may have significantly influenced study design, focus, and results, according to a study published in the April 1 issue of Cancer.
The pharmaceutical industry's support for research and development has increasingly outspent that of the federal government since 1992. The trend has made researchers wary that the collaboration between drug corporations and academy could have potential impact on the nature and quality of research. It has also suggested potential conflicts of interest.
More than one million women worldwide get a breast cancer diagnosis each year, which turns treatment research into an important public health issue as well as a lucrative business.
Dr. Jeffrey Peppercorn, an assistant professor of oncology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, and colleagues at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston evaluated the impact of the shift from public to private funding on breast cancer clinical research. They reviewed 140 studies reporting breast cancer therapy results over the past decade in select journals at five-year intervals.
The group found that breast cancer treatment trials supported by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to report positive results than nonsponsored studies. The researchers also found significant differences in trial design and endpoints between industry-sponsored trials compared with publicly funded trials.
Almost half of the 140 studies showed some form of drug industry involvement through authorship, drug supply, or financial support. Studies with pharmaceutical support or participation were more likely to report positive results, favoring the experimental therapy (p = 0.02). These studies were also more likely to use single-arm designs (p = 0.03) and show a selection bias toward patients with advanced disease (p = 0.06). The study also found that drug company participation increased from 44% in 1993 to 58% in 2003.
These types of studies help identify new effective drugs. They may not answer questions about proper patient selection for treatment and management of disease, however, the researchers wrote in the study.
The impact of growing pharmaceutical industry involvement in breast cancer clinical research seems to mimic a pattern seen in other fields of medical research. Although this industry-academy research partnership could result in improved therapies, the authors cautioned that it could also focus on some clinical problems while neglecting others.
For more information from the Diagnostic Imaging archives:
Biomarkers initiate major shift in imaging research
MI addresses conundrum of investigational drug trials
Institutional pressures impede translational research
Stay at the forefront of radiology with the Diagnostic Imaging newsletter, delivering the latest news, clinical insights, and imaging advancements for today’s radiologists.
Mammography Study: AI Facilitates Greater Accuracy and Longer Fixation Time on Suspicious Areas
July 8th 2025While noting no differences in sensitivity, specificity or reading time with adjunctive AI for mammography screening, the authors of a new study noted a 4 percent higher AUC and increased fixation time on lesion regions.
Can Contrast-Enhanced Mammography be a Viable Screening Alternative to Breast MRI?
June 17th 2025While the addition of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) led to over a 13 percent increase in false positive cases, researchers also noted over double the cancer yield per 1,000 women in comparison to DBT alone.
Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and High-Concentration ICM Dosing: What a New Study Reveals
June 16th 2025New research showed a 96 to 97 percent sensitivity for contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) with an increased iodine delivery rate facilitating robust contrast enhancement for women with aggressive breast cancer.