PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) formed an Early-Phase Working Group to facilitate site participation in early-phase (EP) trials. The Working Group conducted a baseline assessment (BA) to describe the sites' EP trial infrastructure and its association with accrual. METHODS: EP accrual and infrastructure data for the sites were obtained for July 2010-June 2011 and 2010, respectively. Sites with EP accrual rates at or above the median were considered high-accruing sites. Analyses were performed to identify site characteristics associated with higher accrual onto EP trials. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of the 30 NCCCP sites participated. The median number of EP trials open per site over the course of July 2010-June 2011 was 19. Median EP accrual per site was 14 patients in 1 year. Approximately half of the EP trials were Cooperative Group; most were phase II. Except for having a higher number of EP trials open (P = .04), high-accruing sites (n = 14) did not differ significantly from low-accruing sites (n = 13) in terms of any single site characteristic. High-accruing sites did have shorter institutional review board (IRB) turnaround time by 20 days, and were almost three times as likely to be a lead Community Clinical Oncology Program site (small sample size may have prevented statistical significance). Most sites had at least basic EP trial infrastructure. CONCLUSION: Community cancer centers are capable of conducting EP trials. Infrastructure and collaborations are critical components of success. This assessment provides useful information for implementing EP trials in the community.
PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) formed an Early-Phase Working Group to facilitate site participation in early-phase (EP) trials. The Working Group conducted a baseline assessment (BA) to describe the sites' EP trial infrastructure and its association with accrual. METHODS: EP accrual and infrastructure data for the sites were obtained for July 2010-June 2011 and 2010, respectively. Sites with EP accrual rates at or above the median were considered high-accruing sites. Analyses were performed to identify site characteristics associated with higher accrual onto EP trials. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of the 30 NCCCP sites participated. The median number of EP trials open per site over the course of July 2010-June 2011 was 19. Median EP accrual per site was 14 patients in 1 year. Approximately half of the EP trials were Cooperative Group; most were phase II. Except for having a higher number of EP trials open (P = .04), high-accruing sites (n = 14) did not differ significantly from low-accruing sites (n = 13) in terms of any single site characteristic. High-accruing sites did have shorter institutional review board (IRB) turnaround time by 20 days, and were almost three times as likely to be a lead Community Clinical Oncology Program site (small sample size may have prevented statistical significance). Most sites had at least basic EP trial infrastructure. CONCLUSION: Community cancer centers are capable of conducting EP trials. Infrastructure and collaborations are critical components of success. This assessment provides useful information for implementing EP trials in the community.
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Nancy L Keating; Arnold L Potosky; Anita Ambs; Yulei He; Mark C Hornbrook; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: William R Carpenter; Seth Tyree; Yang Wu; Anne-Marie Meyer; Lisa DiMartino; Leah Zullig; Paul A Godley Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Neal J Meropol; Joanne S Buzaglo; Jennifer Millard; Nevena Damjanov; Suzanne M Miller; Caroline Ridgway; Eric A Ross; John D Sprandio; Perry Watts Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Vasilios Karavasilis; Laurence Digue; Tobias Arkenau; David Eaton; Sarah Stapleton; Johann de Bono; Ian Judson; Stan Kaye Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Steven B Clauser; Maureen R Johnson; Donna M O'Brien; Joy M Beveridge; Mary L Fennell; Arnold D Kaluzny Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Sarah B Garrett; Thea M Matthews; Corey M Abramson; Christopher J Koenig; Fay J Hlubocky; Christopher K Daugherty; Pamela N Munster; Daniel Dohan Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2019-10-11
Authors: Jai N Patel; Bert H O'Neil; Allison M Deal; Joseph G Ibrahim; Gary B Sherrill; Oludamilola A Olajide; Prashanti M Atluri; John J Inzerillo; Christopher H Chay; Howard L McLeod; Christine M Walko Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-08-12
Authors: Andrea M Denicoff; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Stephen S Grubbs; Suanna S Bruinooge; Robert L Comis; Peggy Devine; David M Dilts; Michelle E Duff; Jean G Ford; Steven Joffe; Lidia Schapira; Kevin P Weinfurt; Margo Michaels; Derek Raghavan; Ellen S Richmond; Robin Zon; Terrance L Albrecht; Michael A Bookman; Afshin Dowlati; Rebecca A Enos; Mona N Fouad; Marjorie Good; William J Hicks; Patrick J Loehrer; Alan P Lyss; Steven N Wolff; Debra M Wujcik; Neal J Meropol Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Eileen P Dimond; Diane St Germain; Lianne M Nacpil; Howard A Zaren; Sandra M Swanson; Christopher Minnick; Angela Carrigan; Andrea M Denicoff; Kathleen E Igo; Jared D Acoba; Maria M Gonzalez; Worta McCaskill-Stevens Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Pamela Spain; Stephanie Teixeira-Poit; Michael T Halpern; Kathleen Castro; Irene Prabhu Das; Brenda Adjei; Rebecca Lewis; Steven B Clauser Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-05-09