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

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.

Central IRB Review Is an Essential Requirement for Cancer Clinical Trials

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.

Costs and Benefits of the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board

Purpose In 2001, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) formed the Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB) to conduct a single human subjects review for its multisite phase III oncology trials. The goal of this study was to assess whether NCI's CIRB was associated with lower effort, time, and cost in processing adult phase III oncology trials. Methods We conducted an observational study and compared sites affiliated with the NCI CIRB to unaffiliated sites that used their local IRB for review. Oncology research staff and IRB staff were surveyed to understand effort and timing. Response rates were 60% and 42%, respectively. Analysis of these survey data yielded information on effort, timing, and costs. We combined these data with CIRB operational data to determine the net savings of the CIRB using a societal perspective. Results CIRB affiliation was associated with faster reviews (33.9 calendar days faster on average), and 6.1 fewer hours of research staff effort. CIRB affiliation was associated with a savings of $717 per initial review. The estimated cost of running the CIRB was $161,000 per month. The CIRB yielded a net cost of approximately $55,000 per month from a societal perspective. Whether the CIRB results in higher or lower quality reviews was not assessed because there is no standard definition of review quality. Conclusion The CIRB was associated with decreases in investigator and IRB staff effort and faster protocol reviews, although savings would be higher if institutions used the CIRB as intended.

The NCI pediatric central institutional review board (PedCIRB) initiative: Progress and impact

6632 NCI has developed a central IRB (PedCIRB) to review NCI-sponsored pediatric clinical trials conducted by the Children's Oncology Group (COG). COG comprises ∼200 U.S. medical institutions and protocol activation traditionally requires separate protocol review by each local IRB (LIRB) and, subsequently, a review of each protocol amendment and significant adverse event. The PedCIRB model seeks to increase patient protection by improving the expertise of protocol reviewers and making their review available to all PedCIRB participating institutions. The PedCIRB consists of experts in pediatric oncology, pediatric medicine, nursing, pharmacy, bioethics, biostatistics, as well as patient advocates and childhood cancer survivors. The PedCIRB model also eliminates redundant reviews, reduces administrative burdens on local COG investigators and LIRBs, and can accelerate the pace of local protocol activation, thus increasing the availability of clinical trials to children with cancer. The PedCIRB conducts a full board protocol review that is available via a confidential website to participating LIRBs. LIRBs can choose to perform a facilitated review, using PedCIRB materials, that focuses on local concerns, rather than a full LIRB protocol review. If the LIRB accepts the PedCIRB review, the PedCIRB becomes the IRB of record for that protocol and takes responsibility for the review of subsequent protocol amendments, adverse events and continuing reviews. Since starting in November 2004, the PedCIRB has reviewed 59 protocols. Initial reviews resulted in 44 approvals pending modification and 15 protocols being tabled for further information. The time from protocol submission to final approval by the PedCIRB has ranged from 3 to 28 weeks with an average time of 16.9 weeks during year one and 12.7 weeks during year two of the project. As of November 2006, 117 of a possible 197 U.S. COG institutions (59%) have signed on to the PedCIRB initiative and 70% of the participating institutions have conducted facilitated reviews (total 750) for the 30 protocols available on the PedCIRB website. The PedCIRB's influence on protocol development and patient accrual timelines will be discussed. No significant financial relationships to disclose.