User login
Clear Cell Sarcoma Incidence and Survival: A SEER Database Analysis
Background
Clear cell sarcoma (CCS) is a rare soft tissue cancer that predominantly affects young to middle-aged adults. Current literature lacks recent accurate estimates of patient outcomes due to the disease’s low incidence and the small sample sizes in studies, particularly at a national registry level. This study aims to examine the incidence and survival of patients with CCS.
Methods
Patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database diagnosed with CCS between 2000-2020 were selected. Additional variables were collected including age, sex, race, stage, presence of metastases, tumor size, treatment status for surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, time to treatment, median household income, and population size. Descriptive statistics, population-based incidence, log-rank tests with Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox regression analyses were performed.
Results
A total of 287 patients were included. The population-adjusted incidence ranged from 0.012/100000 in 2004 to 0.027/100000 in 2010. The total percent change over the study period was 16.751% and the annual percent change, which did not change significantly over the study period, was 0.561%. The survival rate was 78.4% at one year, 62.0% at three years, and 57.1% at five years. Log-rank results showed Black patients survived shorter than White and Hispanic patients. Further, greater staging and tumor size >4.0cm were associated with shorter survival (p’s< 0.001). After controlling for covariates, Cox regression results showed Black patients were associated with shorter survival compared to White patients (p=0.038, hazard ratio=2.590). No other covariates were significantly associated with survival.
Conclusions
The findings showed CCS incidence is unchanged in recent years and prognosis is poor. Additionally, Black patients were associated with shorter survival duration compared to White patients. Contrary to prior findings on CCS, staging and tumor size were only significantly associated during univariate analyses, but not on Cox regression. The study was limited by a small sample size and variables found in the SEER database. Nonetheless, future research will benefit from assessing how race is an independent risk factor for CCS survival and how the prognosis of CCS patients can be improved.
Background
Clear cell sarcoma (CCS) is a rare soft tissue cancer that predominantly affects young to middle-aged adults. Current literature lacks recent accurate estimates of patient outcomes due to the disease’s low incidence and the small sample sizes in studies, particularly at a national registry level. This study aims to examine the incidence and survival of patients with CCS.
Methods
Patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database diagnosed with CCS between 2000-2020 were selected. Additional variables were collected including age, sex, race, stage, presence of metastases, tumor size, treatment status for surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, time to treatment, median household income, and population size. Descriptive statistics, population-based incidence, log-rank tests with Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox regression analyses were performed.
Results
A total of 287 patients were included. The population-adjusted incidence ranged from 0.012/100000 in 2004 to 0.027/100000 in 2010. The total percent change over the study period was 16.751% and the annual percent change, which did not change significantly over the study period, was 0.561%. The survival rate was 78.4% at one year, 62.0% at three years, and 57.1% at five years. Log-rank results showed Black patients survived shorter than White and Hispanic patients. Further, greater staging and tumor size >4.0cm were associated with shorter survival (p’s< 0.001). After controlling for covariates, Cox regression results showed Black patients were associated with shorter survival compared to White patients (p=0.038, hazard ratio=2.590). No other covariates were significantly associated with survival.
Conclusions
The findings showed CCS incidence is unchanged in recent years and prognosis is poor. Additionally, Black patients were associated with shorter survival duration compared to White patients. Contrary to prior findings on CCS, staging and tumor size were only significantly associated during univariate analyses, but not on Cox regression. The study was limited by a small sample size and variables found in the SEER database. Nonetheless, future research will benefit from assessing how race is an independent risk factor for CCS survival and how the prognosis of CCS patients can be improved.
Background
Clear cell sarcoma (CCS) is a rare soft tissue cancer that predominantly affects young to middle-aged adults. Current literature lacks recent accurate estimates of patient outcomes due to the disease’s low incidence and the small sample sizes in studies, particularly at a national registry level. This study aims to examine the incidence and survival of patients with CCS.
Methods
Patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database diagnosed with CCS between 2000-2020 were selected. Additional variables were collected including age, sex, race, stage, presence of metastases, tumor size, treatment status for surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, time to treatment, median household income, and population size. Descriptive statistics, population-based incidence, log-rank tests with Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox regression analyses were performed.
Results
A total of 287 patients were included. The population-adjusted incidence ranged from 0.012/100000 in 2004 to 0.027/100000 in 2010. The total percent change over the study period was 16.751% and the annual percent change, which did not change significantly over the study period, was 0.561%. The survival rate was 78.4% at one year, 62.0% at three years, and 57.1% at five years. Log-rank results showed Black patients survived shorter than White and Hispanic patients. Further, greater staging and tumor size >4.0cm were associated with shorter survival (p’s< 0.001). After controlling for covariates, Cox regression results showed Black patients were associated with shorter survival compared to White patients (p=0.038, hazard ratio=2.590). No other covariates were significantly associated with survival.
Conclusions
The findings showed CCS incidence is unchanged in recent years and prognosis is poor. Additionally, Black patients were associated with shorter survival duration compared to White patients. Contrary to prior findings on CCS, staging and tumor size were only significantly associated during univariate analyses, but not on Cox regression. The study was limited by a small sample size and variables found in the SEER database. Nonetheless, future research will benefit from assessing how race is an independent risk factor for CCS survival and how the prognosis of CCS patients can be improved.
Survival and Incidence of Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors: A SEER Database Analysis
Background
Gastric neuroendocrine tumors (GNETs) are slow-growing tumors derived from enterochromaffinlike cells whose prognosis depends on the type. Prior GNET studies have shown an increasing incidence but survival analyses have been more limited. This study aims to investigate if the increasing incidence trend continues and better describe factors associated with survival for GNET patients.
Methods
Patients diagnosed with GNET between 2000-2020 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Additional variables collected were age, sex, race, stage, presence of metastases, tumor size, treatment status for surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, median household income, and population size. Descriptive statistics, population-based incidence, log-rank tests with Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox regression analyses were performed.
Results
A total of 6512 patients were included. The one-, three-, and five-year survival rates were 90.4%, 85.0%, and 83.8%, respectively. The population-adjusted incidence ranged from 0.272/100000 in 2000 to 0.680/100000 in 2018. The total percent change in incidence over the study range was 104.1% with an annual percent change of 4.27%, which met significance <2.0cm and >5.0cm were associated with shorter survival (p’s< 0.05). Additionally, females, Hispanic patients, and recipients of surgery were associated with longer survival (p’s< 0.05).
Conclusions
The findings show GNET incidence has continued to increase over the past two decades. Additionally, clinical factors including stage, extent of metastasis, tumor size and socioeconomic factors like age, gender, and race were associated with changes in GNET survival. In the context of increasing incidence of GNET these findings describe factors associated with lower- and higher-risk tumors. Further assessment of these risk factors can benefit future research to better understand why GNET incidence is increasing, aid in risk stratification of GNET patients, and improve the prognosis of GNET.
Background
Gastric neuroendocrine tumors (GNETs) are slow-growing tumors derived from enterochromaffinlike cells whose prognosis depends on the type. Prior GNET studies have shown an increasing incidence but survival analyses have been more limited. This study aims to investigate if the increasing incidence trend continues and better describe factors associated with survival for GNET patients.
Methods
Patients diagnosed with GNET between 2000-2020 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Additional variables collected were age, sex, race, stage, presence of metastases, tumor size, treatment status for surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, median household income, and population size. Descriptive statistics, population-based incidence, log-rank tests with Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox regression analyses were performed.
Results
A total of 6512 patients were included. The one-, three-, and five-year survival rates were 90.4%, 85.0%, and 83.8%, respectively. The population-adjusted incidence ranged from 0.272/100000 in 2000 to 0.680/100000 in 2018. The total percent change in incidence over the study range was 104.1% with an annual percent change of 4.27%, which met significance <2.0cm and >5.0cm were associated with shorter survival (p’s< 0.05). Additionally, females, Hispanic patients, and recipients of surgery were associated with longer survival (p’s< 0.05).
