scholarly journals Early Impact of COVID-19 on the Conduct of Oncology Clinical Trials and Long-Term Opportunities for Transformation: Findings From an American Society of Clinical Oncology Survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 417-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Waterhouse ◽  
R. Donald Harvey ◽  
Patricia Hurley ◽  
Laura A. Levit ◽  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
Community Based Programs ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Community Forum ◽  
American Society ◽  
Remote Patient

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted all aspects of clinical care, including cancer clinical trials. In March 2020, ASCO launched a survey of clinical programs represented on its Cancer Research Committee and Research Community Forum Steering Group and taskforces to learn about the types of changes and challenges that clinical trial programs were experiencing early in the pandemic. There were 32 survey respondents; 14 represented academic programs, and 18 represented community-based programs. Respondents indicated that COVID-19 is leading programs to halt or prioritize screening and/or enrollment for certain clinical trials and cease research-only visits. Most reported conducting remote patient care where possible and remote visits and monitoring with sponsors and/or contract research organizations (CROs); respondents viewed this shift positively. Numerous challenges with conducting clinical trials were reported, including enrollment and protocol adherence difficulties with decreased patient visits, staffing constraints, and limited availability of ancillary services. Interactions with sponsors and CROs about modifying trial procedures were also challenging. The changes in clinical trial procedures identified by the survey could serve as strategies for other programs attempting to maintain their clinical trial portfolios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, many of the adaptations to trials made during the pandemic provide a long-term opportunity to improve and transform the clinical trial system. Specific improvements could be expanded use of more pragmatic or streamlined trial designs, fewer clinical trial–related patient visits, and minimized sponsor and CRO visits to trial programs.

scholarly journals Lack of accountability in upholding authorship standards in prominent medical oncology clinical trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Y. Gui ◽  
G. J. Weiss
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
American Society ◽  
Biomedical Publications

Authorship in biomedical publications is critical for establishing accountability and contribution toward clinical and scientific research. We examined the frequency of discordance in authorship between presentations of clinical trial data at annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the subsequent peer-reviewed publications. We found that more than 70% of subsequent publications had additional authors not originally present on the abstract despite there being no changes in trial accrual or trial design. This pervasive discordance in authorship demonstrates a lack of uniformity and accountability in authorship reporting standards.

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.

Culturally Imprinted Anxiety and the Itinerary of Clinical Trial Projects for Its Management

2020 ◽  
pp. 106939712096730
Author(s):  
Tariq H. Malik
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cultural Theory ◽  
Uncertainty Avoidance ◽  
Anxiety Management ◽  
Moderation Effect ◽  
Confounding Variables ◽  
Management Project ◽  
Using Data

Anxiety has become ubiquitous in modern life, across countries. Cultural theories suggest that high uncertainty avoidance (UA) increases anxiety, while long-term orientation (LTO) decreases it. We question whether a high UA culture in a region attracts research and development (R&D) projects regarding anxiety management, compared to LTO. Furthermore, do these opposite dimensions moderate each other in attracting a pharmaceutical firm’s response? This article explores this link between the UA culture and the moderation effect of LTO. Using data on clinical trials related to anxiety management projects in 67 countries, we record 10,585 observations, capturing 4% of the global population of clinical trials on the subject. We find that the uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) shows a negative correlation with the intensity of the anxiety management project, while LTO has no significant correlation. The interaction between the two shows positive correlation. The results are found to be significant after controlling for confounding variables and robustness checks. This study makes three contributions. First, it highlights the link between culture and anxiety management projects through the clinical trial movement. Second, it contributes to cultural theory, suggesting that the UAI defines problems and LTO defines innovative solutions. It also highlights the differences and links between the UAI and LTO at the conceptual level. Thirdly, it offers general policy and practical implications.

scholarly journals Prospective analysis of 895 patients on a UK Genomics Review Board

ESMO Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e000469 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Allan Moore ◽  
Marina Kushnir ◽  
Gabriel Mak ◽  
Helen Winter ◽  
Teresa Curiel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Genetics ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Prospective Data ◽  
Expert Review ◽  
Molecular Oncology ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
Generation Sequencing

BackgroundThe increasing frequency and complexity of cancer genomic profiling represents a challenge for the oncology community. Results from next-generation sequencing–based clinical tests require expert review to determine their clinical relevance and to ensure patients are stratified appropriately to established therapies or clinical trials.MethodsThe Sarah Cannon Research Institute UK/UCL Genomics Review Board (GRB) was established in 2014 and represents a multidisciplinary team with expertise in molecular oncology, clinical trials, clinical cancer genetics and molecular pathology. Prospective data from this board were collated.ResultsTo date, 895 patients have been reviewed by the GRB, of whom 180 (20%) were referred for clinical trial screening and 62 (7%) received trial therapy. For a further 106, a clinical trial recommendation was given.ConclusionsNumerous challenges are faced in implementing a GRB, including the identification of potential germline variants, the interpretation of variants of uncertain significance and consideration of the technical limitations of pathology material when interpreting results. These challenges are likely to be encountered with increasing frequency in routine practice. This GRB experience provides a model for the multidisciplinary review of molecular profiling data and for the linking of molecular analysis to clinical trial networks.

