scholarly journals P-75 Impact of an educational activity on the knowledge of oncologists regarding the latest clinical trial data on HER2-directed therapies for gastric and colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. S122-S123
Author(s):  
N. Dorkhom ◽  
D. Cameron ◽  
P. Chen ◽  
A. Grothey ◽  
K. Lucero
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Educational Activity ◽  
P 75

scholarly journals 488 The impact of education on novel concepts in metastatic melanoma: triplet therapy

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A524-A524
Author(s):  
Kinjal Parikh ◽  
Sara Fagerlie ◽  
Patrick Kugel ◽  
Richard Caracio ◽  
Ryan Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Panel Discussion ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Advanced Melanoma ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Educational Activity ◽  
List Type ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Post Assessment

BackgroundAdvanced melanoma treatment selection is guided by BRAF-mutation status and patient and disease-specific factors. Historically, oncologists decided between targeted therapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). However, given the differences in onset of activity, response durability, and adverse events combination BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ICI (triplet therapy) are being evaluated to optimize outcomes. With several trials due to report, oncologists need education to stay up-to-date on the available data and contextualize this potential treatment option.MethodsAn online continuing education (CME) activity consisting of a multi-media 30-minute video panel discussion explored the rationale, available clinical trial data, and future directions of triplet therapy for the treatment of advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Educational effect was assessed using a repeated pairs pre-assessment/post-assessment study design and compared the pre- and post-assessment responses. A chi-square test was used to identify differences between pre- and post-assessment responses. Effect size was calculated using Cramer’s V test by determining the strength of the association between the activity and the outcomes (V = 0.16–0.26 is considerable and V > 0.26 is extensive). P values were calculated and those < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data from oncologist participants were collected between 12/23/2019 through 2/26/20.ResultsParticipation in education resulted in statistically significant improvements and noticeable educational effect for oncologists (n=49; p < 0.05, V =0.136). • 39% of pre-assessment questions were correctly answered increasing to 52% post-assessment • 15% of oncologists had a measurable improvement in confidence regarding the rationale for use of triplet therapy in advanced melanoma• Significant improvement in knowledge regarding clinical trial data in triplet therapy was observed (35% vs. 55%; p < 0.05, V = 0.205)ConclusionsThis online, interactive, expert-led, CME-certified educational activity resulted in significant gains in oncologist knowledge and confidence regarding triplet therapy in the management of melanoma. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of on-demand education but also highlight an ongoing need for education on this topic as further data becomes available.AcknowledgementsThis educational initiative was supported through educational grants from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and GenentechReferenceSullivan RJ, Salama AKS. Managing Melanoma: Emerging Concepts of Triplet Therapy. https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/923003

Comparative effectiveness of antiangiogenesis inhibitors for second-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Xiaoyue Chen ◽  
Sarmad Sadeghi ◽  
Heinz-Josef Lenz ◽  
Afsaneh Barzi
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

9 Background: Treatment guidelines for second-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) suggest that addition of an anti-angiogenesis inhibitor to standard chemotherapy will prolong survival. Bevacizumab and aflibercept are two inhibitors that have increased survival in randomized clinical trials, but their cost-effectiveness is unclear. This study uses clinical trial data to compare the addition of aflibercept versus bevacizumab to a chemotherapy regimen in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost per month gained and treatment-related toxicities. Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate survival, toxicities, and costs for each treatment arm. Survival and adverse event probabilities were derived from published clinical trial data, and costs were estimated from the literature and the 2013 Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule. Results: Aflibercept dominates bevacizumab by increasing survival by 1.06 months, while saving $3,526 in total treatment and adverse event costs combined (Table). When evaluating only adverse event-associated costs, the ICER between aflibercept and bevacizumab is $3,675 per month gained. One-way sensitivity analysis of the total cost ICER shows that aflibercept cost-savings are robust to almost all parameters varied, while similar analysis of the adverse event ICER suggests that aflibercept-associated toxicities would cost less than bevacizumab-associated toxicities in the case of a 20% decrease or increase in aflibercept or bevacizumab toxicity costs, respectively. Conclusions: Aflibercept plus chemotherapy is cost saving overall and improves survival compared with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy but results in more adverse events and associated costs. Practitioners treating mCRC patients should weigh survival outcomes against potential increased toxicity between different treatments, especially when evaluating limited survival gains. [Table: see text]

Clinical Trial Data Management Software: A Review of the Technical Features

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 160-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aynaz Nourani ◽  
Haleh Ayatollahi ◽  
Masoud Solaymani Dodaran
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Management ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Data Management System ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Data Management Systems ◽  
Technical Features

Background:Data management is an important, complex and multidimensional process in clinical trials. The execution of this process is very difficult and expensive without the use of information technology. A clinical data management system is software that is vastly used for managing the data generated in clinical trials. The objective of this study was to review the technical features of clinical trial data management systems.Methods:Related articles were identified by searching databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, ProQuest, Ovid and PubMed. All of the research papers related to clinical data management systems which were published between 2007 and 2017 (n=19) were included in the study.Results:Most of the clinical data management systems were web-based systems developed based on the needs of a specific clinical trial in the shortest possible time. The SQL Server and MySQL databases were used in the development of the systems. These systems did not fully support the process of clinical data management. In addition, most of the systems lacked flexibility and extensibility for system development.Conclusion:It seems that most of the systems used in the research centers were weak in terms of supporting the process of data management and managing clinical trial's workflow. Therefore, more attention should be paid to design a more complete, usable, and high quality data management system for clinical trials. More studies are suggested to identify the features of the successful systems used in clinical trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document