Financial Relationships With Industry of Editorial Board Members of the Three Journals of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: To quantitate financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) among radiation oncology peer-reviewers, specifically editorial board members of the 3 American Society for Radiation Oncology journals.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: The public Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database delineates payments in 3 categories (general payments, research funding, and company ownership). After excluding non-US and non-MDs, names of board members were searched. Values of each FCOI were extracted for 2013 to 2015 and compiled.

RESULTS: Of 85 board members, 65 (76%) received any form of payment during the overall period. The majority of delivered payments were general payments: 59 (69%) received at least 1 general payment during these 3 years. In each year, 9 board members (11%) received research funding, and 3 board members (4%) reported company ownership. Over the studied period, all board members received a sum total of $5,387,985; this was composed of $665,801 (12%) in general payments, $3,758,968 (70%) in research funding, and $963,216 (18%) in company ownership. The mean general payment and research funding amounts (all members) were $2,621 and $14,741, respectively. Median (interquartile range) general payments and research funding only in board members receiving payments were $419 ($91-$5072) and $56,250 ($13,345-$200,000), respectively. When assessing general payments according to amount, the vast majority of editorial board members received lower-quantity or no such payments, along with a smaller proportion that received higher-volume payments. The most frequent sources of general payments were Varian, Elekta, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Merck and Varian were the most frequent funding sources for research payments.

CONCLUSIONS: In this population, the majority of FCOIs were general payments, but research funding comprised the highest monetary sums. Large-volume FCOIs do not apply to the vast majority of editorial board members, implying that the maintained integrity of academic peer-review is likely not influenced to a large extent by FCOIs.