Conclusions
The findings show GNET incidence has continued to increase over the past two decades. Additionally, clinical factors including stage, extent of metastasis, tumor size and socioeconomic factors like age, gender, and race were associated with changes in GNET survival. In the context of increasing incidence of GNET these findings describe factors associated with lower- and higher-risk tumors. Further assessment of these risk factors can benefit future research to better understand why GNET incidence is increasing, aid in risk stratification of GNET patients, and improve the prognosis of GNET.
Background
Gastric neuroendocrine tumors (GNETs) are slow-growing tumors derived from enterochromaffinlike cells whose prognosis depends on the type. Prior GNET studies have shown an increasing incidence but survival analyses have been more limited. This study aims to investigate if the increasing incidence trend continues and better describe factors associated with survival for GNET patients.
Methods
Patients diagnosed with GNET between 2000-2020 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Additional variables collected were age, sex, race, stage, presence of metastases, tumor size, treatment status for surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, median household income, and population size. Descriptive statistics, population-based incidence, log-rank tests with Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox regression analyses were performed.
Results
A total of 6512 patients were included. The one-, three-, and five-year survival rates were 90.4%, 85.0%, and 83.8%, respectively. The population-adjusted incidence ranged from 0.272/100000 in 2000 to 0.680/100000 in 2018. The total percent change in incidence over the study range was 104.1% with an annual percent change of 4.27%, which met significance <2.0cm and >5.0cm were associated with shorter survival (p’s< 0.05). Additionally, females, Hispanic patients, and recipients of surgery were associated with longer survival (p’s< 0.05).
Conclusions
The findings show GNET incidence has continued to increase over the past two decades. Additionally, clinical factors including stage, extent of metastasis, tumor size and socioeconomic factors like age, gender, and race were associated with changes in GNET survival. In the context of increasing incidence of GNET these findings describe factors associated with lower- and higher-risk tumors. Further assessment of these risk factors can benefit future research to better understand why GNET incidence is increasing, aid in risk stratification of GNET patients, and improve the prognosis of GNET.
Changes in Age-Related Mortality in Malignant Melanoma From 1999- 2022: A CDC Wonder Study
Background
Melanoma is one of the leading causes of solid tumor cancers. This study’s objective is to analyze temporal trends in melanoma-related mortality among age groups in the US before and during COVID-19. To date, no previous studies have analyzed year-to-year trends in melanoma mortality by age group using the CDC Wonder database. A 2011 analysis previously showed increasing death rates only among those over age 65 between 1992-2006.
Methods
The CDC Wonder database was used to collect data on melanoma-related mortality rates in the US from 1999-2022. Crude mortality rates per 100,000 and annual percentage change using Joinpoint regression were used to analyze yearly trends among age groups.
Results
From 1999 to 2022, overall mortality rate fell from 2.91 to 2.07, and mortality rates among all age groups decreased with the exception of those over age 85. Age 35-44 crude mortality rate decreased from 1.42 to .7. Age 45-54 crude mortality rate decreased from 3.2 to 1.51. Age 55-64 decreased from 5.6 to 3.61. Age 65-74 decreased from 9.91 to 7.79. Age 75-84 decreased from 15.44 to 15.43. Ages 85+ increased from 21.5 to 33.1. Notably, mortality among those age 75-85 decreased by only .01, and were increased across the timespan of 2000-2020.
Conclusions
These results show that there may be differences between age groups in how mortality due to melanoma of age groups has changed from 1992-2022. While overall mortality attributed to melanoma fell during this period, mortality in those over age 85 increased. Future studies should confirm these results with different data sets and further investigate the reasons for these disparities.
Background
Melanoma is one of the leading causes of solid tumor cancers. This study’s objective is to analyze temporal trends in melanoma-related mortality among age groups in the US before and during COVID-19. To date, no previous studies have analyzed year-to-year trends in melanoma mortality by age group using the CDC Wonder database. A 2011 analysis previously showed increasing death rates only among those over age 65 between 1992-2006.
Methods
The CDC Wonder database was used to collect data on melanoma-related mortality rates in the US from 1999-2022. Crude mortality rates per 100,000 and annual percentage change using Joinpoint regression were used to analyze yearly trends among age groups.
Results
From 1999 to 2022, overall mortality rate fell from 2.91 to 2.07, and mortality rates among all age groups decreased with the exception of those over age 85. Age 35-44 crude mortality rate decreased from 1.42 to .7. Age 45-54 crude mortality rate decreased from 3.2 to 1.51. Age 55-64 decreased from 5.6 to 3.61. Age 65-74 decreased from 9.91 to 7.79. Age 75-84 decreased from 15.44 to 15.43. Ages 85+ increased from 21.5 to 33.1. Notably, mortality among those age 75-85 decreased by only .01, and were increased across the timespan of 2000-2020.
Conclusions
These results show that there may be differences between age groups in how mortality due to melanoma of age groups has changed from 1992-2022. While overall mortality attributed to melanoma fell during this period, mortality in those over age 85 increased. Future studies should confirm these results with different data sets and further investigate the reasons for these disparities.
Background
Melanoma is one of the leading causes of solid tumor cancers. This study’s objective is to analyze temporal trends in melanoma-related mortality among age groups in the US before and during COVID-19. To date, no previous studies have analyzed year-to-year trends in melanoma mortality by age group using the CDC Wonder database. A 2011 analysis previously showed increasing death rates only among those over age 65 between 1992-2006.
Methods
The CDC Wonder database was used to collect data on melanoma-related mortality rates in the US from 1999-2022. Crude mortality rates per 100,000 and annual percentage change using Joinpoint regression were used to analyze yearly trends among age groups.
Results
From 1999 to 2022, overall mortality rate fell from 2.91 to 2.07, and mortality rates among all age groups decreased with the exception of those over age 85. Age 35-44 crude mortality rate decreased from 1.42 to .7. Age 45-54 crude mortality rate decreased from 3.2 to 1.51. Age 55-64 decreased from 5.6 to 3.61. Age 65-74 decreased from 9.91 to 7.79. Age 75-84 decreased from 15.44 to 15.43. Ages 85+ increased from 21.5 to 33.1. Notably, mortality among those age 75-85 decreased by only .01, and were increased across the timespan of 2000-2020.
Conclusions
These results show that there may be differences between age groups in how mortality due to melanoma of age groups has changed from 1992-2022. While overall mortality attributed to melanoma fell during this period, mortality in those over age 85 increased. Future studies should confirm these results with different data sets and further investigate the reasons for these disparities.
Geographical Trends in Malignant Melanoma from 1999-2022: A CDC Wonder Study
Background
Melanoma is the fifth leading cause of cancer in the United States. This study’s objective is to analyze geographical trends in melanoma-related mortality in the US before and during COVID-19. To date, no previous studies have analyzed geographical trends in melanoma mortality using the CDC Wonder data base. Previous literature reports Utah, Vermont, Delaware, Minnesota and New Hampshire as having the highest UV-attributable incidence rates of melanoma.
Methods
The CDC Wonder database was used to collect data on melanoma-related mortality rates in the US from 1999-2022. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) per 100,000 and annual percentage change (APC) using Joinpoint regression were used to analyze state and regional trends.
Results
From 1999 to 2019, the states with the largest increase in AAMR were Idaho (0.91) and Colorado (0.63) while Oklahoma (-1.07), Nevada (-0.94), and Texas (-0.92) saw the largest decreases. During COVID-19 (2019 to 2021), the states with the largest increase in AAMR were South Dakota (1.42), Oregon (1.09), and Montana (1.08) while Vermont (-1.02), Minnesota (-0.45), and Connecticut (-0.38) had the largest declines. From 2006-2022, except 2020, the Northeast consistently had the lowest AAMR. From 2008-2012 the West consistently had the highest AAMR. From 2013-2022, except 2015, the Midwest had the highest AAMR. From 2009 onwards, all 4 regions have seen an overall decline in AAMR with their lowest values being in 2022.
Conclusions
Idaho had the highest AAMR before COVID-19 while Oklahoma had the lowest. During COVID-19, South Dakota saw the highest AAMR while Vermont had the lowest. AAMRs have been trending downwards across all 4 regions since 2009 and the Northeast has fared the best over that period. These results should be used to increase implementation and enforcement of preventative measures to reduce UV exposure, especially in states with higher AAMRs. Further research should examine statewide sun protection programs to search for any relationship with their AAMRs.
