Industry Funding Among Leadership in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology in 2015.

PURPOSE: To quantify and determine the relationship between oncology departmental/division heads and private industry vis-à-vis potential financial conflict of interests (FCOIs) as publicly reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We extracted the names of the chairs/chiefs in medical oncology (MO) and chairs of radiation oncology (RO) for 81 different institutions with both RO and MO training programs as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges. For each leader, the amount of consulting fees and research payments received in 2015 was determined. Logistic modeling was used to assess associations between the 2 endpoints of receiving a consulting fee and receiving a research payment with various institution-specific and practitioner-specific variables included as covariates: specialty, sex, National Cancer Institute designation, PhD status, and geographic region. RESULTS: The majority of leaders in MO were reported to have received consulting fees or research payments (69.5%) compared with a minority of RO chairs (27.2%). Among those receiving payments, the average (range) consulting fee was $13,413 ($200-$70,423) for MO leaders and $6463 ($837-$16,205) for RO chairs; the average research payment for MO leaders receiving payments was $240,446 ($156-$1,234,762) and $295,089 ($160-$1,219,564) for RO chairs. On multivariable regression when the endpoint was receipt of a research payment, those receiving a consulting fee (odds ratio [OR]: 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.22-13.65) and MO leaders (OR: 5.54; 95% CI: 2.62-12.18) were more likely to receive research payments. Examination of the receipt of consulting fees as the endpoint showed that those receiving a research payment (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 2.23-13.99) and MO leaders (OR: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.21-8.13) were more likely to receive a consulting fee. CONCLUSION: Leaders in academic oncology receive consulting or research payments from industry. Relationships between oncology leaders and industry can be beneficial, but guidance is needed to develop consistent institutional policies to manage FCOIs.

Close to Home: Employment Outcomes for Recent Radiation Oncology Graduates.

PURPOSE: To characterize the practice type and location of radiation oncology (RO) residents graduating in 2013. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Graduates completing RO residency in 2013 were identified, and for each, postgraduate practice setting (academic vs private practice) and location were identified. Characteristics of the graduates, including details regarding their institutions of medical school and residency education, were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 146 of the 154 RO graduates from the class of 2013. Employment data were available for 142 graduates. Approximately one-third of graduates were employed in the same state as residency (36.6%), approximately two-thirds (62.0%) in the same region as residency, and nearly three-fourths (73.9%) in the same region as medical school or residency completion. Of the 66 graduates (46.5%) working in academics, 40.9% were at the same institution where they completed residency. Most trainees (82.4%) attended medical schools with RO residency programs. CONCLUSIONS: Although personal factors may attract students to train in a particular area, the location of medical school and residency experiences may influence RO graduate practice location choice. Trends in the geographic distribution of graduating radiation oncologists can help identify and better understand disparities in access to RO care. Steps to improve access to RO care may include interventions at the medical student or resident level, such as targeting students at medical schools without associated residency programs and greater resident exposure to underserved areas.