Industry funded studies on breast cancer treatments more likely to have positive results

Industry-funded clinical trials of breast cancer medications report more favorable results than nonindustry supported research, according to a study published in the Feb. 26 online edition of the journal Cancer, the New York Times reports (Bakalar, New York Times, 2/27).

For the report, Jeffrey Peppercorn, a cancer physician and researcher at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Medicine, and colleagues at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute examined 140 breast cancer studies published in 1993, 1998 and 2003 in 10 leading medical journals.

Seventy-eight percent of industry-sponsored studies reported favorable results, compared with 66% of nonindustry studies, according to the findings (Fisher, Raleigh News & Observer, 2/26).

Of the 140 trials, 67, or 48%, had ties to drug companies. Researchers said among likely reasons for the findings is that manufacturers test only drugs that they are certain will be effective or are more likely to design studies that will have positive results.

Peppercorn also suggested that industry-funded studies with negative outcomes are not being published (Rubin, USA Today, 2/26).

Peppercorn said that it is not clear whether industry support skews research results, adding, "Just because the results are positive, I don't think we can assume that the results are biased."

Alan Goldhammer, deputy vice president of regulatory affairs for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said, "We know how to do clinical trials.

A lot of drugs that are not going to be successful are never brought into the clinic. Of course we're going to be more likely to publish favorable results" (Raleigh News & Observer, 2/26).

The study abstract is available online.