Literature DB >> 19652061

Project Zero Delay: a process for accelerating the activation of cancer clinical trials.

Razelle Kurzrock1, Susan Pilat, Marcel Bartolazzi, Dwana Sanders, Jill Van Wart Hood, Stanley D Tucker, Kevin Webster, Michael A Mallamaci, Steven Strand, Eileen Babcock, Robert C Bast.   

Abstract

Drug development in cancer research is lengthy and expensive. One of the rate-limiting steps is the initiation of first-in-human (phase I) trials. Three to 6 months can elapse between investigational new drug (IND) approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and the entry of a first patient. Issues related to patient participation have been well analyzed, but the administrative processes relevant to implementing clinical trials have received less attention. While industry and academia often partner for the performance of phase I studies, their administrative processes are generally performed independently, and their timelines driven by different priorities: safety reviews, clinical operations, regulatory submissions, and contracting of clinical delivery vendors for industry; contracts, budgets, and institutional review board approval for academia. Both processes converge on US Food and Drug Administration approval of an IND. In the context of a strategic alliance between M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, a concerted effort has been made to eliminate delays in implementing clinical trials. These efforts focused on close communications, identifying and matching key timelines, alignment of priorities, and tackling administrative processes in parallel, rather than sequentially. In a recent, first-in-human trial, the study was activated and the first patient identified in 46 days from completion of the final study protocol and about 48 hours after final US Food and Drug Administration IND approval, reducing the overall timeline by about 3 months, while meeting all clinical good practice guidelines. Eliminating administrative delays can accelerate the evaluation of new drugs without compromising patient safety or the quality of clinical research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19652061     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6093

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  Molecular prescreening to select patient population in early clinical trials.

Authors:  Jordi Rodón; Cristina Saura; Rodrigo Dienstmann; Ana Vivancos; Santiago Ramón y Cajal; José Baselga; Josep Tabernero
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 2.  Envisioning the future of early anticancer drug development.

Authors:  Timothy A Yap; Shahneen K Sandhu; Paul Workman; Johann S de Bono
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 60.716

3.  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

4.  Can web 2.0 reboot clinical trials?

Authors:  Malorye Allison
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 54.908

5.  Personalizing medicine for cancer: the next decade.

Authors:  Ernest C Borden; Derek Raghavan
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 84.694

6.  Modifying the Clinical Research Infrastructure at a Dedicated Clinical Trials Unit: Assessment of Trial Development, Activation, and Participant Accrual.

Authors:  Chad Tang; Kenneth R Hess; Dwana Sanders; Suzanne E Davis; Aman U Buzdar; Razelle Kurzrock; J Jack Lee; Funda Meric-Bernstam; David S Hong
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  Collaboration in Action: Measuring and Improving Contracting Performance in the University of California Contracting Network.

Authors:  Tam Tran; LeeAnna Bowman-Carpio; Nate Buscher; Jennifer J Ford; Erick Jenkins; Hillary Noll Kalay; Terry Nakazono; Helene Orescan; Rachael Sak; Irene Shin; Pamela Davidson
Journal:  Res Manag Rev       Date:  2017

8.  Protocol Development Program: A Novel Approach to Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Research.

Authors:  Tracey J Miller; Vali S Sevastita; Doreen G Chaitt; Jorge A Tavel; Jerome F Pierson
Journal:  Monitor (Assoc Clin Pharmacol)       Date:  2013-02-01

9.  Institutional Scientific Review of Cancer Clinical Research Protocols: A Unique Requirement That Affects Activation Timelines.

Authors:  Ning Ning; Jingsheng Yan; Martin F Dietrich; Xian-Jin Xie; David E Gerber
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 3.840

10.  Patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia may benefit from inclusion in clinical trials irrespective of the therapy received: a case-control retrospective analsysis.

Authors:  D Esteban; N Tovar; R Jiménez; R Santacruz; T Baumann; M C Pastor; A de la Riva; E Carrera; S Chaves; C Royo; A Navarro; S Rodríguez; C Ayuso; G Riu; N Creus; B Gómez; E Giné; A López-Guillermo; J Delgado
Journal:  Blood Cancer J       Date:  2015-10-02       Impact factor: 11.037

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.