An Overview of King Hussein Cancer Center Institutional Review Board Over 12 Years (2009–2020), Successes and Challenges, Including Those Imposed by the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author(s):  
Linda Kateb ◽  
Sawsan El-Jayousi ◽  
Maysa Al-Hussaini

The problem: Running an efficient institutional review board (IRB) can be challenging. The research subjects: To ensure an efficient committee, our IRB adopted several operational metrics. Methods: Analysis of retrospective data from the IRB records, database, and annual reports over 12 years. Results: The IRB roster comprises 11 members. The average medical to nonmedical member ratio is 5:6, and the male to female ratio is 4:7, which has not been consistent over the years. One thousand three hundred and twenty-four proposals were reviewed including 1077 exempt (81.3%), 126 expedited (9.5%), and 121 full board (9.2%) with a median turnaround time to approval of 4.0, 35.0, and 68.0 days, respectively. Training of the IRB members was conducted to enhance their knowledge and skills. IRB at King Hussein Cancer Center has managed to stay abreast and efficient during the COVID-19 pandemic, by working remotely. Conclusion: Running an efficient IRB mandates implementing a number of operational metrics.

1983 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 828-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Bosso

Concern with the rights and welfare of human experimental research subjects has given rise to the evolution of institutional review boards. This article describes the basic composition and purposes of these boards, as well as the federal regulations by which they are governed. Since many of these regulations are open to interpretation, the policies and procedures of one such board are included to represent an example of how these regulations are interpreted and applied.


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 28-28
Author(s):  
Ilona Fridman ◽  
Tanya Nikolova ◽  
Paul A. Glare ◽  
E. Tory Higgins

28 Background: Patients often continue chemotherapy at the end of life, decreasing their quality of life without prolonging survival. Because humans tend to make emotional choices rather than rational ones when considering unpleasant options, patients are likely to reject hospice and other forms of symptom-focused care (SFC) when it could be beneficial for them. We explored patients’ perspectives on how they choose between continuing cancer treatment and SFC. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 20 patients recruited from palliative care clinics at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). Interviews covered patients’ decision-making process regarding further chemotherapy vs. SFC. Interviewees gave verbal consent, the MSKCC Institutional Review Board granting a waiver. Results: Two key conditions were identified as necessary for patients to choose SFC. First, the patient accepts that further chemotherapy is not going to be beneficial to them. Second, the oncologist endorses the transition to SFC. Preliminary analysis of treatment choices at the time of interview (see Table) also found many of those who expected they would benefit from further treatment experienced negative emotions when SFC was recommended. Conclusions: These data confirm the importance of raising prognostic awareness, and endorsing hospice. Further research should focus on developing communication techniques to recommend SFC in a way that helps patients who continue to want more treatment to calmly understand and consider carefully the advice being offered, rather than simply disliking it and quickly rejecting it. [Table: see text]


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A338-A338
Author(s):  
Chantal Saberian ◽  
Rodabe Amaria ◽  
Cara Haymaker ◽  
Marie Andree Forget ◽  
Roland Bassett ◽  
...  

