Literature DB >> 17008693

Invisible barriers to clinical trials: the impact of structural, infrastructural, and procedural barriers to opening oncology clinical trials.

David M Dilts1, Alan B Sandler.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17008693     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.0104

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  75 in total

1.  The importance of doing trials right while doing the right trials.

Authors:  David M Dilts; Steven K Cheng
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 12.531

2.  The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation's evolving focus on drug R&D.

Authors:  Kathy Giusti
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 54.908

3.  Collaboration between cooperative groups and industry.

Authors:  Linda R Bressler; Richard L Schilsky
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.840

4.  Clinical research and the public: if not them, who?

Authors:  Harry P Selker
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.689

5.  US cancer trials may go the way of the Oldsmobile.

Authors:  David Dilts
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 53.440

6.  Cancer patients' and clinicians' opinions on the best time in secondary care to approach patients for recruitment to longitudinal questionnaire-based research.

Authors:  Laura Ashley; Helen Jones; Galina Velikova; Penny Wright
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  A Patient Focused Solution for Enrolling Clinical Trials in Rare and Selective Cancer Indications: A Landscape of Haystacks and Needles.

Authors:  Eric B Lynam; Jiin Leaw; Matthew B Wiener
Journal:  Drug Inf J       Date:  2012-07

8.  Impact of NCI-mandated scientific review on protocol development and content.

Authors:  Ning Ning; Jingsheng Yan; Xian-Jin Xie; David E Gerber
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 11.908

9.  A virtual national laboratory for reengineering clinical translational science.

Authors:  David M Dilts; Daniel Rosenblum; William M Trochim
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 17.956

10.  Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process.

Authors:  Alice M Mascette; Gordon R Bernard; Donna Dimichele; Jesse A Goldner; Robert Harrington; Paul A Harris; Hilary S Leeds; Thomas A Pearson; Bonnie Ramsey; Todd H Wagner
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 6.893

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.