4.7 Article

Development of clinical trials in a cooperative group setting: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 3427-3433

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-5060

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [U10 CA023318-32, U10 CA086802, U10 CA021115-34, U10 CA066636-15, U10 CA021115, 3U10-CA21115-32, U10 CA023318, U10 CA066636, U10 CA086802-10, U10 CA049957-20] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 11 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据