Abstract 613P
Background
Physicians have frequent interactions with the pharmaceutical industry (pharma), however, there is concern for possible corporate influence on physicians’ prescribing behaviours. We sought to understand perceptions and interactions between pharma and medical oncologists (MO), in comparison with infectious diseases (ID) physicians.
Methods
We conducted an anonymous online cross-sectional survey of Australian MO and ID physicians comparing self-reported interactions and attitudes with pharma. An additional survey was undertaken at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Results
A total of 204 Australian and Singaporean physicians were surveyed including 102 oncologists and 102 ID physicians. Demographics including age, gender and years of practice between the two Australian specialties were similar, with an exception that most ID physicians had mainly public work (95% vs. 78% for oncologists, p<0.001). Oncologists had more frequent contact with pharma, the majority (69%) negotiating compassionate access for patients on a monthly/annual basis, compared with ID physicians who had never done so (45%), p<0.001. More ID physicians had never attended a sponsored meeting (15% ID vs. 27% MO respectively, p=0.01) or received travel/accommodation grants from pharma (42% ID vs. 85% MO respectively, p<0.001). However, most physicians (92%) had never received gifts from pharma, with no difference between groups (p=0.17). Most Australian oncologists believed that interacting with pharma was overall beneficial for patient care (78%) compared to ID physicians (34%, p<0.001). This statement was shared by 71% of Singaporean oncologists. Similar rates of Australian oncologists and ID physicians (83% vs. 88%, respectively) felt comfortable for patients to know the details of their interactions with pharma, however, only 57% of Singaporean oncologists agreed with this statement. Most Australian respondents (77%) agreed that there was strong public skepticism of these interactions (p=0.35).
Conclusions
Medical oncologists had more interactions with pharma than ID physicians and were more likely to believe that this was overall beneficial to patient care despite the negative public perception associated with this.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
P.L. Chia: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Merck, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen; Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Funding: Merck, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen. T. John: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, Speaker tour Vietnam: AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, CTIO: Merck Sharp Dohme; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: BMS, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Specialised Therapeutics; Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Takeda, PharmaMar; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Speaker/Chair: ACE Oncology. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
238P - Enfortumab-vedotin for metastatic urothelial carcinoma refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors: A single institution experience
Presenter: Yuki Endo
Session: Poster Display
Resources:
Abstract
239P - Elevated baseline C-reactive protein is a prognostic indicator for OS in patients with metastatic non clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with systemic therapy
Presenter: Ryuichi Mizuno
Session: Poster Display
Resources:
Abstract
240P - Efficacy and safety of first-line combination therapy with ipilimumab + nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a single institution in Japan
Presenter: Naoya Nagaya
Session: Poster Display
Resources:
Abstract
241P - First-line cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): A real-world exploratory study from eastern India
Presenter: Tamojit Chaudhuri
Session: Poster Display
Resources:
Abstract
244P - Clinicopathologic feature and treatment outcome of metastatic non clear cell kidney cancer: A single centre experience from India
Presenter: Somnath Roy
Session: Poster Display
Resources:
Abstract
245P - The role of TGF-β in the formation of the protumor phenotype of circulating neutrophils at different stages of renal cancer
Presenter: Ilseya Myagdieva
Session: Poster Display
Resources:
Abstract
246P - Impact of renal impairment on first-line treatment in metastatic urothelial cancer
Presenter: Stephanie Wakeling
Session: Poster Display
Resources:
Abstract
247P - Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the management of bladder adenocarcinoma compared to multiple treatment modalities
Presenter: Othman Mohammed
Session: Poster Display
Resources:
Abstract
248P - Screening zinc homeostasis-related genes identifies metallothionein 1H (MT1H) as a potential prognostic biomarker in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)
Presenter: Eyad Al Masoud
Session: Poster Display
Resources:
Abstract
249P - The prognostic utility of Progestogen associated Endometrial protein (PAEP) gene expression in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)
Presenter: Leen Lataifeh
Session: Poster Display
Resources:
Abstract