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 Provider-reported challenges and barriers to referring patients to neuro-oncology clinical trials: a report from the Society for Neuro-Oncology member survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-51
Author(s):  
James L Rogers ◽  
Alvina Acquaye ◽  
Elizabeth Vera ◽  
Amanda Bates ◽  
Patrick Y Wen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Geographic Area ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Electronic Survey ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Survey Sample

Abstract Background Whereas much information exists in general oncology regarding the barriers to clinical trial referral, those specific to neuro-oncology are not yet well known. Trial barriers lead to lower patient accrual, which can lead to less-efficient clinical trials and slower improvement of the standard of care, which may negatively effect patient outcomes. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the clinical trial referral barriers that are specific to neuro-oncology to improve trial accrual rates. Methods An electronic survey was completed by 426 Society for Neuro-Oncology members, of whom 372 are included in this report. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and proportions, were used to characterize our survey sample. Results Only 22% of participants reported that their center tracks referrals to clinical trials inside as well as outside their own institution, with an estimate of less than 30% of patients referred. The most commonly reported provider-referral barrier was finding ongoing trials in the patient’s geographic area. Providers also perceived that while considering participation in a trial their patients may not qualify for any trials, and if they do, may be unable to travel to the study site for follow-up. Additionally, practice location and provider and institution type all influenced referral patterns. Conclusion Efforts should be made to broaden trial availability and eligibility criteria, improve trial referral tracking, and ensure patients and their caregivers understand the goals and importance of clinical trials to reduce barriers and improve trial participation.

scholarly journals Parental perspectives long term after neonatal clinical trial participation: a survey

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Salaets ◽  
Emilie Lavrysen ◽  
Anne Smits ◽  
Sophie Vanhaesebrouck ◽  
Maissa Rayyan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Drug Trials ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Parental Perspectives ◽  
Positive Experiences ◽  
Almost All

Abstract Background Although recruiting newborns is ethically challenging, clinical trials remain essential to improve neonatal care. There is a lack of empirical data on the parental perspectives following participation of their neonate in a clinical trial, especially at long term. The objective of this study is to assess experiences and emotions of parents, long term after trial participation in an interventional drug trial. Methods Parents of former participants of five neonatal interventional drug trials were surveyed at long term (3–13 years ago) after participation. The survey assessed parental contentment with trial participation, perceived influence of the trial on care and health, emotional consequences of participation, and awareness of typical clinical trial characteristics on 6-point Likert scales. Results Complete responses were received from 123 parents (52% of involved families). Twenty percent of parents did not remember participation. Those who remembered participation reported high contentment with overall trial participation (median 5.00), but not with follow-up (median 3.00). Most parents did not perceive any influence of the trial on care (median 2.00) and health (median 2.43). Almost all parents reported satisfaction and pride (median 4.40), while a minority of parents reported anxiety and stress (median 1.44) or guilt (median 1.33) related to trial participation. A relevant minority was unaware of typical trial characteristics (median 4.20; 27% being unaware). Conclusions Overall, parents reported positive experiences and little emotional distress long term after participation. Future efforts to improve the practice of neonatal clinical trials should focus on ensuring effective communication about the concept and characteristics of a clinical trial during consent discussions and on the follow-up after the trial.

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.

Oncology clinical research landscape in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: Challenges and proposed solutions.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13567-e13567
Author(s):  
Kareem Sameh ◽  
Natasha Khalife
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
North Africa ◽  
Research Infrastructure ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Mena Region ◽  
Large Patient ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials

