scholarly journals Current models, challenges and best practices for work conducted between European academic cooperative groups and industry

ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. e000628
Author(s):  
Rolf A Stahel ◽  
Denis Lacombe ◽  
Fatima Cardoso ◽  
Paolo G Casali ◽  
Anastassia Negrouk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Data Access ◽  
Cooperative Groups ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Industry Partnerships ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

BackgroundThe academia-industry interface is important, and, despite challenges that inevitably occur, bears the potential for positive synergies to emerge. Perceived barriers to wider collaboration in academia-industry oncology research in Europe need to be addressed, current academic cooperative group and industry models for collaboration need to be discussed, and a common terminology to facilitate understanding of both sectors’ concerns needs to be established with an eye towards improving academia-industry partnerships on clinical trials for the benefit of patients with cancer.MethodologyCAREFOR (Clinical Academic Cancer Research Forum), a multi-stakeholder platform formed to improve the direction for academic clinical trials in the field of oncology in Europe, formed the CAREFOR-Industry Working Group comprised of experienced professionals from European academic cooperative groups joined by industry representatives selected based on their activities in the area of medical oncology. They jointly discussed academic cooperative groups, clinical trials conducted between academic cooperative groups and industry, examples of successful collaborative models, common legal negotiation points in clinical trial contracts, data access, and principles of interaction.ResultsFour principles of interaction between the academia and industry are proposed: (1) clarify the roles and responsibilities of all partners involved in the study, (2) involve legal teams from an early stage; (3) acknowledge that data is an important output of the study, (4) agree on the intent of the trial prior to its start.ConclusionsThe CAREFOR-Industry Working Group describes current models, challenges, and effective strategies for academia-industry research in Europe with an eye towards improving academia-industry partnerships on clinical trials for patients with cancer. Current perceived challenges are explained, and future opportunities/recommendations for improvement are described for the areas of most significant impact. Challenges are addressed from both the academic and industry perspectives, and principles of interaction for the optimal alignment between academia and industry in selected areas are proposed.

Community and academic partnerships: Moving a new generation of clinical trials in NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) into community oncology practices.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2551-2551
Author(s):  
Worta J. McCaskill-Stevens ◽  
Ann M. Geiger
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Community Oncology ◽  
Catchment Areas

2551 Background: NCORP is a model program that bridges academic and community oncology practices and research. Over the past decade, community cancer investigators have adopted new technology, encountered new treatment sequalae, and faced rising cost of care with its financial toxicity imposed upon individuals seeking care. Opportunities are abundant for community investigators to assess feasibility and uptake of research advances into community practice settings, yet these opportunities are met with the challenges of dynamic changes in types of organizations delivering cancer care and diversity of populations within their catchment areas. Little information is shared about how and to what extent the health environment influences this partnership and the implementation of a broad cancer research portfolio. Methods: This abstract reports on the continued interest and participation of community oncologists in research which is demonstrated by 987 practices with over 4000 investigators in NCORP. Since 2014, over 30,000 individuals enrolled in symptom management, screening, surveillance, quality of life, and treatment trials. An additional 4500 patients and clinicians have enrolled in care delivery studies. Results: NCORP has been central in evaluating the most effective strategies for investigators to effectively communicate to patients the science of genomically-driven trials. It has also provided ways of bringing the pediatric and AYA patients access to the most up-to-date treatment strategies and new therapies in their community. This creates the least disruption on family structure/dynamics, diminished traveling requirements/costs, and reduced the financial burden. NCORP promotes involvement of treating oncologists in research activities. This also improves care for patients not enrolled in clinical trials. Therefore, NCORP serves as a laboratory to determine the most effective strategies for co-management of cancer patients and survivors. Conclusions: Several questions however remain to be addressed using this clinical trial model. These include: how to continue to reduce disparities in cancer care and clinical trial participation; and, what are the best strategies for fostering implementation of cancer care models in community practice.

scholarly journals Feasibility of a Centralized Clinical Trials Coverage Analysis: A Joint Initiative of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Cancer Institute

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 395-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Connie M. Szczepanek ◽  
Patricia Hurley ◽  
Marjorie J. Good ◽  
Andrea Denicoff ◽  
Kelly Willenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Financial Risk ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Support Unit ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Coverage Analysis ◽  
Community Forum ◽  
American Society

