scholarly journals Institutional Scientific Review of Cancer Clinical Research Protocols: A Unique Requirement That Affects Activation Timelines

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. e982-e991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ning Ning ◽  
Jingsheng Yan ◽  
Martin F. Dietrich ◽  
Xian-Jin Xie ◽  
David E. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Process Time ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Median Process ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials

Purpose: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) requirement that clinical trials at NCI-designated cancer centers undergo institutional scientific review in addition to institutional review board evaluation is unique among medical specialties. We sought to evaluate the effect of this process on protocol activation timelines. Methods: We analyzed oncology clinical trials that underwent full board review by the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) from January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2013. We analyzed associations between trial characteristics, PRMC decisions, protocol modifications, and process timelines using the χ2 test, Fisher’s exact test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and logistic regression. Results: A total of 226 trials were analyzed. Of these, 77% were industry sponsored and 23% were investigator initiated. The median time from submission to PRMC approval was 55 days. The length of review was associated with trial phase, timing of approval, and number of committee changes/clarifications requested. The median process time was 35 days for those approved at first decision, 68 days for second decision, and 116 days for third decision ( P < .001). The median process time was 39 days if no changes/clarifications were requested, 64 days for one to three changes/clarifications, and 73 days for four or more changes/clarifications ( P < .001). Requested changes/clarifications had a greater effect on industry-sponsored trials than on investigator-initiated trials. Conclusion: NCI-mandated institutional scientific review of oncology clinical trials contributes substantially to protocol activation timelines. Further evaluation of this process and the value added to research quality is warranted.

Institutional scientific review of cancer clinical research protocols: Impact of requirement on activation timelines.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18224-e18224
Author(s):  
Martin Frederik Dietrich ◽  
Ning Ning ◽  
Jingsheng Yan ◽  
Xian-Jin Xie ◽  
David E. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Process Duration ◽  
Investigator Initiated Trials ◽  
Board Review ◽  
The Impact

e18224 Background: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) requirement that clinical trials at NCI-designated cancer centers undergo institutional scientific review in addition to Institutional Review Board review is unique among medical specialties. We evaluated the impact of this process on protocol activation timelines. Methods: We analyzed oncology clinical trials that underwent full board review by the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) from January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2013. We analyzed associations between trial characteristics, PRMC decisions, protocol modifications, and process timelines using Chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and logistic regression. Results: A total of 226 trials were analyzed. Of these, 77% were industry-sponsored and 23% were investigator-initiated. While only 40% of trials were approved initially, 97% of trials were eventually approved after a mean of 0.6 protocol changes were requested and a mean of 0.5 protocol changes were implemented. Protocol changes were more likely to be requested ( P< 0.001) and implemented ( P= 0.008) for investigator-initiated trials. Median time from submission to PRMC approval was 55 days. The longest component interval was from submission initiation to completion of required documents by the study team (median 29 days). Total process duration depended on approval timing: median 35 days for first review, 68 days (2nd review), and 116 days (3rd review) ( P< 0.001). Similarly, process duration was also associated with the number of changes/clarifications requested: median 39 days for none, 64 days for 1-3, and 73 days for ≥4) ( P< 0.001). Requested changes/clarifications had greater impact on timelines for industry-sponsored trials than for investigator-initiated trials. Conclusions: NCI-mandated institutional scientific review of cancer clinical trials contributes substantially to protocol activation timelines. Further evaluation of this process and the value added to research quality is warranted.

Invisible Barriers to Clinical Trials: The Impact of Structural, Infrastructural, and Procedural Barriers to Opening Oncology Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (28) ◽  
pp. 4545-4552 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Dilts ◽  
Alan B. Sandler
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
The Impact

Purpose To investigate the administrative barriers that impact the opening of clinical trials at the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC) and at VICC Affiliate Network (VICCAN) sites. Methods VICC, a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center, and three VICCAN community practice sites were studied. Methodology used was identification and mapping of existing processes and analysis of historical timing data. Results At course granularity, the process steps required at VICC and VICCAN main office plus local sites are 20 v 17 to 30 steps, respectively; this gap widens with finer granularity, with more than 110 v less than 60 steps, respectively. Approximately 50% of the steps are nonvalue added. For example, in the institutional review board (IRB) process, less than one third of the steps add value to the final protocol. The numbers of groups involved in the approval processes are 27 (VICC) and 6 to 14 (VICCAN home office and local sites). The median times to open a trial are 171 days (95% CI, 158 to 182 days) for VICC and 191 days (95% CI, 119 to 269 days) for the VICCAN sites. Contrary to expectations, the time for IRB review and approval (median, 47 days) is the fastest process compared with the scientific review committee review and approval (median, 70 days) and contracts and grants review (median, 78.5 days). Opening a cooperative group clinical trial is significantly (P = .05) more rapid because they require fewer review steps. Conclusion There are numerous opportunities to remove nonvalue-added steps and save time in opening clinical trials. With increasing numbers of new agents, fewer domestic principal investigators, and more companies off-shoring clinical trials, overcoming such barriers is of critical importance for maintenance of core oncology research capabilities in the United States.

