Pharmaceutical industry funding and chemotherapy trials for prostate cancer: A systematic review

Amirreza Heydari; Behnam Shakiba; Asaad Moradi; Saeed Esmaeil Soofian; Nasrollah Abian; Kazem Heidari; Robab Maghsoudi

doi:10.1016/j.ctarc.2023.100739

Pharmaceutical industry funding and chemotherapy trials for prostate cancer: A systematic review

Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2023:36:100739. doi: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2023.100739. Epub 2023 Jun 28.

Authors

Amirreza Heydari¹, Behnam Shakiba², Asaad Moradi³, Saeed Esmaeil Soofian⁴, Nasrollah Abian⁵, Kazem Heidari⁶, Robab Maghsoudi³

Affiliations

¹ School of medicine, Iran university of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran.
² Department of Urology, Firoozgar Hospital, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences; Firoozgar Clinical Research Development Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences. Electronic address: shakiba.b@iums.ac.ir.
³ Department of Urology, Firoozgar Hospital, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences.
⁴ Hasheminejad Kidney Center, School of medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
⁵ Azar Hospital, Golestan University of Medical Sciences and Health Servicess, Gorgan, Iran.
⁶ Clinical Trial Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

PMID: 37419057
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2023.100739

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Chemotherapy; Clinical trial; Prostate cancer.

Publication types

Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Drug Industry*
Humans
Male
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Prostatic Neoplasms* / drug therapy

Substances

Pharmaceutical Preparations