scholarly journals Oncology Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ONCOLOGY ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 265-269
Author(s):  
Aline Lara Gongora ◽  
Denis Jardim ◽  
Diogo Assed Bastos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
The Past ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
National Governments ◽  
To Receive

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread all over the world in the past several months. No effective treatment for COVID-19 has been established. High transmissibility and considerable mortality rates have forced many national governments to implement quarantine measures. Many patients with cancer rely on clinical trials to receive their oncologic care, but the routine conduct of clinical trials has substantially changed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The oncology research community should implement formal policies based on the guidance given from regulatory agencies, with the goal of minimizing the risks of COVID-19 infection while maintaining appropriate oncologic treatments for patients during this pandemic.

Rationale for heparin treatment of colon cancer

2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (03) ◽  
pp. 136-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. L. Ornstein ◽  
L. R. Zacharski
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Substantial Improvement ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Coagulation Mechanism ◽  
Anticoagulant Drug ◽  
Cancer Outcome ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Improvement In Survival ◽  
Spectrum Of Patients ◽  
To Receive

SummaryIt is widely known that the systemic blood coagulation mechanism is often activated in malignancy, leading to an increased incidence of vascular thromboses in patients with cancer. It is not widely appreciated, however, that products of the coagulation mechanism may also support tumor growth and dissemination. Interest in this approach to cancer therapy has surged recently because of mounting evidence that the familiar anticoagulant drug, heparin, may impede tumor progression. Heparin has the capacity to modify angiogenesis, growth factor and protease activity, immune function, cell proliferation and gene expression in ways that may block malignant dissemination. Clinical trials in which heparin has been administered to a broad spectrum of patients to prevent or treat thrombosis have unexpectedly shown improvement in survival in the subset of patients with malignancy entered to these studies. Meta-analyses of clinical trials comparing unfractionated (UF) versus low molecular weight (LMW) heparin treating venous thromboembolism suggest that there may be substantial improvement in cancer outcome in patients with malignancy randomized to receive LMW heparin. These findings provide a rationale for definitive clinical trials of LMW heparin in cancer, and the results of several such studies that are currently underway are awaited with interest.

scholarly journals COVID-19 vaccine guidance for patients with cancer participating in oncology clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aakash Desai ◽  
◽  
Justin F. Gainor ◽  
Aparna Hegde ◽  
Alison M. Schram ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials

A systematic review of noninferiority margins in oncology clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 443-455
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Hashim ◽  
Talitha Vincken ◽  
Florint Kroi ◽  
Samron Gebregergish ◽  
Mike Spencer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Absolute Rate ◽  
Time To Event ◽  
End Points ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Noninferiority Trials ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Noninferiority Margin

Aim: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and characterize noninferiority margins for relevant end points in oncology clinical trials. Materials & methods: Randomized, controlled, noninferiority trials of patients with cancer were identified in PubMed and Embase. Results: Of 2284 publications identified, 285 oncology noninferiority clinical trials were analyzed. The median noninferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1.29 (mean: 1.32; range: 1.05–2.05) for studies that reported time-to-event end points (n = 192). The median noninferiority margin was 13.0% (mean: 12.7%; range: 5.0–20.0%) for studies that reported response end points as absolute rate differences (n = 31). Conclusion: Although there was consistency in the noninferiority margins’ scale, variability was evident in noninferiority margins across trials. Increased transparency may improve consistency in noninferiority margin application in oncology clinical trials.

scholarly journals Patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era: the clinical trial issue

2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 271-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcello Scarcia ◽  
Giuseppe Mario Ludovico ◽  
Angela Fortunato ◽  
Alba Fiorentino
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Physical Examination ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Study Medication ◽  
Therapeutic Modalities ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Safety Guidelines ◽  
Trial Discontinuation

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospital reorganization may result in reduced ability for the hospital to fully use its armamentarium for battling cancer. Thus different therapeutic modalities have been recommended. During the pandemic, despite regulatory agencies’ recommendations, several considerations and doubts remain for oncologic clinical trials. Considering patients who had been enrolled before the pandemic, and who plan to take the study medication, the situation becomes complicated. These patients should undergo monitoring visits, blood sampling, questionnaire, physical examination, and drug and radiation administration. To avoid deviations from the protocol and trial discontinuation, follow-up should be performed regularly, in concordance with safety guidelines. Here we report several considerations.

scholarly journals Representation of Minorities and Women in Oncology Clinical Trials: Review of the Past 14 Years

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. e1-e10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Narjust Duma ◽  
Jesus Vera Aguilera ◽  
Jonas Paludo ◽  
Candace L. Haddox ◽  
Miguel Gonzalez Velez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Historical Data ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
The Past ◽  
Therapeutic Trials ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Enrollment Data