Attrition rates, reasons, and predictive factors in supportive/palliative oncology clinical trials at a comprehensive cancer center.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 108-108
Author(s):  
Isabella Claudia Glitza ◽  
David Hui ◽  
Eduardo Bruera ◽  
Gary B. Chisholm
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Attrition Rate ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Study Duration ◽  
Palliative Oncology ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials

108 Background: Attrition is common among supportive/palliative oncology clinical trials. Few studies have documented the reasons, and predictors for dropout. We aimed to determine the rate, reasons, and factors associated with attrition both before reaching the primary endpoint (PE) and the end of study (EOS). Methods: We conducted a review of all prospective interventional supportive/palliative oncology trials in our department between 1999 to 2011. Patient and study characteristics and attrition data were extracted. Results: 1,214 patients were included in 18 clinical trials. The median age was 60, performance status ≥3 41%, median fatigue 7/10, and median dyspnea 2/10. The attrition rate was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 23%-28%) for PE and 44% (95% confidence interval 41%-47%) for EOS. Common reasons for EOS dropout were patient preference (N=93, 17%), symptom burden (N=87, 16%), death (N=45, 8%), and hospital admission (N=43, 8%). At the patient level, EOS attrition was associated with Hispanic race (OR=1.88, 95% CI 1.27-2.78), higher baseline intensity of fatigue (odds ratio [OR]=1.09 per point, 95% CI 1.02-1.16), and dyspnea (OR=1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.11) in multivariate analysis. At the study level, longer study duration (Spearman correlation 0.59, P=0.01) and outpatient studies (47% vs. 6%, P=0.05) were also associated with higher EOS dropouts. Higher dyspnea, fatigue, and longer study duration were associated with PE attrition. Conclusions: The attrition rate was high amongsupportive/palliative oncology clinical trials, and was associated with various patient characteristics and high baseline symptom burden. These findings have implications for future study designs including eligibility criteria and sample-size calculation.

scholarly journals Definition and Coordination of Roles and Responsibilities Among Cancer Center Clinic and Research Personnel

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e64-e74
Author(s):  
Simon J. Craddock Lee ◽  
Torsten Reimer ◽  
Sandra Garcia ◽  
Erin L. Williams ◽  
Mary West ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Physician Attitudes ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Research Staff ◽  
Research Personnel ◽  
Delivery Of Care ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Clinic Staff ◽  
Staff Members

PURPOSE: Effective enrollment and treatment of patients in cancer clinical trials require definition and coordination of roles and responsibilities among clinic and research personnel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a survey that incorporated modified components of the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors. Surveys were administered to clinic nursing staff and research personnel at a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center. Results were analyzed using χ2-tests, t tests, and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 105 staff members (n = 50 research staff, n = 55 clinic staff; 61% response rate). Research staff were more likely to feel that they had the skills to answer questions, convey information, and provide education for patients on trials (all P < .05). Both clinic and research staff reported receipt of communication about responsibilities in fewer than 30% of cases, although research staff reported provision of such information in more than 60% of cases. Among 20 tasks related to care of patients in trials, no single preferred model of responsibility assignment was selected by the majority of clinic staff for nine tasks (45%) or by research staff for three tasks (15%). Uncertainty about which team coordinates care was reported by three times as many clinic staff as research staff ( P = .01). There was also substantial variation in the preferred model for delivery of care to patients in trials ( P < .05). CONCLUSION: Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of care and responsibilities for patients on clinical trials differ between and among clinic and research personnel. Additional research about how these findings affect efficiency and quality of care on clinical trials is needed.

Impact of Safety Concerns of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs) and Regulatory Changes on the Use of ESAs and Red Blood Cell (RBC) Transfusions at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 1300-1300
Author(s):  
Saroj Vadhan-Raj ◽  
Victoria E. Hawkins ◽  
Xiao Zhou ◽  
Kurt Sizer ◽  
Lincy S. Lal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hematological Malignancies ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Safety Concerns ◽  
Regulatory Changes ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Safety signals raised in the recent oncology clinical trials have led to various regulatory restrictions including FDA black-box warning, National Coverage Determination (NCD), and updated ASCO/ASH guidelines in 2007. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of these changes on the utilization of ESAs and on transfusion (Tx) of RBCs in 2006 (prior to changes) and 2007. We identified the total number of unique patients that received any treatment including chemotherapy, radiation, transfusions, or any treatment in the out-patient and in-patient settings during this 2 year time period. All the data on the ESA doses dispensed by the hospital pharmacy and all the RBC transfusions dispensed by the Blood bank were also analyzed. The ESA units were calculated by converting 40,000 units of epoetin alfa or 100 mcg of darbepoetin alfa to one unit of ESA. When comparing 2007 to 2006, the number of patients that received ESAs decreased by 26% and the total ESA units decreased by 30%. The overall usage of ESAs decreased by 55%, from 2398 units in 1/2006 to 1080 units in 12/2007. However, the number of pts that received RBC transfusions increased only by 6% and the total number of RBC units transfused by 2% (from 38,218 units in 2006 to 38,948 units in 2007). The median Hgb on the day of transfusion was same for each year (Hgb 8.2 g/dL for both 2006 and 2007), suggesting that the lack of impact on RBC Tx may not be due to a change in Tx threshold. The total number of unique patients referred and treated at MDACC during 2007 (24,356) increased by 13% from 2006 (21,619), not accounting for a lack of impact on transfusions. We therefore examined Hgb at the initiation of ESAs in a subset of pts (n=212) that had not received ESA for at least 3 months. The median Hgb/HCT values at the initiation of ESAs were 9.5 g/dL/27.4. The most frequent utilization of ESAs and transfusions was in patients with hematological malignancies. Conclusion: These findings indicate that the recent ESA safety concerns and related regulatory changes have significantly affected the ESA utilization. The lack of significant impact of reduced ESA usage on RBC transfusions may be related to a lower Hgb threshold used at initiation of ESAs and/or the targeted patient population (less likely to respond) treated with ESAs. Further research is needed to establish the factors contributing to the lack of correlation and to optimize the use of ESAs.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patterns of care: Implications for clinical trial design