Background
Melanoma is the fifth leading cause of cancer in the United States. This study’s objective is to analyze geographical trends in melanoma-related mortality in the US before and during COVID-19. To date, no previous studies have analyzed geographical trends in melanoma mortality using the CDC Wonder data base. Previous literature reports Utah, Vermont, Delaware, Minnesota and New Hampshire as having the highest UV-attributable incidence rates of melanoma.
Methods
The CDC Wonder database was used to collect data on melanoma-related mortality rates in the US from 1999-2022. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) per 100,000 and annual percentage change (APC) using Joinpoint regression were used to analyze state and regional trends.
Results
From 1999 to 2019, the states with the largest increase in AAMR were Idaho (0.91) and Colorado (0.63) while Oklahoma (-1.07), Nevada (-0.94), and Texas (-0.92) saw the largest decreases. During COVID-19 (2019 to 2021), the states with the largest increase in AAMR were South Dakota (1.42), Oregon (1.09), and Montana (1.08) while Vermont (-1.02), Minnesota (-0.45), and Connecticut (-0.38) had the largest declines. From 2006-2022, except 2020, the Northeast consistently had the lowest AAMR. From 2008-2012 the West consistently had the highest AAMR. From 2013-2022, except 2015, the Midwest had the highest AAMR. From 2009 onwards, all 4 regions have seen an overall decline in AAMR with their lowest values being in 2022.
Conclusions
Idaho had the highest AAMR before COVID-19 while Oklahoma had the lowest. During COVID-19, South Dakota saw the highest AAMR while Vermont had the lowest. AAMRs have been trending downwards across all 4 regions since 2009 and the Northeast has fared the best over that period. These results should be used to increase implementation and enforcement of preventative measures to reduce UV exposure, especially in states with higher AAMRs. Further research should examine statewide sun protection programs to search for any relationship with their AAMRs.
Background
Melanoma is the fifth leading cause of cancer in the United States. This study’s objective is to analyze geographical trends in melanoma-related mortality in the US before and during COVID-19. To date, no previous studies have analyzed geographical trends in melanoma mortality using the CDC Wonder data base. Previous literature reports Utah, Vermont, Delaware, Minnesota and New Hampshire as having the highest UV-attributable incidence rates of melanoma.
Methods
The CDC Wonder database was used to collect data on melanoma-related mortality rates in the US from 1999-2022. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) per 100,000 and annual percentage change (APC) using Joinpoint regression were used to analyze state and regional trends.
Results
From 1999 to 2019, the states with the largest increase in AAMR were Idaho (0.91) and Colorado (0.63) while Oklahoma (-1.07), Nevada (-0.94), and Texas (-0.92) saw the largest decreases. During COVID-19 (2019 to 2021), the states with the largest increase in AAMR were South Dakota (1.42), Oregon (1.09), and Montana (1.08) while Vermont (-1.02), Minnesota (-0.45), and Connecticut (-0.38) had the largest declines. From 2006-2022, except 2020, the Northeast consistently had the lowest AAMR. From 2008-2012 the West consistently had the highest AAMR. From 2013-2022, except 2015, the Midwest had the highest AAMR. From 2009 onwards, all 4 regions have seen an overall decline in AAMR with their lowest values being in 2022.
Conclusions
Idaho had the highest AAMR before COVID-19 while Oklahoma had the lowest. During COVID-19, South Dakota saw the highest AAMR while Vermont had the lowest. AAMRs have been trending downwards across all 4 regions since 2009 and the Northeast has fared the best over that period. These results should be used to increase implementation and enforcement of preventative measures to reduce UV exposure, especially in states with higher AAMRs. Further research should examine statewide sun protection programs to search for any relationship with their AAMRs.
Implementation of an Intervention to Improve Efficiency and Accuracy of Data Entry into the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry at the Lexington VA Healthcare System
Background
The Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) is an information system, which collects and organizes data on Veterans with cancer for use in cancer surveillance activities, such as epidemiologic based efforts to reduce the overall cancer burden. Unfortunately, there was no structured standardized data acquisition method in place to ensure accurate or timely data entry of Lexington VA Healthcare System (LVAHCS) statistics. This quality improvement study evaluated the implementation of a Structured Query Language (SQL) code to identify specific documents in the Computerized Patient Records System (CPRS) electronic medical record with associated ICD-10 codes matching the reportable cancer cases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.
Methods
Outcomes Studied: Accuracy of the SQL code, rates of data entry into the VACCR pre- and postintervention. Cancer Program leadership collaborated with the VISN 9 Program Analyst to write a SQL code identifying the Veteran’s name; social security number; location by city, state, and county; and visit associated data such as visit location, ICD-10 code documented by the provider, and visit year. This code can be run manually or at a pre-determined cadence.
Results
A total of 3,099 incidences of cancer were entered into the VACCR by local Oncology Data Specialists (ODSs) for calendar years 2015 to 2022. This is approximately 238 cases yearly. After the intervention, 1692 patients were entered into the VACCR in 2023. This is an increased rate of data entry of 611%.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated the feasibility of implementing a SQL code to accurately identify Veterans with diagnoses matching the SEER list. Increasing accuracy of identification has led to increased data entry efficiency into the VACCR by local ODS staff. After proving the feasibility of this intervention, we are partnering with the VISN 9 Program Analyst to create a static, daily recurring report provided to the ODS staff. Future application of this intervention could also include expansion into other VHA sites, increasing their accuracy and timeliness of data entry. Overall, improving the timeliness and accuracy of the VACCR would subsequently improve the ability of the VHA to target interventions aimed at reducing the overall cancer burden.
Background
The Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) is an information system, which collects and organizes data on Veterans with cancer for use in cancer surveillance activities, such as epidemiologic based efforts to reduce the overall cancer burden. Unfortunately, there was no structured standardized data acquisition method in place to ensure accurate or timely data entry of Lexington VA Healthcare System (LVAHCS) statistics. This quality improvement study evaluated the implementation of a Structured Query Language (SQL) code to identify specific documents in the Computerized Patient Records System (CPRS) electronic medical record with associated ICD-10 codes matching the reportable cancer cases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.
Methods
Outcomes Studied: Accuracy of the SQL code, rates of data entry into the VACCR pre- and postintervention. Cancer Program leadership collaborated with the VISN 9 Program Analyst to write a SQL code identifying the Veteran’s name; social security number; location by city, state, and county; and visit associated data such as visit location, ICD-10 code documented by the provider, and visit year. This code can be run manually or at a pre-determined cadence.
Results
A total of 3,099 incidences of cancer were entered into the VACCR by local Oncology Data Specialists (ODSs) for calendar years 2015 to 2022. This is approximately 238 cases yearly. After the intervention, 1692 patients were entered into the VACCR in 2023. This is an increased rate of data entry of 611%.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated the feasibility of implementing a SQL code to accurately identify Veterans with diagnoses matching the SEER list. Increasing accuracy of identification has led to increased data entry efficiency into the VACCR by local ODS staff. After proving the feasibility of this intervention, we are partnering with the VISN 9 Program Analyst to create a static, daily recurring report provided to the ODS staff. Future application of this intervention could also include expansion into other VHA sites, increasing their accuracy and timeliness of data entry. Overall, improving the timeliness and accuracy of the VACCR would subsequently improve the ability of the VHA to target interventions aimed at reducing the overall cancer burden.
Background
The Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) is an information system, which collects and organizes data on Veterans with cancer for use in cancer surveillance activities, such as epidemiologic based efforts to reduce the overall cancer burden. Unfortunately, there was no structured standardized data acquisition method in place to ensure accurate or timely data entry of Lexington VA Healthcare System (LVAHCS) statistics. This quality improvement study evaluated the implementation of a Structured Query Language (SQL) code to identify specific documents in the Computerized Patient Records System (CPRS) electronic medical record with associated ICD-10 codes matching the reportable cancer cases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.
