Literature DB >> 17894765

Adverse effects of a multicentre system for ethics approval on the progress of a prospective multicentre trial of cancer treatment: how many patients die waiting?

D R H Christie1, G S Gabriel, K Dear.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As cancer survival is improving approximately by 1-2% per year, delays in the clinical trials that lead to that improvement could cost lives. AIMS: To review the process of ethics committee approval for a multicentre clinical trial of cancer treatment and to estimate the delay it will cause in obtaining the results and the effects of such delays on survival for all cancers in Australia.
METHODS: A survey was sent to each of the 15 centres participating in the study to obtain details about submissions they had made to their ethics committees and the replies received from them.
RESULTS: The survey response rate was 100%. The average time required to complete an ethics submission was 12 h, and the average length of time for a final reply was 70 days. Wide variation was noted in the replies, 40% were considered constructive. Most centres said the effort in ethics submissions is sufficient to limit participation in other clinical trials that are available.
CONCLUSION: The multicentre system of ethics approval has significantly delayed this multicentre trial and may delay advances in cancer care. Extrapolating this delay to determine an influence on improvements in cancer survival suggests that it may be responsible for 60 cancer deaths per year. A method for measuring the effect on the shape of the accrual curve is defined, and the term DIABOLECAL (Delays in Accrual Brought On Largely by Ethics Committee Activity Lag-time) is proposed to describe it. Attempts to overcome this problem have been introduced overseas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17894765     DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2007.01451.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intern Med J        ISSN: 1444-0903            Impact factor:   2.048


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management.

Authors:  Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Elaine Beller; Jonathan Kagan; Elina Hemminki; Robert S Phillips; Julian Savulescu; Malcolm Macleod; Janet Wisely; Iain Chalmers
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Six pairs of things to celebrate on International Clinical Trials Day.

Authors:  David L Sackett
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research.

Authors:  Adrian G Barnett; Megan J Campbell; Carla Shield; Alison Farrington; Lisa Hall; Katie Page; Anne Gardner; Brett G Mitchell; Nicholas Graves
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2016-12-07

5.  Improving the process of research ethics review.

Authors:  Stacey A Page; Jeffrey Nyeboer
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2017-08-18

6.  Guillain-Barré syndrome in times of pandemics.

Authors:  Sonja E Leonhard; David R Cornblath; Hubert P Endtz; James J Sejvar; Bart C Jacobs
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 10.154

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.