scholarly journals Clinical research participation among adolescent and young adults at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and affiliated pediatric hospital

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 1579-1586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy D. Sanford ◽  
Jennifer L. Beaumont ◽  
Mallory A. Snyder ◽  
Jennifer Reichek ◽  
John M. Salsman
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Research Participation ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Pediatric Hospital ◽  
Adolescent And Young Adults

scholarly journals Synergetic role of integrating the departments of cancer registry and clinical research at an academic comprehensive cancer center

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
McKenzie Bedra ◽  
Tammy Vyskocil ◽  
Jennifer Emel ◽  
Crystal Edwards ◽  
Cherif Boutros
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Cancer Registry ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center

Improving the Time to Activation of New Clinical Trials at a National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e324-e332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Williams ◽  
Timothy J. Brown ◽  
Patrice Griffith ◽  
Asal Rahimi ◽  
Rhonda Oilepo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Six Sigma ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Scientific Committee ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Process Map

PURPOSE: The time it takes a performing site to activate a clinical trial can directly affect the ability to provide innovative and state-of-the-art care to patients. We sought to understand the process of activating an oncology clinical trial at a matrix National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders within the cancer center, university, and affiliate hospitals held a retreat to map out the process of activating a clinical trial. We applied classical quality improvement and Six Sigma methodology to determine bottlenecks and non–value-added time in activating a clinical trial. During this process, attention was paid to time to pass through each step, and perceived barriers and bottlenecks were identified through group discussions. RESULTS: The process map identified 66 steps with 12 decision points to activate a new clinical trial. The following two steps were instituted first: allow parallel scientific committee and institutional review board (IRB) review and allow the clinical research coordination committee, a group that determines university interest and feasibility, to review protocols independent of the IRB and scientific committee approval. The clinical research coordination committee continues to track the activation time, and this framework is used to identify additional improvement steps. CONCLUSION: By applying quality improvement methodologies and Six Sigma principles, we were able to identify redundancies in the process to activate a clinical trial. This allowed us to redesign the process of activating a clinical trial at a matrix comprehensive cancer center. More importantly, the process map provides a framework to maintain these gains and implement additional changes and serves as an example to deploy across the campus and at other similar institutions.

scholarly journals 2437 A prospective study of cancer clinical trial availability and enrollment among adolescents/young adults treated at a Children’s Hospital or Affiliated Adult Cancer Specialty Hospital

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 37-37
Author(s):  
Stefanie M. Thomas ◽  
Jemily Malvar ◽  
Henry Tran ◽  
Jared Shows ◽  
David R. Freyer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Children's Hospital ◽  
Treatment Site ◽  
Cancer Hospital ◽  
Children’S Hospital ◽  
Adult Hospital

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Low cancer clinical trial (CCTs) enrollment may contribute to the poor survival improvement for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, aged 15–39 years) with cancer. Treatment site is thought to exacerbate this problem. This study evaluated whether differences in CCT availability explain lower CCT enrollment depending on treatment site for AYAs. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This prospective, observational cohort study was conducted at an academic children’s hospital and an adult cancer hospital, 2 affiliated sites within a NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center over 13 months. In consecutive AYA patients newly diagnosed with cancer at both site, it was determined whether an appropriate CCT existed nationally, was available locally, and if enrollment occurred. The proportions of AYAs in these categories were compared by site using the χ2 test. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Among 152 consecutive AYA patients, 68 and 84 were treated at the children’s hospital and adult cancer hospital, respectively. AYAs treated at the children’s hospital had similar CCT existence nationally compared with AYAs treated at the adult hospital [36/68 (52.9%) vs. 45/84 (53.6%), p=0.938]. However, a significantly higher percentage of children’s hospital treated AYAs than adult hospital treated AYAs had an available CCT [30/68 (44.1%) vs. 14/84 (16.7%), p<0.001]. Enrollment percentages were similarly low in both groups [8/68 (11.8%) vs. 6/84 (7.1%), p=0.327]. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Significantly fewer AYAs treated at the adult hospital had a CCT available, but national existence was similar at both sites. This suggests that institutional barriers to opening CCT have more importance at adult centers.

Development and use of a staffing model for clinical research teams at an NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18267-e18267
Author(s):  
Erin Fenske Williams ◽  
Joan H. Schiller ◽  
Joyce D Bolluyt ◽  
David E. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Staffing Model

Increasing Clinical Trials Accrual at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1266-1266
Author(s):  
Bayard L. Powell ◽  
Debbie Olson ◽  
Robert M. Morrell ◽  
Terry L. Hales ◽  
Kevin P High ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Point System ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Trials ◽  
Academic Year ◽  
Year 2013