Methods
Outcomes Studied: Accuracy of the SQL code, rates of data entry into the VACCR pre- and postintervention. Cancer Program leadership collaborated with the VISN 9 Program Analyst to write a SQL code identifying the Veteran’s name; social security number; location by city, state, and county; and visit associated data such as visit location, ICD-10 code documented by the provider, and visit year. This code can be run manually or at a pre-determined cadence.
Results
A total of 3,099 incidences of cancer were entered into the VACCR by local Oncology Data Specialists (ODSs) for calendar years 2015 to 2022. This is approximately 238 cases yearly. After the intervention, 1692 patients were entered into the VACCR in 2023. This is an increased rate of data entry of 611%.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated the feasibility of implementing a SQL code to accurately identify Veterans with diagnoses matching the SEER list. Increasing accuracy of identification has led to increased data entry efficiency into the VACCR by local ODS staff. After proving the feasibility of this intervention, we are partnering with the VISN 9 Program Analyst to create a static, daily recurring report provided to the ODS staff. Future application of this intervention could also include expansion into other VHA sites, increasing their accuracy and timeliness of data entry. Overall, improving the timeliness and accuracy of the VACCR would subsequently improve the ability of the VHA to target interventions aimed at reducing the overall cancer burden.
Data Elements Captured in Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence Health Informatics Tool
Background
The VA National Oncology Program (NOP) Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence (BGSOE) aims to ensure that Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers receive state-of-the-art, guidelineadherent, Veteran-centric, timely, and well-coordinated care. Achieving these aims relies on a national multidisciplinary Cancer Care Navigation Team that provides tele-oncology navigation services. The teams connect with Veterans to identify and support clinical, psychological, system, coordination-related needs. To assist the navigation team to find these relatively rare diagnoses within VA, we developed a health informatics tool (HIT) that automatically identifies patients with breast or gynecologic cancers, displays demographic and clinical information, and facilitates systematic needs assessment and care coordination and tracking.
Methods
We used multiple frameworks to ensure alignment between HIT mission and coordinator workflow. A separate view was provided for each phase of the workflow: assessment of Veteran eligibility, intake assessment, and care coordination and tracking. Algorithmic identification of candidate Veterans was validated to ensure coordinators were not inundated with information on Veterans outside the scope of the program. User interface was implemented in accordance with Lean principles applied to HIT design, with close attention to information inventory, efficient user motion, information transportation, and avoidance of overprocessing.
Results
From January 1, 2021, to March 6, 2024, the HIT captured 5,561 breast cancer and 1,663 gynecologic cancer patients. 908 patients were reviewed by the coordinator, of whom 817 patients had a correct diagnosis assigned by the screening algorithm. From these, 332 patients were added to the intake process. The intake process is pending for 207 patients and complete for 102 patients; 23 patients declined intake. For patients who have completed intake, we have captured information that includes Veteran demographics, social history, insurance details, medical history, family history, hazards, barriers, and information specific to BGSOE care coordination.
Conclusions
We applied a novel framework to design and implement mission-driven, workflow-aligned HIT that achieves high user efficiency using Lean principles. This facilitated an exciting new model in tele-oncology care navigation delivery. Although the program is still in early phases, it has improved care coordination for Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers across the United States.
Background
The VA National Oncology Program (NOP) Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence (BGSOE) aims to ensure that Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers receive state-of-the-art, guidelineadherent, Veteran-centric, timely, and well-coordinated care. Achieving these aims relies on a national multidisciplinary Cancer Care Navigation Team that provides tele-oncology navigation services. The teams connect with Veterans to identify and support clinical, psychological, system, coordination-related needs. To assist the navigation team to find these relatively rare diagnoses within VA, we developed a health informatics tool (HIT) that automatically identifies patients with breast or gynecologic cancers, displays demographic and clinical information, and facilitates systematic needs assessment and care coordination and tracking.
Methods
We used multiple frameworks to ensure alignment between HIT mission and coordinator workflow. A separate view was provided for each phase of the workflow: assessment of Veteran eligibility, intake assessment, and care coordination and tracking. Algorithmic identification of candidate Veterans was validated to ensure coordinators were not inundated with information on Veterans outside the scope of the program. User interface was implemented in accordance with Lean principles applied to HIT design, with close attention to information inventory, efficient user motion, information transportation, and avoidance of overprocessing.
Results
From January 1, 2021, to March 6, 2024, the HIT captured 5,561 breast cancer and 1,663 gynecologic cancer patients. 908 patients were reviewed by the coordinator, of whom 817 patients had a correct diagnosis assigned by the screening algorithm. From these, 332 patients were added to the intake process. The intake process is pending for 207 patients and complete for 102 patients; 23 patients declined intake. For patients who have completed intake, we have captured information that includes Veteran demographics, social history, insurance details, medical history, family history, hazards, barriers, and information specific to BGSOE care coordination.
Conclusions
We applied a novel framework to design and implement mission-driven, workflow-aligned HIT that achieves high user efficiency using Lean principles. This facilitated an exciting new model in tele-oncology care navigation delivery. Although the program is still in early phases, it has improved care coordination for Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers across the United States.
Background
The VA National Oncology Program (NOP) Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence (BGSOE) aims to ensure that Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers receive state-of-the-art, guidelineadherent, Veteran-centric, timely, and well-coordinated care. Achieving these aims relies on a national multidisciplinary Cancer Care Navigation Team that provides tele-oncology navigation services. The teams connect with Veterans to identify and support clinical, psychological, system, coordination-related needs. To assist the navigation team to find these relatively rare diagnoses within VA, we developed a health informatics tool (HIT) that automatically identifies patients with breast or gynecologic cancers, displays demographic and clinical information, and facilitates systematic needs assessment and care coordination and tracking.
Methods
We used multiple frameworks to ensure alignment between HIT mission and coordinator workflow. A separate view was provided for each phase of the workflow: assessment of Veteran eligibility, intake assessment, and care coordination and tracking. Algorithmic identification of candidate Veterans was validated to ensure coordinators were not inundated with information on Veterans outside the scope of the program. User interface was implemented in accordance with Lean principles applied to HIT design, with close attention to information inventory, efficient user motion, information transportation, and avoidance of overprocessing.
Results
From January 1, 2021, to March 6, 2024, the HIT captured 5,561 breast cancer and 1,663 gynecologic cancer patients. 908 patients were reviewed by the coordinator, of whom 817 patients had a correct diagnosis assigned by the screening algorithm. From these, 332 patients were added to the intake process. The intake process is pending for 207 patients and complete for 102 patients; 23 patients declined intake. For patients who have completed intake, we have captured information that includes Veteran demographics, social history, insurance details, medical history, family history, hazards, barriers, and information specific to BGSOE care coordination.
Conclusions
We applied a novel framework to design and implement mission-driven, workflow-aligned HIT that achieves high user efficiency using Lean principles. This facilitated an exciting new model in tele-oncology care navigation delivery. Although the program is still in early phases, it has improved care coordination for Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers across the United States.
A Phase II Study With Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Up-Front Radiotherapy in High-Intermediate and High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy to Pelvic Nodes and Concomitant Prostate Boost by Simultaneous Integrated Boost
Background
The adoption of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer has allowed treatment to be completed in less than 2 weeks, but has predominantly been given to the prostate only. Currently, very few prospective studies have compared delivery of SBRT versus hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFX) when giving concurrent pelvic radiation. The aim of the study is to evaluate the tolerance and efficacy of pelvic node radiotherapy and SIB to the prostate in prostate patients requiring nodal irradiation.
Methods
A total of 58 patients were irradiated with SBRT and initiated ADT therapy between 2014 and 2023. 57 patients were treated with 7.5 Gy to the prostate and 1 to 7.25 Gy. All patients were treated with 5 Gy x 5 fraction to the pelvis. This group was compared to a preselected historical cohort of 65 HFX patients with 57 of these patients treated with 67.5/50 Gy in 25 fractions, 1 with patient 67.5/45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 6 patients with 60/44-46 Gy in 20 fractions. Patients were evaluated for GU and GI toxicities according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Toxicity criteria at one year post radiation therapy.
