ArticleThe oncologist2026
How often do oncologists receive industry payments from competing companies?
Article in The oncologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPayments from pharmaceutical companies to oncologists can influence prescribing practices. However, some physicians believe that receiving payments from multiple competing manufacturers might balance these biasing effects, effectively "canceling out" any conflict of interest. This study examines how often physicians receive industry payments for multiple, competing drugs.
methodsUsing the CMS Part D Prescribers file 2017-2019, we included medical oncologists who prescribed a class of cancer drugs wherein there are multiple, competing drugs. We then matched these oncologists to their industry payments records (Open Payments). We assessed the proportion of oncologists who received any industry payments related to 0, 1, 2, or 3 of the competing drugs, and whether oncologists prescribed differently with respect to the number of drugs for which they received payment.
resultsAmong 2460 eligible oncologists, a minority received payments related to all 3 competing drugs within the drug class they prescribed: 1.6% of oncologists prescribing epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 25.3% for BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and 34.3% for CDK4/6 inhibitors. Oncologists who received payments for all 3 drugs were more likely to prescribe ribociclib versus palbociclib, and less likely to prescribe dasatinib, compared to unpaid oncologists. Those who received payments for 2 drugs were more likely to prescribe afatinib versus osimertinib.
conclusionsReceipt of payments from all competing companies occurs among a minority of oncologists, but a substantial minority for some drug classes. Oncologists who receive payments from multiple companies have different prescribing patterns than unpaid oncologists, suggesting that competing payments may not result in "balanced" influence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.