e13567 Background: Similar to other regions of the world, cancer incidence in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is rising, which has been attributed to increased life expectancy and adoption of western lifestyle habits. Conducting clinical trials in the region is important to assess efficacy and safety of oncology medications in the specific population (response to drugs can be impacted by genetics, demographics and lifestyle factors). Although the MENA comprises around 5% of the global population, the region only participates in approximately 3% of clinical trials worldwide. It is important to understand the challenges in conducting trials in MENA and identify strategies to overcome these in order to facilitate advances in clinical research in the region. Methods: A literature review was conducted (via e.g. PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov) to understand the current oncology clinical research landscape in MENA (from Jan 2015-Dec 2020), with the aim of identifying key challenges and potential strategies to overcome these. Results: Conduct of oncology clinical trials (phases 1-4) has risen in recent years in MENA, from 47 trials in 2015 to 53 trials in 2020. Despite the presence of various research-favourable factors in MENA (large patient pool, high demand for medication, lower clinical trial operational costs, compliance with ICH-GCP standards), the region still falls behind other countries in clinical research. Key factors identified as challenges in conducting clinical trials in MENA include the research infrastructure and patient awareness/understanding of research. We propose the following strategies to support the advancement of clinical research in the region: (1) Enhance research infrastructure through bolstering national clinical research networks and supporting collaboration between healthcare institutes, academia and the pharma industry; (2) Diversify methods of patient engagement (e.g. patient advisory groups and social media networks) and provide education on pros/cons of participating in research to raise awareness and improve trial participation rates; and (3) Improve availability of comprehensive oncology registries to enhance understanding of disease burden and support clinical research. Conclusions: The conduct of oncology clinical trials in MENA is increasing, yet the region is still under-represented in the global clinical trial market, despite its significant potential. The advancement of clinical research in the region will require a multi-level approach, involving collaboration between multiple stakeholders including the pharma industry, regulators, government, and healthcare professionals.

The effects of clinical trials on improving breast cancer care at a single institution.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 198-198
Author(s):  
W. C. Dooley ◽  
J. Parker ◽  
J. Bong
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tissue Banking ◽  
Breast Conservation ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Single Institution ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment ◽  
Trial Participants

198 Background: We reported in 2011 at the Society of Surgical Oncology a 19 year retrospective at a single academic institution which identified practice differences between surgical oncologists and general surgeons which were associated with a significant survival advantage. Clinical trial participation was much higher amongst patients treated by a surgical oncologist. Methods: This is an IRB approved, retrospective review of all breast cancer patients receiving primary treatment at a single institution from 1/1/2001 to 12/31/2008. Details of pathology, surgical therapy, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and radiation therapy were compared between patients participating in clinical trials and those not participating. The specific trials were segregated as to type (tissue banking, therapeutic, prevention, etc.) to understand differential effects if any between type of trial participation. Results: During the time period, there were 1220 patients who received primary breast cancer treatment at this institution. The mean age was 55.6 and mean follow-up >40 months. Stage distribution was stage 0 - 16.8%, Stage 1 - 26.6%, Stage 2 - 33.1%, Stage 3 - 15.9%, and Stage 4 - 6.1%. Patients participating in any clinical trial numbered 468 and 752 participated in no clinical trials. Overall survival (clinical trial 98.8% vs. not in clinical trial 75.7%; p<0.0001). Overall the use of breast conservation was more likely in clinical trial participants (54.3% vs. 44.4%; p<0.0001). The completion of chemotherapy was more likely in clinical trial participants (52.4% vs. 49.5%; p=0.02).The successful completion of systemic therapies (chemo and hormonal) was more likely also (71.4% vs. 64.0%; p=0.009). The type of trial (tissue banking vs. therapeutic) had no effect on improved outcomes. Overall the best predictor of better outcomes was to be treated by a high volume clinical trial enrolling physician. Conclusions: High volume clinical trial enrollment is associated with the best overall treatment outcomes in breast cancer whether trials are directly related to therapeutic changes or not. Each individual in the breast center treating team can have dramatic effect on outcomes by improving their clinical trial enrollment and participation.