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.

scholarly journals How to design and set up a clinical trial part 1: the research question

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 111-116
Author(s):  
Amarpreet Atwal ◽  
Philip E Benson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Human Participants ◽  
Set Up

Data from clinical trials involving human participants are essential in establishing an evidence base about the safety and effectiveness of our treatments. This first article describes the steps involved in designing and setting up a clinical trial, from establishing the research question(s) to searching the literature. Acquiring some knowledge about how to set up a clinical trial will allow the conscientious clinician to use the most relevant information to provide the highest possible standards of clinical care for his/her patients. CPD/Clinical Relevance: Even if a clinician is not, has never been, nor is ever planning to be involved in research, he/she should understand and be able to interpret the data from clinical trials.

Providing oncologic care with access to clinical trials to an underserved and minority population: The Mayo Clinic/Indian Health Service experience.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Donald W. Northfelt ◽  
Chara Chamie ◽  
Farhia Omar ◽  
Janet Okamoto ◽  
Timothy Mathews ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Indian Health Service ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Indian Health

79 Background: Novel mechanisms are needed to provide high quality oncologic clinical care and clinical trial access to underserved and minority populations (UMP). UMP are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials, thus limiting the generalizability of the research. As a National Cancer Institute-Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic has the responsibility to ensure that its cancer care reaches a diverse patient population. Mayo Clinic in Arizona developed a clinical oncology practice in collaboration with the US Indian Health Service at Phoenix Indian Medical Center (PIMC), in part to address these needs. The relationship between Mayo and PIMC is invaluable and serves a crucial need in the community. The Mayo consultants serve as staff physicians in the “Oncology Center of Excellence” at PIMC and see 100 – 200 tribal members annually with new diagnoses of cancer or blood disorders. Being onsite at PIMC allows Mayo consultants to integrate seamlessly into the wider PIMC practice. Methods: Descriptive demographic data from the MCA-PIMC clinical practice were obtained from the PIMC practice database 2008 - 2017. Enrollment of MCA-PIMC patients into MCA cancer clinical trials were prospectively enumerated. Results: Between the time period of 2008-2017, 356 breast cancer patients and 259 colorectal cancer patients were seen by Mayo Clinic oncologists and the PIMC nurse practitioner. During the period of 2016-2017, there were 13 clinical trial referrals from PIMC with 8 of those patients being enrolled in Mayo cancer clinical trials. Conclusions: High quality oncologic clinical care can be provided via unique collaborations between academic oncology program and UMP-focused care provider. This mechanism allows access to cancer clinical trial opportunities for UMP. Prior to the established partnership, there were no Native American patients referred to clinical trials from PIMC, showing the critical pathway that has been forged. Importantly, this is the only known program of its kind in the country. By imbedding the cancer provider in the community, we are able to build trust with the underserved community and create a pathway to a quality care and clinical research.

Barriers to clinical trial accrual: Clinical trialists' perspectives.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18156-e18156
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Dax Kurbegov ◽  
Patricia A. Hurley ◽  
David Michael Waterhouse
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Contract Research Organization ◽  
The Public ◽  
Community Forum ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual

e18156 Background: Oncology clinical trial participation rates remain at historic lows. There are many barriers that impede participation. Understanding those barriers, from the perspective of cancer clinical trialists, will help develop solutions to increase physician and site engagement, with the goal of improving accrual rates and advancing cancer treatment. Methods: Physician investigators and research staff from community-based and academic-based research sites were surveyed during ASCO’s Research Community Forum (RCF) Annual Meeting (N = 159) and through a pre-meeting survey (N = 124) in 2018. Findings and potential solutions were discussed during the meeting. Results: 84% of respondents (n = 84) reported that it took 6-8 months to open a trial and 86% (n = 81) reported that trials had unnecessary delays 70% of the time. The top 10 barriers to accrual identified were: insufficient staffing resources, restrictive eligibility criteria, physician buy-in, site access to trials, burdensome regulatory requirements, difficulty identifying patients, lack of suitable trials, sponsor and contract research organization requirements, patient barriers, and site cost-benefit. Respondents shared strategies to address these barriers. Conclusions: The current state of conducting clinical trials is not sustainable and hinders clinical trial participation. New strategies are needed to ensure patients and practices have access to trials, standardize and streamline processes, reduce inefficiencies, simplify trial activation, reduce regulatory burden, provide sufficient compensation to sites, engage the community and patients, educate the public, and increase collaborations. The ASCO RCF offers resources, available to the public, that offer practical strategies to overcome barriers to clinical trial accrual and has ongoing efforts to facilitate oncology practice participation in clinical trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document