scholarly journals Radiographic read paradigms and the roles of the central imaging laboratory in neuro-oncology clinical trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin M Ellingson ◽  
Matthew S Brown ◽  
Jerrold L Boxerman ◽  
Elizabeth R Gerstner ◽  
Timothy J Kaufmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Response Assessment ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
Radiographic Images ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Rano Criteria ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Imaging Methodology

Abstract Determination of therapeutic benefit in intracranial tumors is intimately dependent on serial assessment of radiographic images. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria were established in 2010 to provide an updated framework to better characterize tumor response to contemporary treatments. Since this initial update a number of RANO criteria have provided some basic principles for the interpretation of changes on MR images; however, the details of how to operationalize RANO and other criteria for use in clinical trials are ambiguous and not standardized. In this review article designed for the neuro-oncologist or treating clinician, we outline essential steps for performing radiographic assessments by highlighting primary features of the Imaging Charter (referred to as the Charter for the remainder of this article), a document that describes the clinical trial imaging methodology and methods to ensure operationalization of the Charter into the workings of a clinical trial. Lastly, we provide recommendations for specific changes to optimize this methodology for neuro-oncology, including image registration, requirement of growing tumor for eligibility in trials of recurrent tumor, standardized image acquisition guidelines, and hybrid reader paradigms that allow for both unbiased measurements and more comprehensive interpretation.

Dedicated clinical trial tissue tracking database to improve turn-around time at high-volume center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1543-1543
Author(s):  
Peter Blankenship ◽  
David DeLaRosa ◽  
Marc Burris ◽  
Steven Cusson ◽  
Kayla Hendricks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tissue Sample ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Fresh Tissue ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
The Status ◽  
Unique Source

1543 Background: Tissue requirements in oncology clinical trials are increasingly complex due to prescreening protocols for patient selection and serial biopsies to understand molecular-level treatment effects. Novel solutions for tissue processing are necessary for timely tissue procurement. Based on these needs, we developed a Tissue Tracker (TT), a comprehensive database for study-related tissue tasks at our high-volume clinical trial center. Methods: In this Microsoft Access database, patients are assigned an ID within the TT that is associated with their name, medical record number, and study that follows their request to external users: pathology departments, clinical trial coordinators and data team members. To complete tasks in the TT, relevant information is required to update the status. Due to the high number of archival tissue requests from unique pathology labs, the TT has a “Follow-Up Dashboard” that organizes information needed to conduct follow-up on all archival samples with the status “Requested”. This results in an autogenerated email and pdf report sent to necessary teams. The TT also includes a kit inventory system and a real-time read only version formatted for interdepartmental communication, metric reporting, and other data-driven efforts. The primary outcome in this study was to evaluate our average turnaround time (ATAT: average time from request to shipment) for archival and fresh tissue samples before and after TT development. Results: Before implementing the TT, between March 2016 and March 2018, we processed 2676 archival requests from 235 unique source labs resulting in 2040 shipments with an ATAT of 19.29 days. We also processed 1099 fresh biopsies resulting in 944 shipments with an ATAT of 7.72 days. After TT implementation, between April 2018 and April 2020, we processed 2664 archival requests from 204 unique source labs resulting in 2506 shipments (+28.0%) with an ATAT of 14.78 days (-23.4%). During that same period, we processed 1795 fresh biopsies (+63.3%) resulting in 2006 shipments (+112.5%) with an ATAT of 6.85 days (-11.3%). Conclusions: Oncology clinical trials continue to evolve toward more extensive tissue requirements for prescreening and scientific exploration of on-treatment molecular profiling. Timely results are required to optimize patient trial participation. During the intervention period, our tissue sample volume and shipments increased, but the development and implementation of an automated tracking system allowed improvement in ATAT of both archival and fresh tissue. This automation not only improves end-user expectations and experiences for patients and trial sponsors but this allows our team to adapt to the increasing interest in tissue exploration.

scholarly journals Prospective analysis of 895 patients on a UK Genomics Review Board

ESMO Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e000469 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Allan Moore ◽  
Marina Kushnir ◽  
Gabriel Mak ◽  
Helen Winter ◽  
Teresa Curiel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Genetics ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Prospective Data ◽  
Expert Review ◽  
Molecular Oncology ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
Generation Sequencing

BackgroundThe increasing frequency and complexity of cancer genomic profiling represents a challenge for the oncology community. Results from next-generation sequencing–based clinical tests require expert review to determine their clinical relevance and to ensure patients are stratified appropriately to established therapies or clinical trials.MethodsThe Sarah Cannon Research Institute UK/UCL Genomics Review Board (GRB) was established in 2014 and represents a multidisciplinary team with expertise in molecular oncology, clinical trials, clinical cancer genetics and molecular pathology. Prospective data from this board were collated.ResultsTo date, 895 patients have been reviewed by the GRB, of whom 180 (20%) were referred for clinical trial screening and 62 (7%) received trial therapy. For a further 106, a clinical trial recommendation was given.ConclusionsNumerous challenges are faced in implementing a GRB, including the identification of potential germline variants, the interpretation of variants of uncertain significance and consideration of the technical limitations of pathology material when interpreting results. These challenges are likely to be encountered with increasing frequency in routine practice. This GRB experience provides a model for the multidisciplinary review of molecular profiling data and for the linking of molecular analysis to clinical trial networks.