Results
There were 31 grade 0 (53.4%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), 25 grade 2 (43.1%), 1 grade 3 (1.7%) events in the SBRT group and 29 GU grade 0 (44.6%), 3 grade 1 (4.6%), and 33 grade 2 (50.8%) GU toxicities in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.464). There were 55 grade 0 (94.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), and 2 grade 2 (3.4%) GI toxicities in the SBRT group and 59 grade 0 (90.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.5%), and 5 grade 2 (7.7%) events in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.381).
Conclusions
This prospective study provides data to support the use of concurrent pelvic radiation with SBRT to the prostate. Our findings suggest there is no difference in toxicity between HFX and 25 Gy pelvic radiation (5 Gy/5 fractions) concurrent with SBRT to the prostate, therefore it appears to be a safe and convenient option for veterans with prostate cancer.
Background
The adoption of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer has allowed treatment to be completed in less than 2 weeks, but has predominantly been given to the prostate only. Currently, very few prospective studies have compared delivery of SBRT versus hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFX) when giving concurrent pelvic radiation. The aim of the study is to evaluate the tolerance and efficacy of pelvic node radiotherapy and SIB to the prostate in prostate patients requiring nodal irradiation.
Methods
A total of 58 patients were irradiated with SBRT and initiated ADT therapy between 2014 and 2023. 57 patients were treated with 7.5 Gy to the prostate and 1 to 7.25 Gy. All patients were treated with 5 Gy x 5 fraction to the pelvis. This group was compared to a preselected historical cohort of 65 HFX patients with 57 of these patients treated with 67.5/50 Gy in 25 fractions, 1 with patient 67.5/45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 6 patients with 60/44-46 Gy in 20 fractions. Patients were evaluated for GU and GI toxicities according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Toxicity criteria at one year post radiation therapy.
Results
There were 31 grade 0 (53.4%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), 25 grade 2 (43.1%), 1 grade 3 (1.7%) events in the SBRT group and 29 GU grade 0 (44.6%), 3 grade 1 (4.6%), and 33 grade 2 (50.8%) GU toxicities in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.464). There were 55 grade 0 (94.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), and 2 grade 2 (3.4%) GI toxicities in the SBRT group and 59 grade 0 (90.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.5%), and 5 grade 2 (7.7%) events in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.381).
Conclusions
This prospective study provides data to support the use of concurrent pelvic radiation with SBRT to the prostate. Our findings suggest there is no difference in toxicity between HFX and 25 Gy pelvic radiation (5 Gy/5 fractions) concurrent with SBRT to the prostate, therefore it appears to be a safe and convenient option for veterans with prostate cancer.
Background
The adoption of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer has allowed treatment to be completed in less than 2 weeks, but has predominantly been given to the prostate only. Currently, very few prospective studies have compared delivery of SBRT versus hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFX) when giving concurrent pelvic radiation. The aim of the study is to evaluate the tolerance and efficacy of pelvic node radiotherapy and SIB to the prostate in prostate patients requiring nodal irradiation.
Methods
A total of 58 patients were irradiated with SBRT and initiated ADT therapy between 2014 and 2023. 57 patients were treated with 7.5 Gy to the prostate and 1 to 7.25 Gy. All patients were treated with 5 Gy x 5 fraction to the pelvis. This group was compared to a preselected historical cohort of 65 HFX patients with 57 of these patients treated with 67.5/50 Gy in 25 fractions, 1 with patient 67.5/45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 6 patients with 60/44-46 Gy in 20 fractions. Patients were evaluated for GU and GI toxicities according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Toxicity criteria at one year post radiation therapy.
Results
There were 31 grade 0 (53.4%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), 25 grade 2 (43.1%), 1 grade 3 (1.7%) events in the SBRT group and 29 GU grade 0 (44.6%), 3 grade 1 (4.6%), and 33 grade 2 (50.8%) GU toxicities in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.464). There were 55 grade 0 (94.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), and 2 grade 2 (3.4%) GI toxicities in the SBRT group and 59 grade 0 (90.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.5%), and 5 grade 2 (7.7%) events in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.381).
Conclusions
This prospective study provides data to support the use of concurrent pelvic radiation with SBRT to the prostate. Our findings suggest there is no difference in toxicity between HFX and 25 Gy pelvic radiation (5 Gy/5 fractions) concurrent with SBRT to the prostate, therefore it appears to be a safe and convenient option for veterans with prostate cancer.
Do We Need More Screen Time? Patterns of Telehealth Utilization for Patients With Prostate Cancer in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
Background
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the VHA. Telehealth use has increased and has the potential to improve access for patients. We examined patterns of care for VHA patients with prostate cancer, including whether visits were in person, by telephone or by video.
Methods
Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, we extracted data on all incident cases of prostate cancer from 1/1/2016-1/31/2023 with sufficient information (Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and tumor stage) to categorize into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk strata. We excluded patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis and those with no evidence of PSA testing, prostate biopsy or treatment within 2 years. We categorized all outpatient visits related to a person’s Urology- and Medical Oncology based care – including the visit modality – based on administrative visit stop codes. We defined ‘during COVID’ as visits after 3/11/2020. We calculated the percent of visits performed by modality in each year after diagnosis.
Results
Among the 60,381 men with prostate cancer, 61% were White, 33% Black; 5% Hispanic; 32% rural. For NCCN category, 30% had high risk prostate cancer, which increased with age, 50% had intermediate risk and 20% had low risk. Prior to COVID, for visits to Urology within the first year after diagnosis, 79% were in person, 20% were by telephone and 0.1% were by video. Visits to Oncology within the first year after diagnosis were similar—82% in person, 16% by phone and 0.3% by video.
Discussion
During the COVID period, video visits increased significantly but remained a small proportion, accounting for only 2% of visits for both Urology and Oncology. Video visits increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but remained rare. Across many diseases and conditions, the quality of care for video visits has been at least as good as for in-person care.
Conclusions
There is a missed opportunity to provide care by video within VHA for patients with prostate cancer, particularly given that about 1/3 of patients are from rural areas. Future analyses will examine barriers to video telehealth and the impact of video visits on quality and equity of prostate cancer care.
Background
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the VHA. Telehealth use has increased and has the potential to improve access for patients. We examined patterns of care for VHA patients with prostate cancer, including whether visits were in person, by telephone or by video.
Methods
Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, we extracted data on all incident cases of prostate cancer from 1/1/2016-1/31/2023 with sufficient information (Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and tumor stage) to categorize into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk strata. We excluded patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis and those with no evidence of PSA testing, prostate biopsy or treatment within 2 years. We categorized all outpatient visits related to a person’s Urology- and Medical Oncology based care – including the visit modality – based on administrative visit stop codes. We defined ‘during COVID’ as visits after 3/11/2020. We calculated the percent of visits performed by modality in each year after diagnosis.
Results
Among the 60,381 men with prostate cancer, 61% were White, 33% Black; 5% Hispanic; 32% rural. For NCCN category, 30% had high risk prostate cancer, which increased with age, 50% had intermediate risk and 20% had low risk. Prior to COVID, for visits to Urology within the first year after diagnosis, 79% were in person, 20% were by telephone and 0.1% were by video. Visits to Oncology within the first year after diagnosis were similar—82% in person, 16% by phone and 0.3% by video.
Discussion
During the COVID period, video visits increased significantly but remained a small proportion, accounting for only 2% of visits for both Urology and Oncology. Video visits increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but remained rare. Across many diseases and conditions, the quality of care for video visits has been at least as good as for in-person care.
Conclusions
There is a missed opportunity to provide care by video within VHA for patients with prostate cancer, particularly given that about 1/3 of patients are from rural areas. Future analyses will examine barriers to video telehealth and the impact of video visits on quality and equity of prostate cancer care.
Background
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the VHA. Telehealth use has increased and has the potential to improve access for patients. We examined patterns of care for VHA patients with prostate cancer, including whether visits were in person, by telephone or by video.
Methods
Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, we extracted data on all incident cases of prostate cancer from 1/1/2016-1/31/2023 with sufficient information (Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and tumor stage) to categorize into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk strata. We excluded patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis and those with no evidence of PSA testing, prostate biopsy or treatment within 2 years. We categorized all outpatient visits related to a person’s Urology- and Medical Oncology based care – including the visit modality – based on administrative visit stop codes. We defined ‘during COVID’ as visits after 3/11/2020. We calculated the percent of visits performed by modality in each year after diagnosis.