Abstract Background: During the academic year 2013 (July 2012-June 2013) our accrual to cancer clinical trials, a critical measure of success for a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC), was lower than prior years and below the desired level for CCC core grant renewal. Academic physicians were faced with increasing pressures to meet clinical demands, often at the expense of academic productivity, including clinical research. Methods: Our Dean and clinical leadership committed to support our efforts to increase accrual to clinical trials by providing salary support for our Section on Hematology and Oncology for specific milestones of 5%, 10%, and 15% increases in accrual to all clinical trials and in accrual to treatment (NCI definition) trials. The goal of the faculty was to increase accrual by > 15% to all trials and to treatment trials to maximize the “pool”. To determine how to divide the pool among investigators we developed a point system recognizing clinical investigators for roles as a) PI for trials (with additional points for all accrual to their trials) and b) for entering patients on clinical trials. The point system for both roles (PI and entering patients) was weighted relative to the value of the trial to the CCC, e.g. investigator initiated > cooperative group > industry initiated, and treatment trials >> non-treatment trials. In addition, we awarded points for publications (first and senior author > co-author) and presentations (oral > poster; major national meeting > other meetings). Results: During academic year 2014 (July 2013-June 2014) accrual to all cancer clinical trials increased by 140% (276 to 663) and accrual to treatment trials increased 40% (114 to 160). These increases occurred in both hematologic malignancies (95% all; 16% treatment) where we had a strong track record for accruals, and in solid tumors (200% all; 76% treatment) where our prior record was not as strong. Discussion: Accrual to clinical trials, both treatment and non-treatment improved dramatically. Interpretation of cause and effect is complex. The baseline year (2013) included implementation of a new EMR and the recent year (2014) included recruitment of additional faculty. However, 2014 was complicated by implementation of a new practice plan heavily weighted toward individual RVU production, and a decrease in available co-operative group trials to historically low levels. However, we can conclude that attention to this critical role of clinical investigators is important and can influence behavior. We cannot determine whether financial incentives are needed or whether the funding is one of several potential methods of recognition of the importance of clinical trials. It is possible that the commitment to provide financial support for clinical research demonstrated to clinical investigators that the leadership valued clinical trials activity and this recognition was more important than the actual funds. Future efforts will also need to find ways to recognize/reward clinical trials productivity of groups of investigators for their multidisciplinary contributions to the care of patients on clinical trials, without generating internal competition within the groups. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Creating an Effort Tracking Tool to Improve Therapeutic Cancer Clinical Trials Workload Management and Budgeting

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1228-1233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pam James ◽  
Patty Bebee ◽  
Linda Beekman ◽  
David Browning ◽  
Mathew Innes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Data Management ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
University Of Michigan ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Workload Management ◽  
Effective Cost ◽  
The University

Quantifying data management and regulatory workload for clinical research is a difficult task that would benefit from a robust tool to assess and allocate effort. As in most clinical research environments, The University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center (UMCCC) Clinical Trials Office (CTO) struggled to effectively allocate data management and regulatory time with frequently inaccurate estimates of how much time was required to complete the specific tasks performed by each role. In a dynamic clinical research environment in which volume and intensity of work ebbs and flows, determining requisite effort to meet study objectives was challenging. In addition, a data-driven understanding of how much staff time was required to complete a clinical trial was desired to ensure accurate trial budget development and effective cost recovery. Accordingly, the UMCCC CTO developed and implemented a Web-based effort-tracking application with the goal of determining the true costs of data management and regulatory staff effort in clinical trials. This tool was developed, implemented, and refined over a 3-year period. This article describes the process improvement and subsequent leveling of workload within data management and regulatory that enhanced the efficiency of UMCCC's clinical trials operation.

scholarly journals Extending Comprehensive Cancer Center Expertise in Clinical Cancer Genetics and Genomics to Diverse Communities: The Power of Partnership

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 615-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah J. MacDonald ◽  
Kathleen R. Blazer ◽  
Jeffrey N. Weitzel
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Cancer Genetics ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Research Participation ◽  
Cancer Risk Assessment ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Screening And Prevention

Rapidly evolving genetic and genomic technologies for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) are revolutionizing the approach to targeted therapy and cancer screening and prevention, heralding the era of personalized medicine. Although many academic medical centers provide GCRA services, most people receive their medical care in the community setting. However, few community clinicians have the knowledge or time needed to adequately select, apply, and interpret genetic/genomic tests. This article describes alternative approaches to the delivery of GCRA services, profiling the City of Hope Cancer Screening & Prevention Program Network (CSPPN) academic and community-based health center partnership as a model for the delivery of the highest-quality evidence-based GCRA services while promoting research participation in the community setting. Growth of the CSPPN was enabled by information technology, with videoconferencing for telemedicine and Web conferencing for remote participation in interdisciplinary genetics tumor boards. Grant support facilitated the establishment of an underserved minority outreach clinic in the regional County hospital. Innovative clinician education, technology, and collaboration are powerful tools to extend GCRA expertise from a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, enabling diffusion of evidenced-base genetic/genomic information and best practice into the community setting.

scholarly journals Case-linked analysis of clinical trial enrollment among adolescents and young adults at a National Cancer Institute-Designated comprehensive cancer center

Cancer ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 121 (24) ◽  
pp. 4398-4406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea L. Collins ◽  
Jemily Malvar ◽  
Ann S. Hamilton ◽  
Dennis M. Deapen ◽  
David R. Freyer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Adolescents And Young Adults ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document