Imaging Criteria in Neuro-oncology

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 024-031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha Nowosielski ◽  
Patrick Wen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Brain Tumors ◽  
Imaging Techniques ◽  
Response Assessment ◽  
Pediatric Brain Tumors ◽  
Macdonald Criteria ◽  
Collective Work ◽  
Positron Emission ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Group A

The identification of more effective therapies for brain tumors has been limited in part by the lack of reliable criteria for determining response and progression. Since its introduction in 1990, the MacDonald criteria have been used in neuro-oncology clinical trials to determine response, but they fail to address issues such as pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, and nonenhancing tumor progression that have arisen with more recent therapies. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) working group, a multidisciplinary international group consisting of neuro-oncologists, medical oncologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and neuropsychologists, was formed to improve response assessment and clinical trial endpoints in neuro-oncology. Although it was initially focused on response assessment for gliomas, the scope of the RANO group has been broadened to include brain metastases, leptomeningeal metastases, spine tumors, pediatric brain tumors, and meningiomas. In addition, subgroups have focused on response assessment during immunotherapy and use of positron emission tomography, as well as determination of neurologic function, clinical outcomes assessment, and seizures. The RANO criteria are currently a collective work in progress, and refinements will be needed in the future based on data from clinical trials and improved imaging techniques.

scholarly journals Early Impact of COVID-19 on the Conduct of Oncology Clinical Trials and Long-Term Opportunities for Transformation: Findings From an American Society of Clinical Oncology Survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 417-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Waterhouse ◽  
R. Donald Harvey ◽  
Patricia Hurley ◽  
Laura A. Levit ◽  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
Community Based Programs ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Community Forum ◽  
American Society ◽  
Remote Patient

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted all aspects of clinical care, including cancer clinical trials. In March 2020, ASCO launched a survey of clinical programs represented on its Cancer Research Committee and Research Community Forum Steering Group and taskforces to learn about the types of changes and challenges that clinical trial programs were experiencing early in the pandemic. There were 32 survey respondents; 14 represented academic programs, and 18 represented community-based programs. Respondents indicated that COVID-19 is leading programs to halt or prioritize screening and/or enrollment for certain clinical trials and cease research-only visits. Most reported conducting remote patient care where possible and remote visits and monitoring with sponsors and/or contract research organizations (CROs); respondents viewed this shift positively. Numerous challenges with conducting clinical trials were reported, including enrollment and protocol adherence difficulties with decreased patient visits, staffing constraints, and limited availability of ancillary services. Interactions with sponsors and CROs about modifying trial procedures were also challenging. The changes in clinical trial procedures identified by the survey could serve as strategies for other programs attempting to maintain their clinical trial portfolios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, many of the adaptations to trials made during the pandemic provide a long-term opportunity to improve and transform the clinical trial system. Specific improvements could be expanded use of more pragmatic or streamlined trial designs, fewer clinical trial–related patient visits, and minimized sponsor and CRO visits to trial programs.

A novel patient-centric approach between sites, CRO, and sponsor to accelerate FPI and drive more patients into oncology protocols.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6573-6573
Author(s):  
Krystyna Kowalczyk ◽  
Rhonda U. Henry ◽  
Bellinda Conte
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Just In Time ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trial ◽  
Local Access ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
A Site ◽  
New Compounds

6573 Background: According to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, 50% of sites performing clinical trials never enroll a patient. And on top of that, it can take several months to activate a site for an oncology clinical trial; precious time that patients cannot afford when they’ve had a cancer diagnosis and precious time sponsors need when developing new compounds for market. While many patients are interested in participating in trials, they are limited in their opportunities because they do not live near a research site or work with a physician performing clinical trials. So with this crisis in the oncology field, research needs to be more efficient and inclusive. Methods: A combined partnership of sites, physicians, CRO and sponsor leveraging Just-in-Time enrollment methodology helped expedite clinical trial enrollment and diversify trial access driving faster first patient enrolled and expanding the potential patient denominator. Results: This on-demand methodology augmented existing sites that had access to oncology patients by providing broader access, faster, and with no quality loss. Strong partnerships between CRO and sponsor then facilitated two-week site activation allowing every identified patient to be converted to a study subject. This methodology was repeated across seven protocols driving patents on trials within six weeks of trial available. Conclusions: The benefits of this Just-in-Time methodology touch all areas of clinical trials: Patients have greater clinical trial access: A larger denominator of patients across broader geographies have local access to portfolios of clinical trials; Trials start to enroll faster: Patients can be randomized into oncology clinical trials within two weeks of study start up driving trial time to completion; Sites have more trial options to consider: Sites have a broader portfolio of trials to access on demand without added administrative burden; Trials complete faster: Sponsors accrue patients faster driving expedited timelines and accelerating drug development.