BackgroundAdoptive cell therapy (ACT) using autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) has shown great benefit in patients with melanoma.1,2 It was suggested that long term tumor immunosurveillance is provided by TIL persisting after transfer. Dendritic cells (DC) are professional antigen presenting cells and have the ability to optimally activate T lymphocytes.3 We hypothesized that the combination of autologous TIL containing a population of HLA-A0201 restricted MART-1 reactive CD8+ TIL with autologous MART-1 antigen-pulsed DCs will result in enhanced proliferation and prolonged survival of the transferred antigen-specific T cells in vivo, thus leading to improved clinical responses.MethodsThis is a randomized phase II trial of lymphodepleting chemotherapy followed by autologous TILs ± DC vaccine and high dose Interleukin-2 (IL-2) for patients with metastatic melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive TIL alone or TIL + DCs pulsed with MART-1 peptide. The primary objective was to determine whether patients receiving TIL + DCs have sustained persistence of infused T cells compared to patients treated with TIL alone. Secondary endpoints included evaluation of tumor response and survival.ResultsA total of 18 patients with stage IV melanoma were treated; 89% with stage M1c, including 56% with brain metastasis; 17% had high LDH level. All but one patient were checkpoint naïve prior to TIL. Ten patients received TIL alone and eight received TIL + DC. Treatments were well tolerated with no grade 5 adverse events. There were no toxicities conferred by the DC vaccination. The ORR was 63% (5/8) in TIL + DC arm (1 CR, 4 PR) and 40% (4/10) in TIL arm alone (1 CR, 3 PR) (P=0.64). There was no statistically significant difference in survival between the arms. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months in the TIL arm and 7.2 months in the TIL+DC arm, while the median overall survival (OS) was 4.1 years in the TIL arm and 2 years in the TIL+DC arm. Tracking of the infused MART-1 reactive CD8+ T cells in the blood over time by flow cytometry showed no difference in persistence between the two arms.ConclusionsACT with TILs has robust response in checkpoint naïve advanced melanoma patients. Despite numerically higher response rate in the TIL+DC arm, due to small patient number there was no statistically significant difference between the arms. Further testing of this approach in a prospective trial post-ICI is warranted.Trial RegistrationAll metastatic melanoma TIL lines were derived from tumor tissue obtained from patients enrolled on the TIL ACT clinical trial [institutional review board (IRB)-approved protocol# 2004-0069, NCT00338377] at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.Ethics ApprovalThe United States Food and Drug Administration and the Institutional Review Board at MD Anderson Cancer Center approved the study. This study was conducted according to the principles from the Declaration of Helsinki.ConsentAll study participants granted a written informed consent prior to treatment initiation.ReferencesRosenberg SA, Restifo NP. Adoptive cell transfer as personalized immunotherapy for human cancer. Science 2015;348(6230):62–8.Forget MA, Haymaker C, Hess KR, Meng YJ, Creasy C, Karpinets T, et al. Prospective Analysis of Adoptive TIL Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma: Response, Impact of Anti-CTLA4, and Biomarkers to Predict Clinical Outcome. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(18):4416–28.Banchereau J, Steinman RM. Dendritic cells and the control of immunity. Nature. 1998;392(6673):245–52.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A658-A658
Author(s):  
C Daniel De Magalhaes Filho ◽  
Chung-Wein Lee ◽  
Nikolai Suslov ◽  
Jerry Fong ◽  
Miguel Garcia-Guzman

BackgroundRM-1929 is an antibody-dye conjugate comprised of cetuximab covalently linked to the photoactivable dye, IRDye® 700DX (IR700). After systemic infusion of RM-1929, illumination of the tumor with 690 nm non-thermal red light activates the drug and results in targeted and rapid tumor necrosis. Previous preclinical data have shown that RM-1929 treatment triggers immunogenic cell death and activates the innate and adaptive immune response. A retrospective analysis of PD-L1 expression from the phase I/IIa clinical trial in patients with recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (rHNSCC) (NCT02422979) was conducted. The analysis explored correlations of PD-L1 expression, including combined proportion score (CPS) and tumor proportion score (TPS), with clinical outcomes such as response rate and overall survival.MethodsPD-L1 expression prior to RM-1929 treatment was assessed by immunohistochemistry in 18 out of 30 patients enrolled in Part II of the trial, based on sample availability. PD-L1 expression was evaluated using TPS and CPS. Responders were defined as patients that achieved complete response or partial response, and non-responders had either stable disease or progressive disease. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsResponders (n=10) had a TPS of 4.3±2.4 (mean±SEM), which was substantially lower than in non-responders (n=8) with a TPS of 39.4±11.8. Similarly, CPS was lower in responders (8.6±3.6) compared to non-responders (50.0±13.5). The best target response rate for all patients included in this analysis was 56%. Patients with CPS=40 had a response rate of 76.9% (n=13) compared to 0% in patients with CPS>40 (n=5). This suggests that a CPS cut-off of =40 led to enrichment of the best target response rate. The median OS of patients with CPS=40 (13.0±0.8 months) was also higher than in patients with CPS>40 (3.1±0.8 months) and in all patients (12.0±2.9 months).ConclusionsThese results suggest that rHNSCC patients with lower PD-L1 expression levels may be more responsive to RM-1929 treatment and CPS/TPS could potentially be predictive biomarkers in identifying patients with a higher probability of benefiting from this treatment. Given the limited number of patients in this analysis, additional clinical trials will be needed to validate PD-L1 expression as an effective predictive biomarker for RM-1929 treatment.AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank all patients and their families for their participation in this trial. The authors would also like to thank the following investigators for the contribution of samples included in this trial analysis: Dr. David Cognetti (Thomas Jefferson University Hospital), Dr. Ann M Gillenwater (University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center), Dr. Mary Jo Fidler (Rush University Medical Center), Dr. Samith T. Kochuparambil (Virginia Piper Cancer Institute ), Dr. John Campana (University of Colorado Head and Neck Specialists), and Dr. Nilesh R. Vasan (University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center).Trial RegistrationNCT02422979Ethics ApprovalThe trial was approved by the following Instution Ethics Boards and IRB# as listed: UCSF Institutional Review Board (#17-21904), Thomas Jefferson University, IRB (#16C.328), University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Institutional Review Board (#5723), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center - Institutional Review Board (#IRB 2 IRB00002203), Quorum Review IRB (#30458/1), Rush University Medical Center Institutional Review Board (#15030601-IRB01), and Catholic Health Initiatives Institute for Research and Innovation (CIRI) Institutional Review Board (CHIRB) (# IRB00009715).ConsentN/A