Results
Among the 60,381 men with prostate cancer, 61% were White, 33% Black; 5% Hispanic; 32% rural. For NCCN category, 30% had high risk prostate cancer, which increased with age, 50% had intermediate risk and 20% had low risk. Prior to COVID, for visits to Urology within the first year after diagnosis, 79% were in person, 20% were by telephone and 0.1% were by video. Visits to Oncology within the first year after diagnosis were similar—82% in person, 16% by phone and 0.3% by video.
Discussion
During the COVID period, video visits increased significantly but remained a small proportion, accounting for only 2% of visits for both Urology and Oncology. Video visits increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but remained rare. Across many diseases and conditions, the quality of care for video visits has been at least as good as for in-person care.
Conclusions
There is a missed opportunity to provide care by video within VHA for patients with prostate cancer, particularly given that about 1/3 of patients are from rural areas. Future analyses will examine barriers to video telehealth and the impact of video visits on quality and equity of prostate cancer care.
Multimodal Treatment Approaches for Basaloid Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Larynx
Background
Basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC) is an aggressive laryngeal cancer with high recurrence and metastasis rates. Its rarity complicates diagnosis and optimal treatment selection, underscoring the significance of comprehensive data collection through national cancer registries. Historically, surgical intervention has been the primary approach to management.The RTOG 91-11 randomized trial catalyzed a paradigm shift, prioritizing laryngealpreserving treatments. The study provided evidence for radiotherapy in early-stage disease (stages 1-2) and combined chemoradiotherapy in advanced disease (stages 3-4). Consequently, organ preservation protocols gained traction, maintaining laryngeal anatomy while achieving comparable oncologic outcomes to total laryngectomy. This shift emphasizes exploring multimodal, laryngeal-sparing regimens to optimize quality of life without compromising disease control. However, further research utilizing large databases is needed to elucidate survival outcomes associated with these approaches.
Methods
We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with BSCC of the larynx (ICD-O-3 histology code 8083) between 2004-2019 (Nf1487). General patient characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Significance was set at p< 0.05.
Results
For early-stage patients, the estimated survival was 93.179 months. Surgery demonstrated the most favorable outcome with a median survival of 100.957 months, significantly higher than non-surgical patients (85.895 months, p=0.028). Survival did not differ between patients who received only chemotherapy (p=0.281), radiation (p=0.326), or chemoradiation (p=0.919) and those received other treatment modalities. In late-stage patients, the estimated survival was 61.993 months. Surgery yielded the most favorable outcome with a median survival of 70.484 months, significantly higher than non-surgical patients (54.153 months, p< 0.001). Patients who received only chemotherapy (p< 0.001), radiation (p< 0.001) and chemoradiation (p=0.24) had a worse survival outcome compared to those who received other treatment modalities.
Conclusions
The study results indicate that surgical resection could potentially improve survival outcomes for patients diagnosed with advanced-stage laryngeal BSCC. Conversely, for those with earlystage BSCC, larynx-preserving treatment modalities such as radiation, chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiation appear to achieve comparable survival rates to primary surgical management. These results highlight the importance of careful consideration of treatment modalities based on disease staging at initial presentation.
Background
Basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC) is an aggressive laryngeal cancer with high recurrence and metastasis rates. Its rarity complicates diagnosis and optimal treatment selection, underscoring the significance of comprehensive data collection through national cancer registries. Historically, surgical intervention has been the primary approach to management.The RTOG 91-11 randomized trial catalyzed a paradigm shift, prioritizing laryngealpreserving treatments. The study provided evidence for radiotherapy in early-stage disease (stages 1-2) and combined chemoradiotherapy in advanced disease (stages 3-4). Consequently, organ preservation protocols gained traction, maintaining laryngeal anatomy while achieving comparable oncologic outcomes to total laryngectomy. This shift emphasizes exploring multimodal, laryngeal-sparing regimens to optimize quality of life without compromising disease control. However, further research utilizing large databases is needed to elucidate survival outcomes associated with these approaches.
Methods
We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with BSCC of the larynx (ICD-O-3 histology code 8083) between 2004-2019 (Nf1487). General patient characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Significance was set at p< 0.05.
Results
For early-stage patients, the estimated survival was 93.179 months. Surgery demonstrated the most favorable outcome with a median survival of 100.957 months, significantly higher than non-surgical patients (85.895 months, p=0.028). Survival did not differ between patients who received only chemotherapy (p=0.281), radiation (p=0.326), or chemoradiation (p=0.919) and those received other treatment modalities. In late-stage patients, the estimated survival was 61.993 months. Surgery yielded the most favorable outcome with a median survival of 70.484 months, significantly higher than non-surgical patients (54.153 months, p< 0.001). Patients who received only chemotherapy (p< 0.001), radiation (p< 0.001) and chemoradiation (p=0.24) had a worse survival outcome compared to those who received other treatment modalities.
Conclusions
The study results indicate that surgical resection could potentially improve survival outcomes for patients diagnosed with advanced-stage laryngeal BSCC. Conversely, for those with earlystage BSCC, larynx-preserving treatment modalities such as radiation, chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiation appear to achieve comparable survival rates to primary surgical management. These results highlight the importance of careful consideration of treatment modalities based on disease staging at initial presentation.
Background
Basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC) is an aggressive laryngeal cancer with high recurrence and metastasis rates. Its rarity complicates diagnosis and optimal treatment selection, underscoring the significance of comprehensive data collection through national cancer registries. Historically, surgical intervention has been the primary approach to management.The RTOG 91-11 randomized trial catalyzed a paradigm shift, prioritizing laryngealpreserving treatments. The study provided evidence for radiotherapy in early-stage disease (stages 1-2) and combined chemoradiotherapy in advanced disease (stages 3-4). Consequently, organ preservation protocols gained traction, maintaining laryngeal anatomy while achieving comparable oncologic outcomes to total laryngectomy. This shift emphasizes exploring multimodal, laryngeal-sparing regimens to optimize quality of life without compromising disease control. However, further research utilizing large databases is needed to elucidate survival outcomes associated with these approaches.
Methods
We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with BSCC of the larynx (ICD-O-3 histology code 8083) between 2004-2019 (Nf1487). General patient characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Significance was set at p< 0.05.
Results
For early-stage patients, the estimated survival was 93.179 months. Surgery demonstrated the most favorable outcome with a median survival of 100.957 months, significantly higher than non-surgical patients (85.895 months, p=0.028). Survival did not differ between patients who received only chemotherapy (p=0.281), radiation (p=0.326), or chemoradiation (p=0.919) and those received other treatment modalities. In late-stage patients, the estimated survival was 61.993 months. Surgery yielded the most favorable outcome with a median survival of 70.484 months, significantly higher than non-surgical patients (54.153 months, p< 0.001). Patients who received only chemotherapy (p< 0.001), radiation (p< 0.001) and chemoradiation (p=0.24) had a worse survival outcome compared to those who received other treatment modalities.
Conclusions
The study results indicate that surgical resection could potentially improve survival outcomes for patients diagnosed with advanced-stage laryngeal BSCC. Conversely, for those with earlystage BSCC, larynx-preserving treatment modalities such as radiation, chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiation appear to achieve comparable survival rates to primary surgical management. These results highlight the importance of careful consideration of treatment modalities based on disease staging at initial presentation.
Trends in Industry Payments to Dermatologists: A 5-Year Analysis of Open Payments Data (2017-2021)
Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.1 To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.2 Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,3-5 plastic surgery,6,7 ophthalmology,8 and gastroenterology9—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al10 examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al11 characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.
Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.
Methods
We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.
Results
In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).
For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.