Purpose: Clinical trial billing compliance is a challenge that is faced by overburdened clinical trials sites. The requirements place institutions and research sites at increased potential for financial risk. To reduce their risk, sites develop a coverage analysis (CA) before opening each trial. For multisite trials, this translates into system-wide redundancies, inconsistencies, trial delays, and potential costs to sites and patients. These factors exacerbate low accrual rates to cancer clinical trials. ASCO and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) collaborated to address this problem. Methods: An ASCO Research Community Forum working group proposed the concept of providing centrally developed CAs to research sites at protocol startup. The group collaborated with NCI and billing compliance experts to hold a symposium for key stakeholders to share knowledge, build skills, provide tools to conduct centralized CAs, and strategize about the next steps. Results: Forty-eight attendees, who represented a range of stakeholders, participated in the symposium. As a result of this initiative, NCI directed the Cancer Trials Support Unit to convene a working group with NCI’s National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) to develop tools and processes for generating CAs for their trials. A CA template with core elements was developed and is being adapted in a pilot project across NCTN Group and NCORP Research Bases. Conclusion: Centralized CAs for multisite trials—using standardized tools and templates—are feasible. They have the potential to reduce risk for patients and sites, forecast budget needs, and help decrease trial startup times that impede patient access and accrual to clinical trials.

scholarly journals Moving Beyond the Momentum: Innovative Approaches to Clinical Trial Implementation

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00701
Author(s):  
Cathy Eng ◽  
Emerson Y. Chen ◽  
Jane Rogers ◽  
Mark Lewis ◽  
Jonathan Strosberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Low Income ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Cooperative Groups ◽  
Trial Conduct ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
National Cooperative ◽  
Physician Availability

Despite efforts to enhance enrollment and the merger of national cooperative groups, < 5% of patients with cancer will enroll into a clinical trial. Additionally, clinical trials are affected by a lack of diversity inclusive of minority patients, rural residents, or low-income individuals. COVID-19 further exacerbated known barriers of reduced physician-patient interaction, physician availability, trial activation and enrollment, financial resources, and capacity for conducting research. Based on the cumulative insight of academic and community clinical researchers, we have created a white paper identifying existing challenges in clinical trial conduct and have provided specific recommendations of sustainable modifications to improve efficiency in the activation and conduct of clinical trials with an overarching goal of providing improved access and care to our patients with cancer.

scholarly journals Oncology Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ONCOLOGY ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 265-269
Author(s):  
Aline Lara Gongora ◽  
Denis Jardim ◽  
Diogo Assed Bastos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
The Past ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
National Governments ◽  
To Receive

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread all over the world in the past several months. No effective treatment for COVID-19 has been established. High transmissibility and considerable mortality rates have forced many national governments to implement quarantine measures. Many patients with cancer rely on clinical trials to receive their oncologic care, but the routine conduct of clinical trials has substantially changed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The oncology research community should implement formal policies based on the guidance given from regulatory agencies, with the goal of minimizing the risks of COVID-19 infection while maintaining appropriate oncologic treatments for patients during this pandemic.

Lessons learned from implementing the first Alliance NCORP Research Base Cancer Care Delivery Research (CCDR) trial A191402CD.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 175-175
Author(s):  
Joel E Pacyna ◽  
Jeff A. Sloan ◽  
Simon P. Kim ◽  
Hillary Sedlacek ◽  
Jon Charles Tilburt
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Minority Men

175 Background: Biomedical research focused on the experiences of cancer patients in care delivery has progressed remarkably in recent years, including the emergence of Cancer Care Delivery Research (CCDR) within the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). CCDR is a relatively new mechanism with the NCORP to support protocols that test questions beyond standard clinical trials for treatment or symptom control interventions. CCDR leverages the NCORP infrastructure to develop and test care delivery interventions in community hospital settings and in settings serving underserved and minority populations. CCDR enables researchers to conduct care delivery studies in critical places and in niche populations. Methods: We will describe our experience coordinating the first Alliance NCORP Research Base Cancer CCDR trial. Our trial – a four arm, cluster-randomized trial of decision aids among sites capable of oversampling minority men with a diagnosis of early stage prostate cancer – was the first CCDR trial in the Alliance NCORP Research Base. We will describe the opportunities and challenges we encountered. Results: We implemented a CCDR protocol even as the oversight for CCDR was being worked out in parallel. Curating partnerships outside of established channels of clinical trials, engaging minority serving institutions, and engaging surgical practices like urology illustrate some of the challenges of implementing a care-delivery trial in a diverse multi-site network. Research staff must learn the art of mitigating the disruption of care delivery research procedures within clinics. Additionally, the researcher’s skills are drawn upon at multiple points— establishing relationships, advocating for flexibility in implementing rules, cheerleading, connecting dots, and directing traffic. Conclusions: Our “lessons learned” presentation will provide an experiential account that will inform aspiring care delivery researchers in their work and describe some of the emerging aspects of the institutional implementation of new initiatives in modern cooperative group research. Our presentation will also inform key stakeholders about how to best facilitate this type of research.