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4079-4079 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. S. Denlinger ◽  
M. A. Collins ◽  
Y. Wong ◽  
S. Litwin ◽  
N. J. Meropol
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Treatment Change ◽  
Therapy Regimen

4079 Background: New approaches have expanded options for patients (pts) with mCRC. To characterize current practice paradigms that might bear on clinical trial design, we analyzed decision-making and treatment patterns in pts treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center since the introduction of cetuximab (CET), and bevacizumab (BV). Methods: A retrospective review of all pts diagnosed with mCRC between 3/1/04 and 8/28/06 treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Results: 160 pts were treated, with 157 pts receiving at least one therapy regimen by 10 attending oncologists. There were 350 changes in therapy with 246 (70%) including continuation of at least one prior drug (92 BV, 111 fluoropyrimidines, 43 other). The most common reasons for treatment change were toxicity (33%), progressive disease (PD) (29%), treatment breaks (15%), and metastasectomy (11%) ( Table ). PD was a more common cause for treatment discontinuation in later phases of treatment (18% initial regimen vs. 36% subsequent regimens, p=0.0002). 24% of pts treated with oxaliplatin (OX) discontinued due to neuropathy. Hypersensitivity caused discontinuation in 5% of pts with OX and 7% of pts with CET. Resection of metastases was undertaken in 38% of pts. 43% of these pts received neoadjuvant therapy, and 56% received adjuvant therapy. 30% of pts have died, 29% remain on active treatment, 28% are on a treatment break, 3% are on hospice, and 11% are lost to follow-up. Conclusions: PD is no longer the primary reason for change of therapy in pts with mCRC. Metastasectomy is common and OX neuropathy is often treatment-limiting. These findings have important implications for endpoint selection and design of clinical trials in mCRC. Future clinical trials in mCRC must recognize treatment complexities and capture key components of decision-making that may result in prolonged survival. Furthermore, treatment breaks represent a potential window for the evaluation of new drugs. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Health care worker attitudes about clinical trials at a comprehensive cancer center.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20633-e20633
Author(s):  
Erica Leigh Campagnaro ◽  
Seunghee Margevicius ◽  
Barbara J. Daly ◽  
Jennifer Rachel Eads ◽  
Tyler G. Kinzy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Normative Beliefs ◽  
The Impact

e20633 Background: Cancer patient (pt) participation in clinical trials (CT) is low. Little is known about the beliefs and attitudes of health care workers (HCW) and how they impact intention to discuss CT with pts. The overall goal of this project was to develop a conceptual model to guide future interventions to enhance communication about CT between HCW and cancer pts. Methods: Two email surveys of non-physician HCW at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center were conducted. The first was sent to a random sample of 150 HCW. The second was sent to 80 who completed the first survey. Based on our prior work (Eads et al. ASCO 2011) and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, domains of the first included CT knowledge (19 items, agree/disagree) and attitudes (27 items, 5-point Likert); the second included normative beliefs about institutional attitudes toward CT (6 items, 5-point Likert), self-efficacy about engaging in discussion about CT (14 items, 5-point Likert), and intention to discuss CT with pts (4 items, 7-point Likert). Results: 41 HCW completed both anonymous surveys; 27 could be matched by demographics. Median age of matched respondents was 44.3 yrs (range 24-63), 26 female, 22 caucasian, 9 nurses. Overall, CT knowledge was high (median 17/19 items correct). There were strong associations between attitudes and self-efficacy (Spearman r=-0.425, p=0.03), as well as perceived normative beliefs and self-efficacy (r=0.651, p=0.0002). These associations were strong amongst nurses (r=-0.818, p=0.007 and r=0.656, p=0.05, respectively), with a particularly strong correlation between self-efficacy and intention to discuss clinical trials with pts (r=0.891, p=0.001). Conclusions: In spite of a small sample size, these pilot data strongly support a behavioral framework to understand and address the impact of HCW attitudes and beliefs about CT on discussions of CT with pts. Insofar as HCW (especially nurses) have substantial pt contact, and serve as a resource for pts regarding treatment decisions, educational interventions to address HCW barriers to discussing CT with pts (i.e. attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy) could positively impact pt attitudes and improve decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document