PURPOSE: We examine the processes and document the calendar time required to activate phase II and III clinical trials by an oncology group: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). METHODS: Setup steps were documented by (a) interviewing ECOG headquarters and statistical center staff, and committee chairs, (b) reviewing standard operating procedure manuals, and (c) inspecting study records, documents, and e-mails to identify additional steps. Calendar time was collected for each major process for each study in this set. RESULTS: Twenty-eight phase III studies were activated by ECOG during the January 2000 to July 2006 study period. We examined a sample from 16 of those studies in detail. More than 481 distinct processes were required for study activation: 420 working steps, 61 major decision points, 26 processing loops, and 13 stopping points. Median calendar days to activate a trial in the phase III subset was 783 days (range, 285-1,542 days) from executive approval and 808 days (range, 435-1,604 days) from initial conception of the study. Data were collected for all phase II and phase III trials activated and completed during this time period (n = 52) for which development time represented 43.9% and 54.1% of the total trial time, respectively. CONCLUSION: The steps required to develop and activate a clinical trial may require as much or more time than the actual completion of a trial. The data shows that to improve the activation process, research should to be directed toward streamlining both internal and external groups and processes.
PURPOSE: We examine the processes and document the calendar time required to activate phase II and III clinical trials by an oncology group: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). METHODS: Setup steps were documented by (a) interviewing ECOG headquarters and statistical center staff, and committee chairs, (b) reviewing standard operating procedure manuals, and (c) inspecting study records, documents, and e-mails to identify additional steps. Calendar time was collected for each major process for each study in this set. RESULTS: Twenty-eight phase III studies were activated by ECOG during the January 2000 to July 2006 study period. We examined a sample from 16 of those studies in detail. More than 481 distinct processes were required for study activation: 420 working steps, 61 major decision points, 26 processing loops, and 13 stopping points. Median calendar days to activate a trial in the phase III subset was 783 days (range, 285-1,542 days) from executive approval and 808 days (range, 435-1,604 days) from initial conception of the study. Data were collected for all phase II and phase III trials activated and completed during this time period (n = 52) for which development time represented 43.9% and 54.1% of the total trial time, respectively. CONCLUSION: The steps required to develop and activate a clinical trial may require as much or more time than the actual completion of a trial. The data shows that to improve the activation process, research should to be directed toward streamlining both internal and external groups and processes.
Authors: David M Dilts; Alan B Sandler; Matthew Baker; Steven K Cheng; Stephen L George; Kathleen S Karas; Stephen McGuire; Gourija S Menon; Jason Reusch; Debbie Sawyer; Maren Scoggins; Amy Wu; Kai Zhou; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roy S Herbst; Dean F Bajorin; Harry Bleiberg; Diane Blum; Desirée Hao; Bruce E Johnson; Robert F Ozols; George D Demetri; Patricia A Ganz; Mark G Kris; Bernard Levin; Maurie Markman; Derek Raghavan; Gregory H Reaman; Raymond Sawaya; Lynn M Schuchter; John W Sweetenham; Linda T Vahdat; Everett E Vokes; Rodger J Winn; Robert J Mayer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert F Ozols; Roy S Herbst; Yolonda L Colson; Julie Gralow; James Bonner; Walter J Curran; Burton L Eisenberg; Patricia A Ganz; Barnett S Kramer; Mark G Kris; Maurie Markman; Robert J Mayer; Derek Raghavan; Gregory H Reaman; Raymond Sawaya; Richard L Schilsky; Lynn M Schuchter; John W Sweetenham; Linda T Vahdat; Rodger J Winn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roland B Walter; Frederick R Appelbaum; Martin S Tallman; Noel S Weiss; Richard A Larson; Elihu H Estey Journal: Blood Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Amy P Abernethy; Noreen M Aziz; Ethan Basch; Janet Bull; Charles S Cleeland; David C Currow; Diane Fairclough; Laura Hanson; Joshua Hauser; Danielle Ko; Linda Lloyd; R Sean Morrison; Shirley Otis-Green; Steve Pantilat; Russell K Portenoy; Christine Ritchie; Graeme Rocker; Jane L Wheeler; S Yousuf Zafar; Jean S Kutner Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: David M Dilts; Alan B Sandler; Steven K Cheng; Joshua S Crites; Lori B Ferranti; Amy Y Wu; Shanda Finnigan; Steven Friedman; Margaret Mooney; Jeffrey Abrams Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Linda Parreco; Lisa Rooney; Sharon Hampp; Amanda Brown; Lori Minasian Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Terre A McJoynt; Muhanad A Hirzallah; Daniel V Satele; Jason H Pitzen; Steven R Alberts; S Vincent Rajkumar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-06-29 Impact factor: 44.544