International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Publishing and EducationDoes Cancer Literature Reflect Multidisciplinary Practice? A Systematic Review of Oncology Studies in the Medical Literature Over a 20-Year Period
Introduction
Cancer is best treated by a multidisciplinary team consisting of surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists (1). Although each oncologic specialist brings her or his own expertise and experience to the tumor board discussion, articles published in high-impact general oncology and medicine journals often become the common language spoken by the members of a patient's oncologic team. As such, studies published in high-impact general oncology and medicine journals have the potential to significantly alter practice and referral patterns and inform multidisciplinary discussions. In keeping, patterns of referral for radiation therapy have been shown to be influenced by the referring medical oncologists' familiarity of the indications for and logistics of radiation therapy regimens 2, 3.
Although it has been shown that cancer studies enjoy disproportionately high representation in high-impact journals (4), limited information is available regarding the relative representation of different cancer treatment modalities. One study did evaluate trends in the publication of pharmacotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery studies in head and neck cancer research (5). The authors found that because US government sponsorship of oncology research has declined, industry has become the predominant funding source for prospective trials, and industry largely supports studies evaluating pharmacotherapy (5). We hypothesized that fewer prospective trials evaluating local therapies are being published in high-impact general medicine and general oncology journals and that part of the reason for this discrepancy may be disproportionate industry and commercial sponsorship. Other factors that may contribute to decreased numbers of surgery and radiation studies could include differences in perceived study “quality” as defined by factors such as randomized trial design, primary endpoint, number of patients, and length of follow-up.
This study evaluated the distribution of oncology publications that assessed a therapeutic intervention (local, systemic, or targeted therapies) across 3 general medicine, 3 general oncology, 2 radiation oncology, and 2 surgical oncology journals over 3 time points: 1994, 2004, and 2014. In addition, we assessed study characteristics such as disease setting, trial design, primary endpoint, study outcome, number of patients, duration of follow-up, receipt of industry funding and number of citations.
Section snippets
Methods and Materials
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed in the planning, implementation, and reporting of this systematic review (6). Ten journals (general medicine, general oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology) were chosen for analysis based on their impact factor, broad readership, and potential to impact practice. Included were 3 general medicine journals: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet (Lancet), and Journal of the American
Results
A total of 8460 articles were published in the included journals during the study period of interest. A total of 7500 articles were excluded (Fig. 1), and 960 prospective studies (11.3%) were included for analysis. Of the 960 studies included, 68 studies (7.1%) were published in general medicine journals, 692 studies (72.1%) were published in general oncology journals, 164 studies (17.1%) were published in radiation oncology journals, and 36 studies (3.8%) were published in surgical oncology
Discussion
This descriptive, bibliometric study of prospective clinical trials assessing a therapeutic intervention found local therapy trials comprised only a minority of publications. Additionally, targeted and systemic therapy trials had higher rates of industry funding than local therapy trials. Targeted therapy trials comprised 2%, 10%, and nearly 40% of the total included publications in 1994, 2004, and 2014, respectively. The number of industry-funded trials likewise increased over time. On
Conclusions
Therapeutic clinical trials evaluating local cancer therapies such as radiation and surgery are less frequently published in the highly visible, broad-impact, general medical and oncologic journals. Because the care of cancer patients is a “team sport,” the visibility and accessibility of radiation and surgery literature is important when it comes to educating referring and co-managing physicians in the role of local therapy in multidisciplinary care. We hope these data will prove useful to all
References (35)
- et al.
National Institutes of Health funding in radiation oncology: A snapshot
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(2013) - et al.
Imantinib mesylate therapy in newly diagnosed patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia: High incidence of early complete and major cytogenetic responses
Blood
(2003) - et al.
Geography of clinical cancer research publications from 1995 to 1999
Eur J Cancer
(2003) - et al.
Mapping the emergence and development of translational cancer research
Eur J Cancer
(2006) - et al.
Quality of care management decision by multidisciplinary cancer teams: A systematic review
Ann Surg Oncol
(2011) - Cancer Institute NSW. Radiotherapy in New South Wales: A business improvement strategy. July 2009. Increase education...
Barriers to palliative radiotherapy referral: A Canadian perspective
Acta Oncologica
(2007)- et al.
Representation of cancer in the medical literature—A bibliometric analysis
PLoS One
(2010) - et al.
Prospective head and neck cancer research: A four-decade bibliometric perspective
Oncologist
(2013) - et al.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement
PLoS Med
(2009)
Multiple linear regression: Accounting for multiple simultaneous determinants of a continuous dependent variable
Circulation
Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application
Generalized collinearity diagnostics
J Am Stat Assoc
Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: Retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13722 women
BMJ
Cited by (11)
Randomized controlled trials and alternative study designs in surgical oncology
2023, European Journal of Surgical OncologyAnalyzing factors associated with clinical trial publication in radiation oncology
2022, Contemporary Clinical Trials CommunicationsCitation Excerpt :Women are also generally underrepresented in academic medicine, as they have lower manuscript submission rates and face more institutional barriers to achieving senior faculty rank in radiation oncology. Academic rank, previous research productivity, and male gender have been shown to be associated with increased rate of publication. [3,11] However, these variables were too difficult to accurately describe during our review.
Analysis of the 2017 American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Research Portfolio
2019, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology PhysicsCitation Excerpt :Radiation oncologists are less likely than those in other specialties to be the PI of trials combining systemic therapy and/or surgery with radiation.13 There also is an imbalance in reporting of radiation therapy studies, with fewer trials being reported in high-impact journals.14 It is unknown what causes the lack of greater representation in clinical trials and high-impact journals.
Trends in disclosures of industry sponsorship
2016, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology PhysicsCitation Excerpt :The journal impact factor for each journal and year was obtained using online searches. These methods have previously been described (18). To examine baseline characteristics across intervention categories (systemic, local, targeted) and time period (1994, 2004, 2014), the χ2 test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used as appropriate.
Treatment that follows guidelines closely dramatically improves overall survival of patients with anal canal and margin cancers
2016, Critical Reviews in Oncology/HematologyCitation Excerpt :In this series, although patient files have been reviewed in multidisciplinary meetings since 2004, there was no difference of group distribution according to period of treatment. Indeed, treatments are more aligned with the guidelines when physicians refer to published articles (Holliday et al., 2015); the current ACC and AMC guidelines were published only in 2014 (Glynne-Jones et al., 2014b). In these retrospective studies, we compared the outcome of patients with AMC or ACC according to the treatment received, depending on whether it was close to the guidelines or not.
Underrepresentation of local therapy trials in leading medical journals: Cause for outrage or indifference?
2015, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Conflict of interest: none.