Time to Activate Lung Cancer Clinical Trials and Patient Enrollment: A Representative Comparison Study Between Two Academic Centers Across the Atlantic
Authors:
- 20 August 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Vol. 28 (24) , 3803-3807
Abstract
Purpose: Activation of clinical trials is a lengthy process. We studied the procedures and time required to activate lung cancer clinical trials in a US academic center compared with a European center. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of all thoracic oncology therapeutic trials submitted for regulatory review between 2001 and 2008 at Washington University School of Medicine (WUSM; St Louis, MO) and the University of Torino (UT; Torino, Italy). A process map was drafted by both institutions to establish the order of required events. Results: We reviewed 137 therapeutic thoracic oncology trials from WUSM (n = 83) and UT (n = 54). The median times from submission to opening a trial were 163 days for WUSM and 112.5 days for UT (P = .048). The median times for regulatory approval were 75 days for WUSM and 31 days for UT (P < .001). The difference is more pronounced in a homogeneous subset of phase II, industrial-sponsored trials for the median calendar time from submission to opening a trial (239.5 days for WUSM v 112.5 days for UT; P < .001) and time for regulatory approval (99 days for WUSM v 13.5 days for UT; P < .001). The median number of patients accrued at WUSM was 7.4 patients per study compared with an average of 37 patients per study at UT. The proportion of trials that enrolled 20 patients or more represented 22.2% of trials at UT but only 1.1% of trials at WUSM. Conclusion: It takes additional steps and significantly longer time to activate a therapeutic thoracic clinical trial at a representative US site (WUSM) compared with a European site (UT).Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Costs and Benefits of the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review BoardJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2010
- Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of Clinical ResearchNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- The clinical trials system is brokenNature Clinical Practice Oncology, 2008
- Development of Clinical Trials in a Cooperative Group Setting: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology GroupClinical Cancer Research, 2008
- Processes to Activate Phase III Clinical Trials in a Cooperative Oncology Group: The Case of Cancer and Leukemia Group BJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2006
- Invisible Barriers to Clinical Trials: The Impact of Structural, Infrastructural, and Procedural Barriers to Opening Oncology Clinical TrialsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2006
- Clinical trial accrual among new cancer patients at a community‐based cancer centerCancer, 2005
- Academic Medical Centers' Standards for Clinical-Trial Agreements with IndustryNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement: Oversight of Clinical ResearchJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2003
- Prospective Evaluation of Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual Patterns: Identifying Potential Barriers to EnrollmentJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2001