Overall survival of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving first-line docetaxel-containing chemotherapy according to their participation (or not) in clinical trials.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 148-148
Author(s):  
Jatinder Goyal ◽  
Peng Huang ◽  
Prachi Tyagi ◽  
Daniel Oh ◽  
Michael Anthony Carducci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
First Line ◽  
Trial Participants ◽  
Baseline Hemoglobin

148 Background: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether clinical trial participation can itself lead to improved clinical outcomes in patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel chemotherapy. We compared clinical characteristics and survival outcomes of patients with mCRPC receiving first-line docetaxel-containing therapy on a clinical study (trial participants) or outside of a clinical trial (non-participants). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 245 consecutive chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC who received docetaxel-containing therapy between 1/1/1998 and 1/1/2010, either as trial participants (n=142; 11 separate studies) or as non-participants (n=103). Patient demographics, baseline clinical characteristics, treatment details and follow-up data were recorded. Results: In unadjusted analysis, trial participants were more likely to be white (83 vs 70%, p=0.005), to have better ECOG performance status (p=0.01), higher baseline hemoglobin (12.4 vs 11.6 g/dL, p=0.0003), higher albumin (4.3 vs 4.0 g/dL, p=0.009), lower creatinine (0.90 vs 1.04 mg/dL, p=0.01), and to have received a higher number of chemotherapy cycles (6.6 vs 5.1, p=0.001) than non-participants. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, median overall survival was significantly longer among trial participants vs non-participants (21.3 vs 17.1 months, p=0.024). In multivariable analysis, trial participation (HR 0.53, p=0.013), more chemotherapy cycles (HR 0.87; p=0.0002), baseline hemoglobin >12 g/dL (HR 0.67, p=0.016), lower ECOG score (HR 0.57, p=0.026) and lower baseline (log) PSA (HR 0.85, p=0.012) were all found to be independent predictors of survival. Conclusions: Clinical trial participation is an independent positive predictor of overall survival in men undergoing first-line docetaxel-containing chemotherapy for mCRPC. Improved survival in trial participants may reflect better medical oversight typically seen in patients enrolled in clinical trials, more regimented follow-up schedules, or a positive effect on caregivers’ attitudes due to greater contact with medical services.

scholarly journals Re-Evaluating Eligibility Criteria for Oncology Clinical Trials: Analysis of Investigational New Drug Applications in 2015

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (33) ◽  
pp. 3745-3752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Jin ◽  
Richard Pazdur ◽  
Rajeshwari Sridhara
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Patient Population ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
New Drug ◽  
Drug Clinical Trial ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Eligibility Requirements

Clinical trial eligibility criteria are necessary to define the patient population under study and improve trial safety. However, there are concerns that eligibility criteria for cancer clinical trials are too restrictive and limit patient enrollment in clinical trials. Recently, there have been initiatives to re-examine and modernize eligibility criteria for oncology clinical trials. To assess current eligibility requirements for cancer clinical trials, we have conducted a comprehensive review of eligibility criteria for commercial investigational new drug clinical trial applications submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in 2015. Our findings suggest that eligibility criteria for current cancer clinical trials tend to narrowly define the study population and limit the study to lower-risk patients, which may not be reflective of the greater patient population outside of the study. We discuss potential areas for expanding eligibility criteria to include more patients in clinical trials and design options for clinical trials incorporating expanded eligibility criteria. The broadening of clinical trial eligibility criteria can be considered to better reflect the real-world patient population, improve clinical trial participation, and increase patient access to new investigational treatments.

scholarly journals Who Needs What? Perceptions of Patients and Caregivers in Oncology Phase 1 Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Rezash ◽  
Janice Reed ◽  
Barbara Gedeon ◽  
Eric Parsons ◽  
Sandra Siedlecki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trial ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Vulnerable Patient ◽  
Additional Support

Background: The study design and nature of oncology phase 1 clinical trials create a uniquely vulnerable patient population yet little research has been conducted to identify the added burden these trials create for both cancer patients and their caregiver(s). Objective: Examining the perceptions and needs of patients and their caregivers participating in phase 1 oncology clinical trials, the investigators tested the hypothesis that the caregiver will exhibit a higher level of burden and/or distress than the patient. Method: A mixed-methods exploratory process utilizing patient and caregiver interviews and quality-of-life questionnaires was used to assess the psychosocial burdens associated with oncology clinical trial participation. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the responses were 8 performed. Result: Both patients and caregivers reported similar themes identifying the burdens and benefits related to phase 1 clinical trial participation. However, the caregivers’ expressed burden exceeded that of the patients’ validating the study’s hypothesis. Conclusion: The need for ongoing additional support services for not only the patient but also the caregiver was identified.

