The ACCME recently issued a letter to The Cancer Letter outlining their inquiry into NEJM over a paper published in 2006 that showed that I-ELCAP regimen of CT screening and follow-up in current and former smokers that could make lung cancer a curable disease, for failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
Now the study is normally the kind of news which is received with great excitement, especially to the 150,000 Americans who die each year of lung cancer, this was welcome news.
But because the study was funded through a grant to a foundation, which said foundation paid for the study, received research funds from the Liggett Tobacco Company, and the foundation had several non-exclusive patents pending for their inventions with General Electric (GE), it must be bad (right).
Explaining their selection not to identify conflicts, NEJM and Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) officials said that, at the time of the paper’s publication, “it was not routine NEJM editorial policy to publish details about pending patents.”
“Since that time, our thinking on this issue has evolved,” the letter stated. Indeed, pending patents can be licensed, as was the case with the intellectual property that produced royalties from GE.
“As soon as information that clarified Dr. Henschke’s relationship to the patent was provided to us, we sought clarification on the issue from the author,” the letter read, apparently neglecting to note that the journal’s initial investigation, as communicated to
The Cancer Letter, revealed no impropriety.
At the time the allegations emerged, Continuing Medical Education (CME) questions were no longer active, the document stated. “We also informed our learners about the updated conflict by publishing a correction that updated the disclosure,” the letter reads.
Also, since the start of the controversy, NEJM updated its policy on conflicts of interest in CME. The proposed policy is under review by the MMS Committee on Medical Education.
“As you can see from this letter, we have demonstrated our willingness to improve and to remain transparent and compliant with ACCME requirements to the satisfaction of ACCME, which has accepted the MMS Notice of Corrective Action,” MMS Official Carreal said in an accompanying e-mail. “Both parties now consider this issue to be resolved and the matter closed.”
The Cancer Letter’s response and subsequent press is a classic case of destroying the messenger if you have little science to back disputing the message. I find it very disingenuous that a study that could potentially save thousands of lives each year would be treated with such disrespect over what could only be considered judgment decisions by the editors of the Journal. There have been no studies thus far to refute the evidence presented in the papers (that early screening of lung cancer saves lives). Until such time that the research itself is refuted, the inquisition to discredit their work needs to stop.
One key quote that reveals the motives of The Cancer Letter author is his quote from Merril Goozner (Center for Science in the Public Interest – a Nader organization) “Instead of seeking to manage conflicts of interest, CME should be seeking to eliminate them entirely." Is the thought here that all research and their findings should happen serendipitously, or that the Government should commercialize all drugs? I challenge anyone to name just one medication that came from our friends in the former Soviet Union.
This type of public shaming only serves the interest of the religious zealots of the conflicts of interest movement who would rather see patients die of lung cancer than admit that anything good could come out of industry supported research.
The Cancer Letter: New England Journal Sanctioned For Giving CME Credit
For Controversial Paper On Lung Cancer Screening
NEJM: Letter to Cancer Letter
ACCME: Letter to the Cancer Letter
WSJ: Medical Journal Criticized Over Lack of Disclosure on Authors