Among dermatologists who received industry payments in 2017, slightly more than half (50.9%) were male; however, male dermatologists accounted for more than $40.1 million of the more than $57.6 million total payments made to dermatologists (69.6%) that year. Male dermatologists received a mean payment amount of $198.26, while female dermatologists received a significantly smaller amount of $113.52 (P<.001). The mean total value of payments received per male dermatologist was $7204.36, while the mean total value for female dermatologists was $3272.16 (P<.001). The same statistically significant disparities in mean payment amount and mean total value of payments received by male vs female dermatologists were observed for every year from 2017 through 2021 (Table 3).
Comment
Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.12 The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.13 It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.14 On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.15 Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.
Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.16 In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.17
Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.
It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.18 Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.
COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.
Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.21 For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.21
The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.
Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.28,29
Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.30
Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.
Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.
Conclusion
Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.
- Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, et al. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1742-1750.
- Kirschner NM, Sulmasy LS, Kesselheim AS. Health policy basics: the Physician Payment Sunshine Act and the Open Payments program. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:519-521.
- Braithwaite J, Frane N, Partan MJ, et al. Review of industry payments to general orthopaedic surgeons reported by the open payments database: 2014 to 2019. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2021;5:E21.00060.
- Pathak N, Mercier MR, Galivanche AR, et al. Industry payments to orthopedic spine surgeons reported by the open payments database: 2014-2017. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:E572-E578.
- Almaguer AM, Wills BW, Robin JX, et al. Open payments reporting of industry compensation for orthopedic residents. J Surg Educ. 2020;77:1632-1637.
- Chao AH, Gangopadhyay N. Industry financial relationships in plastic surgery: analysis of the sunshine act open payments database. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:341E-348E.
- Khetpal S, Mets EJ, Ahmad M, et al. The open payments sunshine act database revisited: a 5-year analysis of industry payments to plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148:877E-878E.
- Slentz DH, Nelson CC, Lichter PR. Characteristics of industry payments to ophthalmologists in the open payments database. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137:1038-1044.
- Gangireddy VGR, Amin R, Yu K, et al. Analysis of payments to GI physicians in the United States: open payments data study. JGH Open. 2020;4:1031-1036.
- Feng H, Wu P, Leger M. Exploring the industry-dermatologist financial relationship: insight from the open payment data. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:1307-1313.
- Schlager E, Flaten H, St Claire C, et al. Industry payments to dermatologists: updates from the 2016 open payment data. Dermatol Online J. 2018;24:13030/qt8r74w3c4.
- Agrawal S, Brennan N, Budetti P. The Sunshine Act—effects on physicians. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2054-2057.
- DeJong C, Aguilar T, Tseng CW, et al. Pharmaceutical industry-sponsored meals and physician prescribing patterns for Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1114-1122.
- Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:1167-1170.
- Nakayama DK. In defense of industry-physician relationships. Am Surg. 2010;76:987-994.
- Chimonas S, DeVito NJ, Rothman DJ. Bringing transparency to medicine: exploring physicians’ views and experiences of the sunshine act. Am J Bioeth. 2017;17:4-18.
- Pham-Kanter G, Mello MM, Lehmann LS, et la. Public awareness of and contact with physicians who receive industry payments: a national survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32:767-774.
- National Health Expenditure Fact Sheet. Updated December 13, 2023 Accessed August 9, 2024. https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/nhe-fact-sheet
- de Lotbiniere-Bassett MP, McDonald PJ. Industry financial relationships in neurosurgery in 2015: analysis of the Sunshine Act Open Payments database. World Neurosurg. 2018;114:E920-E925.
- Pathak N, Fujiwara RJT, Mehra S. Assessment of nonresearch industry payments to otolaryngologists in 2014 and 2015. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;158:1028-1034.
- Perry JE, Cox D, Cox AD. Trust and transparency: patient perceptions of physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42:475-491.
- Freund KM, Raj A, Kaplan SE, et al. Inequities in academic compensation by gender: a follow-up to the national faculty survey cohort study. Acad Med. 2016;91:1068-1073.
- Seabury SA, Chandra A, Jena AB. Trends in the earnings of male and female health care professionals in the United States, 1987 to 2010. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1748-1750.
- Flaten HK, Goodman L, Wong E, et al. Analysis of speaking opportunities by gender at national dermatologic surgery conferences. Dermatol Surg. 2020;46:1195-1201.
- Lobl M, Grinnell M, Higgins S, et al. Representation of women as editors in dermatology journals: a comprehensive review. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020;6:20-24.
- Stratman H, Stratman EJ. Assessment of percentage of women in the dermatology workforce presenting at American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings, 1992-2017. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155:384-386.
- Wu AG, Lipner SR. Sex trends in leadership of the American Academy of Dermatology: a cross-sectional study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83:592-594.
- Weeks WB, Wallace AE. Gender differences in dermatologists’ annual incomes. Cutis. 2007;80:325-332.
- Sachdeva M, Price KN, Hsiao JL, et al. Gender and rank salary trends among academic dermatologists. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020;6:324-326.
- Rose SL, Sanghani RM, Schmidt C, et al. Gender differences in physicians’ financial ties to industry: a study of national disclosure data. PLoS One. 2015;10:E0129197.
- Santhakumar S, Adashi EY. The physician payment sunshine act: testing the value of transparency. JAMA. 2015;313:23-24.
Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.1 To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.2 Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,3-5 plastic surgery,6,7 ophthalmology,8 and gastroenterology9—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al10 examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al11 characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.
Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.
Methods
We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.
Results
In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).
For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.
Among dermatologists who received industry payments in 2017, slightly more than half (50.9%) were male; however, male dermatologists accounted for more than $40.1 million of the more than $57.6 million total payments made to dermatologists (69.6%) that year. Male dermatologists received a mean payment amount of $198.26, while female dermatologists received a significantly smaller amount of $113.52 (P<.001). The mean total value of payments received per male dermatologist was $7204.36, while the mean total value for female dermatologists was $3272.16 (P<.001). The same statistically significant disparities in mean payment amount and mean total value of payments received by male vs female dermatologists were observed for every year from 2017 through 2021 (Table 3).
Comment
Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.12 The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.13 It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.14 On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.15 Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.
Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.16 In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.17
Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.
It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.18 Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.
COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.
Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.21 For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.21
The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.
Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.28,29
Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.30
Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.
Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.
Conclusion
Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.
Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.1 To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.2 Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,3-5 plastic surgery,6,7 ophthalmology,8 and gastroenterology9—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al10 examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al11 characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.
Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.
Methods
We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.
Results
In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).
For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.
Among dermatologists who received industry payments in 2017, slightly more than half (50.9%) were male; however, male dermatologists accounted for more than $40.1 million of the more than $57.6 million total payments made to dermatologists (69.6%) that year. Male dermatologists received a mean payment amount of $198.26, while female dermatologists received a significantly smaller amount of $113.52 (P<.001). The mean total value of payments received per male dermatologist was $7204.36, while the mean total value for female dermatologists was $3272.16 (P<.001). The same statistically significant disparities in mean payment amount and mean total value of payments received by male vs female dermatologists were observed for every year from 2017 through 2021 (Table 3).
Comment
Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.12 The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.13 It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.14 On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.15 Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.
Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.16 In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.17
Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.
It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.18 Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.
COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.
Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.21 For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.21
The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.
Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.28,29
Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.30
Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.
Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.
Conclusion
Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.
- Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, et al. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1742-1750.
- Kirschner NM, Sulmasy LS, Kesselheim AS. Health policy basics: the Physician Payment Sunshine Act and the Open Payments program. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:519-521.
- Braithwaite J, Frane N, Partan MJ, et al. Review of industry payments to general orthopaedic surgeons reported by the open payments database: 2014 to 2019. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2021;5:E21.00060.
- Pathak N, Mercier MR, Galivanche AR, et al. Industry payments to orthopedic spine surgeons reported by the open payments database: 2014-2017. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:E572-E578.
- Almaguer AM, Wills BW, Robin JX, et al. Open payments reporting of industry compensation for orthopedic residents. J Surg Educ. 2020;77:1632-1637.
- Chao AH, Gangopadhyay N. Industry financial relationships in plastic surgery: analysis of the sunshine act open payments database. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:341E-348E.
- Khetpal S, Mets EJ, Ahmad M, et al. The open payments sunshine act database revisited: a 5-year analysis of industry payments to plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148:877E-878E.