scholarly journals Minimizing the Impact of the COVID-19 Epidemic on Oncology Clinical Trials: Retrospective Study of Beijing Cancer Hospital (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiying Fu ◽  
Min Jiang ◽  
Kun Wang ◽  
Jian Li
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Management Model ◽  
Remote Management ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Protocol Compliance ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND In view of repeated COVID-19 outbreaks in most countries, clinical trials will continue to be conducted under outbreak prevention and control measures for the next few years. It is very significant to explore an optimal clinical trial management model during the outbreak period to provide reference and insight for other clinical trial centers worldwide. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore the management strategies used to minimize the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on oncology clinical trials. METHODS We implemented a remote management model to maintain clinical trials conducted at Beijing Cancer Hospital, which realized remote project approval, remote initiation, remote visits, remote administration and remote monitoring to get through two COVID-19 outbreaks in the capital city from February to April and June to July 2020. The effectiveness of measures was evaluated as differences in rates of protocol compliance, participants lost to follow-up, participant withdrawal, disease progression, participant mortality, and detection of monitoring problems. RESULTS During the late of the first outbreak, modifications were made in trial processing, participant management and quality control, which allowed the hospital to ensure the smooth conduct of 572 trials, with a protocol compliance rate of 85.24% for 3718 participants across both outbreaks. No COVID-19 infections were recorded among participants or trial staff, and no major procedural errors occurred between February and July 2020. These measures led to significantly higher rates of protocol compliance and significantly lower rates of loss to follow-up or withdrawal after the second outbreak than after the first, without affecting rates of disease progression or mortality. The hospital provided trial sponsors with a remote monitoring system in a timely manner, and 3820 trial issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS When public health emergencies occur, an optimal clinical trial model combining on-site and remote management could guarantee the health care and treatment needs of clinical trial participants, in which remote management plays a key role.

Multiple uses for a clinical research database

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17037-17037
Author(s):  
A. O. Greco ◽  
C. M. Licavoli ◽  
L. A. White ◽  
J. R. Eckardt ◽  
K. O. Easley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Data Base ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Research Database ◽  
Cooperative Group ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Referring Physicians

17037 Background: In Sept 2000, the research staff at The Center for Cancer Care and Research (TCCCR) developed an excel data base to track new consults referred to the practice. It is used to identify pts for participation in Cooperative Group Clinical Trials and to identify gaps in the active protocol list. Several additional uses for the data base have evolved. Methods: Medical records provided by referring physicians for each new consult are evaluated by a Research Coordinator. Information including the pt's name, date of visit, physician, referring physician, diagnosis, protocol for which the pt is evaluated, and eligibility information is entered in the data base. Results: The data base provides a method by which we can follow pts through the protocol selection and informed consent process. Early on, the data base identified a site need for trials in metastatic breast cancer prompting us to search other sources such as the CTSU and industry. Additionally, the percentage of new consults actually enrolled on a clinical trial can be determined as well as tracking eligibility/ineligibility trends. The Pharmaceutical Research Dept can use the information to complete feasibility studies prior to participating in industry trials. The data base can be used to evaluate trends in referral patterns and has helped identify referring physicians who support our research efforts. In 2006, TCCCR had a protocol available for 45% of new consults with a cancer dx. Of those pts, 16% enrolled on a Cooperative Group Clinical Trial. According to published evaluations, 16% is well above the national average of pts who participate in oncology clinical trials. It is our assessment that TCCCR's success is due in part to the data base. Conclusions: It is well known that in order to improve treatment outcomes and diminish treatment toxicity, oncology practices and pts must participate in clinical research. It is also well known that the numbers of pts who participate in oncology clinical trials is dismal. This data base has become a valuable tool providing a method to identify and evaluate some of the reasons why pts do not enroll in clinical trials and given our practice guidance to increase pt participation. Our next goal is to evaluate the differences between the rural and urban population at TCCCR's two sites to identify additional trends in clinical trial participation. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document