Processes to Activate Phase III Clinical Trials in a Cooperative Oncology Group: The Case of Cancer and Leukemia Group B

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (28) ◽  
pp. 4553-4557 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Dilts ◽  
Alan B. Sandler ◽  
Matthew Baker ◽  
Steven K. Cheng ◽  
Stephen L. George ◽  
...  

Purpose National Cancer Institute–sponsored cooperative oncology groups are major sponsors of phase III clinical trials, yet the time and steps required to design and activate such studies has not been well studied. We examine the processes and document the calendar time required to activate such studies opened by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB). Methods Setup steps were documented by (1) interviewing CALGB headquarters and statistical center staff and committee chairs to discover the steps required to transit from concept development to final study activation, (2) reviewing procedure manuals, and (3) inspecting all study records, documents, and e-mails to identify any additional steps. Calendar time was collected for each major process. Results Thirteen phase III studies were activated by CALGB during the study period of May 2002 to May 2005. More than 370 distinct processes were required for study activation: 317 work steps, 42 decision points, and 29 processing loops. Sixty-three percent of the decision points were outside CALGB. The complete process map measures 243.5” × 41” in 8-point font. Median calendar days to activate a phase III study at CALGB was 580 days (range, 295 to 1,248 days) from concept approval and 784 days (range, 537 to 1,130 days) from initial conception of the study. Conclusion Setup of a phase III study at a major cooperative oncology group is a complex and lengthy process, with the majority of decision points external to the cooperative group. To improve the activation process, research should to be directed toward both internal and external groups and processes.

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6015-6015
Author(s):  
D. M. Dilts ◽  
A. B. Sandler ◽  
M. Baker ◽  
S. Cheng ◽  
S. McGuire ◽  
...  

6015 Background: Cooperative oncology groups are major sponsors of Phase III clinical trials, yet the number of steps and times required to setup and open such a trial have yet to be studied. This study assesses these items in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) for all Phase III studies opened in a 3 year period. Methods: Step 1: headquarters and statistical center staff were interviewed to discover the detailed steps required for a study to transit from initial concept submission by a potential study chair to final activation of the study. The formal procedures manuals were also reviewed. All study records and draft protocol documents were inspected to verify and identify additional setup steps. Finally, data was collected through direct contact with study chairs and disease committee chairs. Step 2: timing data for each of the major functions or processes were collected. All times are from initial initiation of the function to the final completion of the task. Times represent calendar time. Step 3: creation of stream-lined process flows, currently underway. Members from the CALGB and the Vanderbilt Center for Management Research in Healthcare (cmrhc.org) will spend 2 days creating a process to significantly reduce the time and the number of steps to opening a trial. Results: A total of 13 Phase III studies were activated during the 3 years study period. 372 processes are required to open a Phase III at CALGB, which include 314 work steps, 43 major decision points. Interesting, most of the decision points (63%) are external to CALGB. There are 23 processing loops that require repeating processes. The process map, which lists all processes, is a chart 243.5” × 41 in 8 pt font (or about the length of a 20 passenger bus). Median calendar days to activate a Phase III study at CALGB is 767 days (min = 488, max = 1,441). The three functions requiring the greatest median days are protocol development (477), forms development (434), and regulatory affairs (350). Conclusion: It can require years to open a Phase III study at a major cooperative oncology group. Using process redesign techniques, we expect to be able to significantly streamline the process. Support provided by the NCI. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (11) ◽  
pp. 1761-1766 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Dilts ◽  
Alan B. Sandler ◽  
Steven K. Cheng ◽  
Joshua S. Crites ◽  
Lori B. Ferranti ◽  
...  

Purpose To examine the processes and document the calendar time required for the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) and Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB) to evaluate and approve phase III clinical trials. Methods Process steps were documented by (1) interviewing CTEP and CIRB staff regarding the steps required to activate a trial from initial concept submission to trial activation by a cooperative group, (2) reviewing standard operating procedures, and (3) inspecting trial records and documents for selected trials to identify any additional steps. Calendar time was collected from initial concept submission to activation using retrospective data from the CTEP Protocol and Information Office. Results At least 296 distinct processes are required for phase III trial activation: at least 239 working steps, 52 major decision points, 20 processing loops, and 11 stopping points. Of the 195 trials activated during the January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2007, study period, a sample of 167 (85.6%) was used for gathering timing data. Median calendar days from initial formal concept submission to CTEP to trial activation by a cooperative group was 602 days (interquartile range, 454 to 861 days). This time has not significantly changed over the past 8 years. There is a high variation in the time required to activate a clinical trial. Conclusion Because of their complexity, the overall development time for phase III clinical trials is lengthy, process laden, and highly variable. To streamline the process, a solution must be sought that includes all parties involved in developing trials.


2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A284-A284
Author(s):  
B NAULT ◽  
S SUE ◽  
J HEGGLAND ◽  
S GOHARI ◽  
G LIGOZIO ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 620-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Falardeau ◽  
Pierre Champagne ◽  
Patrick Poyet ◽  
Claude Hariton ◽  
[Eacute]ric Dupont

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document