scholarly journals Meeting the Challenge: The National Cancer Institute’s Central Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 819-824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly A. Massett ◽  
Sharon L. Hampp ◽  
Jacquelyn L. Goldberg ◽  
Margaret Mooney ◽  
Linda K. Parreco ◽  
...  

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a new policy that requires a single institutional review board (IRB) of record be used for all protocols funded by the NIH that are carried out at more than one site in the United States, effective January 2018. This policy affects several hundred clinical trials opened annually across the NIH. Limited data exist to compare the use of a single IRB to that of multiple local IRBs, so some institutions are resistant to or distrustful of single IRBs. Since 2001, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has funded a central IRB (CIRB) that provides human patient reviews for its extensive national cancer clinical trials program. This paper presents data to show the adoption, efficiencies gained, and satisfaction of the CIRB among NCI trial networks and reviews key lessons gleaned from 16 years of experience that may be informative for others charged with implementation of the new NIH single-IRB policy.

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lowell E. Schnipper

There are compelling medical, ethical, and legal arguments that support mandating use of a central institutional review board (CIRB) for the review of clinical trials performed at multiple institutional sites. Progress against serious diseases depends on this.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18501-e18501
Author(s):  
Ryan Huu-Tuan Nguyen ◽  
Yomaira Silva ◽  
Vijayakrishna K. Gadi

e18501 Background: Cancer clinical trials based in the United States (US) have lacked adequate representation of racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and women. Pivotal clinical trials leading to United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval are often multi-national trials and may also lack generalizability to underrepresented populations in the United States. We determined the racial, ethnic, age, and sex enrollment in pivotal trials relative to the US cancer population. Methods: We reviewed the FDA’s Drug Approvals and Databases for novel and new use drug approvals for breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer indications from 2008 through 2020. Drugs@FDA was searched for drug approval summaries and FDA labels to identify clinical trials used to justify clinical efficacy that led to FDA approval. For eligible trials, enrollment data were obtained from FDA approval summaries, FDA labels, ClinicalTrials.gov, and corresponding journal manuscripts. Enrollment Fraction (EF) was calculated as enrollment in identified clinical trials divided by 2017 SEER cancer prevalence. All data sources were publicly available. Results: From 2008 through 2020, 60 drugs received novel or new use drug approval for breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer indications based on 66 clinical trials with a total enrollment of 36,830. North America accounted for 9,259 (31%) enrollees of the 73% of trials reporting location of enrollment. Racial demographics were reported in 78% of manuscripts, 66% of ClinicalTrials.gov pages, and 98% of FDA labels or approval summaries. Compared with a 0.4% enrollment fraction among White patients, lower enrollment fractions were noted in Hispanic (0.2%, odds ratio [OR] vs White, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.49, P< 0.001) and Black (0.1%, OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.31, P< 0.001) patients. Elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) were less likely than younger patients to be enrollees (EF 0.3% vs 0.9%, OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.27, P< 0.001) despite accounting for 61.3% of cancer prevalence. For colorectal and lung cancer trials, females were less likely than males (EF 0.7% vs 1.1%, OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.68, P< 0.001) to be enrolled. Conclusions: Black, Hispanic, elderly, and female patients were less likely to enroll in cancer clinical trials leading to FDA approvals from 2008 to 2020. Race and geographic enrollment data were inconsistently reported in journal manuscripts and ClinicalTrials.gov. The lack of appropriate representation of specific patient populations in these key clinical trials limits their generalizability. Future efforts must be made to ensure equitable access, representation, and reporting of enrollees that adequately represent the US population of patients with cancer.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 172-177
Author(s):  
Whitney Boling ◽  
Kathryn Berlin ◽  
Rhonda N. Rahn ◽  
Jody L. Vogelzang ◽  
Gayle Walter

The institutional review board (IRB) process is often protracted and can be a source of frustration, especially when you want your research and publications to move apace. However, because of historical events, the IRB is an important requirement for conducting research with human participants and is regulated by federal oversite. When conducting research as part of a pedagogical study, it is important to identify which level of IRB review (exempt, expedited, or full board) is required. The purpose of this article is to highlight IRB basics within the United States for pedagogy research. Although there are guidelines internationally, this article specifically focuses on U.S. IRBs, including a brief history of the IRB, pedagogical and community-based participatory research, IRB review, tips for IRB submissions, and example case studies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Si-Kyung Jung ◽  
Yeon Hee Jeong ◽  
Woon Jeong Lee ◽  
Carol Lee ◽  
Amy Kaji ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 123 (8) ◽  
pp. 461-466
Author(s):  
Robert B. Livingston ◽  
Ryosuke Tsuchiya ◽  
Masanori Fukushima ◽  
Charles A. Coltman Jr.

Cancer ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerardo Colon-Otero ◽  
Robert C. Smallridge ◽  
Lawrence A. Solberg ◽  
Thomas D. Keith ◽  
Timothy A. Woodward ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-63
Author(s):  
David BARNEY ◽  
Keven A. PRUSAK

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in English; abstract also in Chinese. The purpose of this study was to investigate school administrators’ knowledge of appropriate instructional practices in physical education. For this study 130 k-12 school administrators from two states in the United States were surveyed regarding their knowledge of appropriate instructional practices in physical education. University Institutional Review Board granted approval to conduct this study. Surveys were sent electronically to the school administrators to take. At the completion of the survey the school administrators were able to click a submit button and have the surveys returned to the researchers. It was found that school administrators identified dodge ball, relay races and elimination tag as an appropriate instructional practice. Also, full-sided games (30 students divided into two teams) were appropriate for students to participate in. These instructional practices are considered inappropriate for students to participate in. The implications of this study are to inform school administrators what practices are appropriate and inappropriate. It is hoped that physical educators and school administrators will work together to see that appropriate instructional practices are taught in physical education, thus benefitting students to become competent in their participation in physical activity. 本研究的目的是探討學校管理者對體育的教學實踐知識。在這項研究中,邀請兩個州份的130位 K-12學校行政人員進行調 查,並獲大學機構審查委員會准許進行這項研究。調查以電子方式發送給學校管理者採取。結果發現,學校的管理者確定躲避球和接力賽作為適當的教學實踐。希望體育教師和學校管理者將共同努力,看到合適的體育教學實踐,從而惠及學生參與體能活動。


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document