Purpose: Many cancer clinical trials lack appropriate representation of specific patient populations, limiting their generalizability. Therefore, we determined the representation of ethnic minorities and women in cancer clinical trials. Methods: Enrollment data from all therapeutic trials reported as completed in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2003 to 2016 were analyzed. We calculated enrollment fractions (EFs) for each group, defined as the number of enrollees divided by the 2013 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database cancer prevalence. Results: Of 1,012 clinical trials, 310 (31%) reported ethnicity with a total of 55,689 enrollees. Participation varied significantly across ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic whites were more likely to be enrolled in clinical trials (EF, 1.2%) than African Americans (EF, 0.7%; P < .001) and Hispanics (EF, 0.4%; P < .001). A decrease in African American (6% v 9.2%) and Hispanic (2.6% v 3.1%) enrollment was observed when compared with historical data from 1996 to 2002. Younger patients (age younger than 65 years) were more likely to be enrolled in clinical trials than the elderly (64% v 36%; P < .001). Low recruitment of female patients was observed in clinical trials for melanoma (35%), lung cancer (39%), and pancreatic cancer (40%). Conclusion: We observed a decrease in recruitment of minorities over the past 14 years compared with historical data. African Americans, Hispanics, and women were less likely to be enrolled in cancer clinical trials. Future trials should take extra measures to recruit participants that adequately represent the US cancer population.

scholarly journals Current models, challenges and best practices for work conducted between European academic cooperative groups and industry

ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. e000628
Author(s):  
Rolf A Stahel ◽  
Denis Lacombe ◽  
Fatima Cardoso ◽  
Paolo G Casali ◽  
Anastassia Negrouk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Data Access ◽  
Cooperative Groups ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Industry Partnerships ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

BackgroundThe academia-industry interface is important, and, despite challenges that inevitably occur, bears the potential for positive synergies to emerge. Perceived barriers to wider collaboration in academia-industry oncology research in Europe need to be addressed, current academic cooperative group and industry models for collaboration need to be discussed, and a common terminology to facilitate understanding of both sectors’ concerns needs to be established with an eye towards improving academia-industry partnerships on clinical trials for the benefit of patients with cancer.MethodologyCAREFOR (Clinical Academic Cancer Research Forum), a multi-stakeholder platform formed to improve the direction for academic clinical trials in the field of oncology in Europe, formed the CAREFOR-Industry Working Group comprised of experienced professionals from European academic cooperative groups joined by industry representatives selected based on their activities in the area of medical oncology. They jointly discussed academic cooperative groups, clinical trials conducted between academic cooperative groups and industry, examples of successful collaborative models, common legal negotiation points in clinical trial contracts, data access, and principles of interaction.ResultsFour principles of interaction between the academia and industry are proposed: (1) clarify the roles and responsibilities of all partners involved in the study, (2) involve legal teams from an early stage; (3) acknowledge that data is an important output of the study, (4) agree on the intent of the trial prior to its start.ConclusionsThe CAREFOR-Industry Working Group describes current models, challenges, and effective strategies for academia-industry research in Europe with an eye towards improving academia-industry partnerships on clinical trials for patients with cancer. Current perceived challenges are explained, and future opportunities/recommendations for improvement are described for the areas of most significant impact. Challenges are addressed from both the academic and industry perspectives, and principles of interaction for the optimal alignment between academia and industry in selected areas are proposed.

Representation of minorities in oncology clinical trials: Review of the past 14 years.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2533-2533
Author(s):  
Narjust Duma ◽  
Jesus Vera Aguilera ◽  
Jonas Paludo ◽  
Yucai Wang ◽  
Konstantinos Leventakos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Historical Data ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cancer Prevalence ◽  
The Past ◽  
Therapeutic Trials ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Breast And Prostate Cancer

2533 Background: Many cancer clinical trials (CT) lack appropriate representation of specific patients populations, limiting the generalizability of the evidence obtained. Therefore, we determined the representation of ethnic minorities in oncology CT. Methods: Enrollment data from all therapeutic trials reported as completed in clinicaltrial.gov from 2003 to 2016 were analyzed. CT in rare cancers (< 1% incidence) or with recruitment outside of the US were excluded. Enrollment fraction (EF) was defined as the number of enrollees divided by the 2013 SEER database cancer prevalence. Chi-square test was used to estimate differences in categorical data. Results: Out of 1,012 CT, 310 (31%) reported ethnicity with a total of 55689 enrollees. Distribution by race and comparison with data from 1996-2002, US cancer prevalence and US census are described in the Table. Participation in CT varied significantly across ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) were more likely to be enrolled in CT (EF of 1.2%) than African Americans (EF of 0.7%, p < 0.001) and Hispanics (EF of 0.4%, p<0.001). A decrease in African Americans (AA) and Hispanics (H) enrollment was observed when compared with historical data from 1996 to 2002. Hispanics were less represented in breast and prostate cancer CT contributing only to 3% and 1.5% of the study population; African Americans were less represented in lung (5.4%) and renal cell carcinoma (3%) trials. Asians were well represented and their recruitment doubled over the past 14 years (2% vs 5.3%). Conclusions: African Americans and Hispanics were less likely to be enrolled in CT. Comparing with historical data; we observed a decrease in minorities’ recruitment in the past 14 years. This change could be attributed to the increased complexity of CT and mandatory molecular testing as many minorities lack access to institutions with genetic testing capacity. Future trials should take extra measures to recruit participants that adequately represent the U.S. cancer population. [Table: see text]

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document