2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Elizabeth H. Logue

David Geffen School of Medicine faculty, representing a wide range of disciplines, engaged speakers nationally known for their expertise on complementary, alternative and integrative medicine (CAIM) and its investigation at a January, 2008 symposium on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles. The forum was created to educate the UCLA Institutional Review Board (IRB), and lively participation by School of Medicine faculty helped bring IRB members up to speed on controversies surrounding CAIM research. The symposium demonstrated that academics who are neither proponents nor detractors of CAIM can facilitate cross talk between opposing camps, elucidating questions important to its evaluation by those charged with protecting research subjects. It also brought attention to the universality of quandaries facing CAIM investigators and to the ingenuity with which they have addressed many of them.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pankaja Desai ◽  
Priyanka Nasa ◽  
Jackie Soo ◽  
Cunhui Jia ◽  
Michael L. Berbaum ◽  
...  

We evaluated how regulatory support services provided by University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Clinical and Translational Science may reduce Institutional Review Board (IRB) turnaround times. IRB applications were categorized by receipt of any regulatory support and amount of support received. Turnaround time included total turnaround time, time for IRB review, and time for investigators to modify protocols. There were no differences in any turnaround times for supported versus nonsupported applications. However, for supported applications, those receiving more intensive support had total turnaround times 16.0 days ( SE 7.62, p < .05) faster than those receiving less intensive support. Receiving higher regulatory support may be associated with faster approval of IRB submissions.


2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-295
Author(s):  
Sheldon Zink ◽  
Laura Kimberly ◽  
Stacey Wertlieb

It is essential that anyone involved in research involving human subjects be familiar with the purpose and role of institutional review boards. Institutional review boards are designed, first and foremost, to protect human research subjects by overseeing the implementation of federal regulations regarding protection of human subjects. The federal government requires institutional review board approval for any human subject research that receives federal funding, and many scholarly journals require proof of institutional review board approval of the research before publication. In this article, the answers to 10 frequently asked questions about the role of institutional review boards highlight the important contributions made by institutional review boards to the conduct of ethically sound research. The aim is to generate a working knowledge of the institutional review board's function that can be used by every researcher contemplating working with human research subjects. This is the first in a series of 3 articles examining common issues in research ethics.


2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 1479-1482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Saginur ◽  
Susan F. Dent ◽  
Lisa Schwartz ◽  
Ronald Heslegrave ◽  
Sid Stacey ◽  
...  

Purpose We describe issues and outcomes in the development of a specialized, central institutional review board (IRB) for multicenter oncology protocols. Numerous authoritative bodies have called for a change to the ethics review system to better manage multicenter trials in terms of quality, timeliness, and efficiency. In 2003, the American Society of Clinical Oncology proposed a network of regional IRBs for cancer. Previous experience with central IRBs has been met with mixed success. Methods We took a bottom-up approach to organizing a province-wide IRB, which was led by an IRB chair and a clinical investigator at one cancer center. Participation on the part of institutions was voluntary. Results Uptake in the first 2 years was modest and increased from 11 clinical trials in year 1 to 21 in year 2. In the third year, there was an apparent upsurge in the number of involved centers (14) and in the number of submitted clinical protocols (54). Conclusion Sponsors and investigators are loath to risk development of a novel IRB until there is a clear demonstration of quality, efficiency, and timeliness of decision. Development of a regional, specialized IRB requires considerable efforts to develop and maintain the trust of sponsors, investigators, and institutions despite prior demands for more efficient and timely ethics review. Voluntary institutional participation, clear delineation of roles and responsibilities, and effective execution promote development of this trust.


2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christa Kozanczyn ◽  
Katie Collins ◽  
Conrad V. Fernandez

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document