Depicting oncologists' perceptions and knowledge of global disparities in conflicts of interest reporting: The ONCOTRUST-1 study.

9002 Background: Conflicts of interest (COI) between oncologists and the pharmaceutical industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, impacting treatment decisions, and policy-making.While there are regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).ONCOlogy TRansparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI. Methods: We designed an online 27-question-based survey in English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs.Illustrative examples of COI were proposed, based on definitions from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and published literature. Descriptive statistics and the CROSS guidelines were used to report the findings. Results: ONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range: 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. The median number of years of clinical practice was 9 (range: 1-51). 40.5% of respondents reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists’ perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and support for attending conferences (44.5%). In contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI. Regarding support received from industry, 51.5% of respondents acknowledged trips to conferences as the most common form of support, followed by sample drugs (20.5%). Despite recognizing these interactions, 15% of respondents admitted feeling pressured to prescribe specific drugs due to their COI. Regarding COI reporting, a notable portion of participants indicated they report COI in their presentations (59%) or when publishing their research (30%). The presence of local regulations to manage COI were reported by 35.5% of respondents. The majority advocated for clearer policies and regulations (65%), training and education (63.5%), and an open COI database (55%) to improve COI reporting in oncology. Conclusions: These findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.