L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Reza Mirhafez ◽  
Mitra Hariri
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Inflammatory Mediators ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Human Adults ◽  
Factor Α

Abstract. L-arginine is an important factor in several physiological and biochemical processes. Recently, scientists studied L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators such as C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). We conducted a systematic review on randomized controlled trials assessing L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators. We searched data bases including Google scholar, ISI web of science, SCOPUS, and PubMed/Medline up to April 2019. Randomized clinical trials assessing the effect of L-arginine on inflammatory mediators in human adults were included. Our search retrieved eleven articles with 387 participants. Five articles were on patients with cancer and 6 articles were on adults without cancer. L-arginine was applied in enteral form in 5 articles and in oral form in 6 articles. Eight articles were on both genders, two articles were on women, and one article was on men. L-arginine could not reduce inflammatory mediators among patients with and without cancer except one article which indicated that taking L-arginine for 6 months decreased IL-6 among cardiopathic nondiabetic patients. Our results indicated that L-arginine might not be able to reduce selected inflammatory mediators, but for making a firm decision more studies are needed to be conducted with longer intervention duration, separately on male and female and with different doses of L-arginine.

Rationale for heparin treatment of colon cancer

2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (03) ◽  
pp. 136-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. L. Ornstein ◽  
L. R. Zacharski
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Substantial Improvement ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Coagulation Mechanism ◽  
Anticoagulant Drug ◽  
Cancer Outcome ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Improvement In Survival ◽  
Spectrum Of Patients ◽  
To Receive

SummaryIt is widely known that the systemic blood coagulation mechanism is often activated in malignancy, leading to an increased incidence of vascular thromboses in patients with cancer. It is not widely appreciated, however, that products of the coagulation mechanism may also support tumor growth and dissemination. Interest in this approach to cancer therapy has surged recently because of mounting evidence that the familiar anticoagulant drug, heparin, may impede tumor progression. Heparin has the capacity to modify angiogenesis, growth factor and protease activity, immune function, cell proliferation and gene expression in ways that may block malignant dissemination. Clinical trials in which heparin has been administered to a broad spectrum of patients to prevent or treat thrombosis have unexpectedly shown improvement in survival in the subset of patients with malignancy entered to these studies. Meta-analyses of clinical trials comparing unfractionated (UF) versus low molecular weight (LMW) heparin treating venous thromboembolism suggest that there may be substantial improvement in cancer outcome in patients with malignancy randomized to receive LMW heparin. These findings provide a rationale for definitive clinical trials of LMW heparin in cancer, and the results of several such studies that are currently underway are awaited with interest.

Treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients

2012 ◽  
Vol 03 (03) ◽  
pp. 121-125
Author(s):  
I. Pabinger ◽  
C. Ay
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
New Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Potential Use

SummaryCancer is a major and independent risk factor of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In clinical practice, a high number of VTE events occurs in patients with cancer, and treatment of cancerassociated VTE differs in several aspects from treatment of VTE in the general population. However, treatment in cancer patients remains a major challenge, as the risk of recurrence of VTE as well as the risk of major bleeding during anticoagulation is substantially higher in patients with cancer than in those without cancer. In several clinical trials, different anticoagulants and regimens have been investigated for treatment of acute VTE and secondary prophylaxis in cancer patients to prevent recurrence. Based on the results of these trials, anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) has become the treatment of choice in cancer patients with acute VTE in the initial period and for extended and long-term anticoagulation for 3-6 months. New oral anticoagulants directly inhibiting thrombin or factor Xa, have been developed in the past decade and studied in large phase III clinical trials. Results from currently completed trials are promising and indicate their potential use for treatment of VTE. However, the role of the new oral thrombin and factor Xa inhibitors for VTE treatment in cancer patients still has to be clarified in further studies specifically focusing on cancer-associated VTE. This brief review will summarize the current strategies of initial and long-term VTE treatment in patients with cancer and discuss the potential use of the new oral anticoagulants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document