Scientific Meetings in Medical Oncology: Are We Facing a Time- and Resource-Consuming Plethora?

TL;DR

The paper examines the growing number of medical oncology conferences and finds many are of low quality, especially at regional and local levels.

Contribution

The study evaluates the quality of medical oncology conferences and highlights the prevalence of low-tier events driven by non-scientific factors.

Findings

25% of evaluated conferences were classified as high-tier, mostly national.

56% of conferences scored low (0–2), with most being regional or local.

Low-tier conferences were significantly more common at regional and local levels.

Abstract

The number of medical oncology conferences has increased exponentially over the last two decades, driven by the rapid evolution of knowledge in molecular biology and cancer pathophysiology, as well as the rapid introduction of numerous new therapeutic agents into clinical practice across a wide range of settings. However, there is concern that many events, especially local and partly regional ones, are of low quality, the result of excessive duplication, and lack scientific and updating aims; instead, they are driven by pressures from sponsors or other motivations unrelated to scientific updating.

Background: In recent years, the rapid advances in molecular biology and cancer pathophysiology, and the rapid availability of new therapeutic agents, have led to an exponential increase in the number of medical oncology conferences. This plethora may partly result from excessive duplication, undertaken without scientific or updating aims, under pressure from sponsors or other motivations unrelated to scientific advancement. The quality of meetings is therefore to be analyzed. Methods: A panel of medical oncologists, psychologists, and health-related data managers reviewed the characteristics of 99 out of 125 medical oncology conferences. The meetings were assessed for quality using a 0–5 score based on five parameters: attendees-to-speaker ratio, speaker quality, adequate time allocated for discussion, availability of feedback, and fairness of speeches. Results: The panelists identified 25 of 99 scientific events (25%; 95% CI 17–35%) at the 75th percentile and classified them as high-tier meetings, with a total score of 4–5. There were 5 national conferences, 6 regional conferences, and 14 local conferences. Forty-five meetings (56%; 95% Cl 35–56%) reached a score of 0–2 and twenty-nine (29%; 95% Cl 21–39%) a score of 3, and all were considered low tiers. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002709) in favor of high-titer national conferences. Conclusions: Although this paper has several limitations, the results indicate that many conferences were of moderate to poor quality, with a significant prevalence of low-tier events at regional and local levels and a higher concentration of low-tier events within this group. Scientific societies should implement adequate countermeasures.

Figures