- Slentz DH, Nelson CC, Lichter PR. Characteristics of industry payments to ophthalmologists in the open payments database. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137:1038-1044.
- Gangireddy VGR, Amin R, Yu K, et al. Analysis of payments to GI physicians in the United States: open payments data study. JGH Open. 2020;4:1031-1036.
- Feng H, Wu P, Leger M. Exploring the industry-dermatologist financial relationship: insight from the open payment data. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:1307-1313.
- Schlager E, Flaten H, St Claire C, et al. Industry payments to dermatologists: updates from the 2016 open payment data. Dermatol Online J. 2018;24:13030/qt8r74w3c4.
- Agrawal S, Brennan N, Budetti P. The Sunshine Act—effects on physicians. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2054-2057.
- DeJong C, Aguilar T, Tseng CW, et al. Pharmaceutical industry-sponsored meals and physician prescribing patterns for Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1114-1122.
- Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:1167-1170.
- Nakayama DK. In defense of industry-physician relationships. Am Surg. 2010;76:987-994.
- Chimonas S, DeVito NJ, Rothman DJ. Bringing transparency to medicine: exploring physicians’ views and experiences of the sunshine act. Am J Bioeth. 2017;17:4-18.
- Pham-Kanter G, Mello MM, Lehmann LS, et la. Public awareness of and contact with physicians who receive industry payments: a national survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32:767-774.
- National Health Expenditure Fact Sheet. Updated December 13, 2023 Accessed August 9, 2024. https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/nhe-fact-sheet
- de Lotbiniere-Bassett MP, McDonald PJ. Industry financial relationships in neurosurgery in 2015: analysis of the Sunshine Act Open Payments database. World Neurosurg. 2018;114:E920-E925.
- Pathak N, Fujiwara RJT, Mehra S. Assessment of nonresearch industry payments to otolaryngologists in 2014 and 2015. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;158:1028-1034.
- Perry JE, Cox D, Cox AD. Trust and transparency: patient perceptions of physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42:475-491.
- Freund KM, Raj A, Kaplan SE, et al. Inequities in academic compensation by gender: a follow-up to the national faculty survey cohort study. Acad Med. 2016;91:1068-1073.
- Seabury SA, Chandra A, Jena AB. Trends in the earnings of male and female health care professionals in the United States, 1987 to 2010. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1748-1750.
- Flaten HK, Goodman L, Wong E, et al. Analysis of speaking opportunities by gender at national dermatologic surgery conferences. Dermatol Surg. 2020;46:1195-1201.
- Lobl M, Grinnell M, Higgins S, et al. Representation of women as editors in dermatology journals: a comprehensive review. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020;6:20-24.
- Stratman H, Stratman EJ. Assessment of percentage of women in the dermatology workforce presenting at American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings, 1992-2017. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155:384-386.
- Wu AG, Lipner SR. Sex trends in leadership of the American Academy of Dermatology: a cross-sectional study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83:592-594.
- Weeks WB, Wallace AE. Gender differences in dermatologists’ annual incomes. Cutis. 2007;80:325-332.
- Sachdeva M, Price KN, Hsiao JL, et al. Gender and rank salary trends among academic dermatologists. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020;6:324-326.
- Rose SL, Sanghani RM, Schmidt C, et al. Gender differences in physicians’ financial ties to industry: a study of national disclosure data. PLoS One. 2015;10:E0129197.
- Santhakumar S, Adashi EY. The physician payment sunshine act: testing the value of transparency. JAMA. 2015;313:23-24.
- Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, et al. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1742-1750.
- Kirschner NM, Sulmasy LS, Kesselheim AS. Health policy basics: the Physician Payment Sunshine Act and the Open Payments program. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:519-521.
- Braithwaite J, Frane N, Partan MJ, et al. Review of industry payments to general orthopaedic surgeons reported by the open payments database: 2014 to 2019. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2021;5:E21.00060.
- Pathak N, Mercier MR, Galivanche AR, et al. Industry payments to orthopedic spine surgeons reported by the open payments database: 2014-2017. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:E572-E578.
- Almaguer AM, Wills BW, Robin JX, et al. Open payments reporting of industry compensation for orthopedic residents. J Surg Educ. 2020;77:1632-1637.
- Chao AH, Gangopadhyay N. Industry financial relationships in plastic surgery: analysis of the sunshine act open payments database. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:341E-348E.
- Khetpal S, Mets EJ, Ahmad M, et al. The open payments sunshine act database revisited: a 5-year analysis of industry payments to plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148:877E-878E.
- Slentz DH, Nelson CC, Lichter PR. Characteristics of industry payments to ophthalmologists in the open payments database. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137:1038-1044.
- Gangireddy VGR, Amin R, Yu K, et al. Analysis of payments to GI physicians in the United States: open payments data study. JGH Open. 2020;4:1031-1036.
- Feng H, Wu P, Leger M. Exploring the industry-dermatologist financial relationship: insight from the open payment data. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:1307-1313.
- Schlager E, Flaten H, St Claire C, et al. Industry payments to dermatologists: updates from the 2016 open payment data. Dermatol Online J. 2018;24:13030/qt8r74w3c4.
- Agrawal S, Brennan N, Budetti P. The Sunshine Act—effects on physicians. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2054-2057.
- DeJong C, Aguilar T, Tseng CW, et al. Pharmaceutical industry-sponsored meals and physician prescribing patterns for Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1114-1122.
- Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:1167-1170.
- Nakayama DK. In defense of industry-physician relationships. Am Surg. 2010;76:987-994.
- Chimonas S, DeVito NJ, Rothman DJ. Bringing transparency to medicine: exploring physicians’ views and experiences of the sunshine act. Am J Bioeth. 2017;17:4-18.
- Pham-Kanter G, Mello MM, Lehmann LS, et la. Public awareness of and contact with physicians who receive industry payments: a national survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32:767-774.
- National Health Expenditure Fact Sheet. Updated December 13, 2023 Accessed August 9, 2024. https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/nhe-fact-sheet
- de Lotbiniere-Bassett MP, McDonald PJ. Industry financial relationships in neurosurgery in 2015: analysis of the Sunshine Act Open Payments database. World Neurosurg. 2018;114:E920-E925.
- Pathak N, Fujiwara RJT, Mehra S. Assessment of nonresearch industry payments to otolaryngologists in 2014 and 2015. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;158:1028-1034.
- Perry JE, Cox D, Cox AD. Trust and transparency: patient perceptions of physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42:475-491.
- Freund KM, Raj A, Kaplan SE, et al. Inequities in academic compensation by gender: a follow-up to the national faculty survey cohort study. Acad Med. 2016;91:1068-1073.
- Seabury SA, Chandra A, Jena AB. Trends in the earnings of male and female health care professionals in the United States, 1987 to 2010. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1748-1750.
- Flaten HK, Goodman L, Wong E, et al. Analysis of speaking opportunities by gender at national dermatologic surgery conferences. Dermatol Surg. 2020;46:1195-1201.
- Lobl M, Grinnell M, Higgins S, et al. Representation of women as editors in dermatology journals: a comprehensive review. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020;6:20-24.
- Stratman H, Stratman EJ. Assessment of percentage of women in the dermatology workforce presenting at American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings, 1992-2017. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155:384-386.
- Wu AG, Lipner SR. Sex trends in leadership of the American Academy of Dermatology: a cross-sectional study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83:592-594.
- Weeks WB, Wallace AE. Gender differences in dermatologists’ annual incomes. Cutis. 2007;80:325-332.
- Sachdeva M, Price KN, Hsiao JL, et al. Gender and rank salary trends among academic dermatologists. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020;6:324-326.
- Rose SL, Sanghani RM, Schmidt C, et al. Gender differences in physicians’ financial ties to industry: a study of national disclosure data. PLoS One. 2015;10:E0129197.
- Santhakumar S, Adashi EY. The physician payment sunshine act: testing the value of transparency. JAMA. 2015;313:23-24.
Practice Points
- Industry payments to dermatologists are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care.
- To facilitate increased transparency around industry-physician relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act requiring pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.
- We encourage dermatologists to review their public profiles on the Open Payments database, as physicians have the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the reported data, if applicable.