Racial distribution of clinical trial participants in the United States.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18516-e18516
Author(s):  
Monaliben Patel ◽  
Lisa M. Hess ◽  
Eric Wen Su ◽  
Xiaohong Li ◽  
Debora S. Bruno
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Black Patients ◽  
The Us ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Seer Data ◽  
Trial Participants

e18516 Background: Lack of diverse representation in clinical trials negatively impacts the cancer survival of patients and populations unaccounted for in clinical research. Efforts such as the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act have focused on improving the diversity of trial participants in the US. This retrospective study evaluated the racial distribution of oncology clinical trial participants using data published in clinicaltrials.gov from Jan 2010 through Dec 2020. Methods: I2E of Linguamatics (IQVIA, Inc), a natural language processing software, was used to identify participant race in oncology trials. Data extracted included trial identifier, year of completion, sponsor, cancer type, and race. Studies were limited to academic, cooperative group and government studies headquartered in the US. Clinical trial results were compared to the racial distribution of SEER 2010 data using z-test. Results: Data from 35,686 patients (14,220 enrolled to 236 phase 2 and 21,471 enrolled to 47 phase 3 trials) were available for analysis. A summary by race is provided in the Table, excluding unknown, which represented 8.5% of phase 2 and 3.5% of phase 3 trials. The proportions of white/black patients enrolled to phase 2 and phase 3 trials beginning in 2010-12 were 84.4%/11% and 83.1%/9.9%, respectively (total enrollment 84.9%/9.6%). For trials beginning in 2015-17, white/black enrollment represented 88.5%/8.1% of patients enrolled to phase 2 and 86.4%/10.1% of patients in phase 3 trials. Black patients represented 9.6% of all trial participants, in contrast with the SEER data where 12% of all patients were black (p < 0.001). For lung cancer trials, black participants represented only 7.9% of all trial participants whereas in breast cancer trials, 10.2% of participants were black, versus the SEER data specific to these tumor types (black patients represent 10.9%/11.5% of lung/breast cancer diagnoses between 2013 to 2017, both p < 0.01). Conclusions: This study suggests that over the past decade most races (other than white) have been significantly underrepresented in US oncology clinical trials, and is even more pronounced for black patients with lung cancer. Based on this analysis, there is no evidence that trial enrollment distribution, particularly of white versus black participants, has changed since 2010. Data are limited to the relative lack of studies reporting results that began enrollment after 2017. These findings suggest that the development of new strategies to improve the recruitment of racial minorities to oncology clinical trials are warranted.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Ontario Protocol Assessment Level: Clinical Trial Complexity Rating Tool for Workload Planning in Oncology Clinical Trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bobbi Smuck ◽  
Phyllis Bettello ◽  
Koralee Berghout ◽  
Tracie Hanna ◽  
Brenda Kowaleski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Complexity Rating ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Trial Activity ◽  
Consistent Application

The Ontario Protocol Assessment Level (OPAL) protocol complexity rating scale provides a method of quantifying clinical trial activity on the basis of study protocol complexity and the resulting increase in workload. With consistent application of OPAL, sites can manage staffing objectively.

Transforming Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria to Reflect Practical Clinical Application

2016 ◽  
pp. 83-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Jennifer Atlas ◽  
Gwynn Ison ◽  
Jennifer L. Ersek
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

Historically, oncology clinical trials have focused on comparing a new drug’s efficacy to the standard of care. However, as our understanding of molecular pathways in oncology has evolved, so has our ability to predict how patients will respond to a particular drug, and thus comparison with a standard therapy has become less important. Biomarkers and corresponding diagnostic testing are becoming more and more important to drug development but also limit the type of patient who may benefit from the therapy. Newer clinical trial designs have been developed to assess clinically meaningful endpoints in biomarker-enriched populations, and the number of modern, molecularly driven clinical trials are steadily increasing. At the same time, barriers to clinical trial enrollment have also grown. Many barriers contribute to nonenrollment in clinical trials, including patient, physician, institution, protocol, and regulatory barriers. At the protocol level, eligibility criteria have become a large roadblock to clinical trial accrual. Over time, eligibility criteria have become more and more restrictive. To accrue an adequate number of patients to molecularly driven trials, we should consider eligibility criteria carefully and attempt to reduce restrictive criteria. Reducing restrictive eligibility criteria will allow more patients to be eligible for clinical trial participation, will likely increase the speed of drug approvals, and will result in clinical trial results that more accurately reflect treatment of the population in the clinical setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document