The role of cooperative groups in cancer clinical trials

The Children's Oncology Group: Organizational Structure, Membership, and Institutional Characteristics

BACKGROUND

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) is the only organization within the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network dedicated exclusively to pediatric cancer research. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of COG's organizational structure, to characterize its institutional and individual membership, and to summarize enrollments onto COG clinical trials.

METHOD

Data from 2013 to 2015 were compiled from sources internal (Network Operations, Statistics and Data Center, Chair's Office) and external (American Hospital Association, American Nurses Credentialing Center) to COG, to present a comprehensive overview of COG's structure, individual and institutional membership, and group operations.

RESULTS

In 2016, COG comprised 8,785 individuals from 223 member institutions, across seven countries. An average of 9,661 new patients were registered with COG per year over the most recent (2013-2015) 3-year period. Over the same 3-year time frame, there were an average of 16,836 enrollments onto therapeutic (i.e., treatment) and nontherapeutic (e.g., epidemiology, survivorship, biology) trials per year.

CONCLUSIONS

COG institutions have diverse characteristics related to size, geographical location, and infrastructure. Individual membership also reflects diversity with representation from over 28 disciplines and groups. The diversity of COG institutions and individual members allows for unique perspectives and contributions to science unified under a common goal to enroll children/adolescents onto clinical trials. COG's collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to science functions to support the development of research that seeks to continually improve outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer.

Role of cooperative groups and funding source in clinical trials supporting guidelines for systemic therapy of breast cancer

Introduction

Clinical research is conducted by academia, cooperative groups (CGs) or pharmaceutical industry. Here, we evaluate the role of CGs and funding sources in the development of guidelines for breast cancer therapies.

Results

We identified 94 studies. CGs were involved in 28 (30%) studies while industry either partially or fully sponsored 64 (68%) studies. The number of industry funded studies increased over time (from 0% in 1976 to 100% in 2014; p for trend = 0.048). Only 10 (11%) government or academic studies were identified. Studies conducted by GCs included a greater number of subjects (median 448 vs. 284; p = 0.015), were more common in the neo/adjuvant setting (p < 0.0001), and were more often randomized (p = 0.018) phase III (p < 0.0001) trials. Phase III trial remained significant predictor for CG-sponsored trials (OR 7.1 p = 0.004) in a multivariable analysis. Industry funding was associated with higher likelihood of positive outcomes favoring the sponsored experimental arm (p = 0.013) but this relationship was not seen for CG-sponsored trials (p = 0.53).

Materials and Methods

ASCO, ESMO, and NCCN guidelines were searched to identify systemic anti-cancer therapies for early-stage and metastatic breast cancer. Trial characteristics and outcomes were collected. We identified sponsors and/or the funding source(s) and determined whether CGs, industry, or government or academic institutions were involved. Chi-square tests were used for comparison between studies.

Conclusions

Industry funding is present in the majority of studies providing the basis for which recommendations about treatment of breast cancer are made. Industry funding, but not CG-based funding, was associated with higher likelihood of positive outcomes in clinical studies supporting guidelines for systemic therapy.

Boosting enrolment in clinical trials: validation of a regional network model

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of stroke therapy have been hampered by slow rates of enrolment.

PURPOSE

Our purpose is to validate a previously developed model for accelerating enrolment in clinical trials by replicating it at new locations. The model employs coordinators who travel from a host institution to enrol participants from a network of participating hospitals. Active surveillance assures identification of all eligible patients.

METHODS

Among 70 U.S. investigators participating in National Institutes of Health-funded trial of stroke prevention, five investigators were invited to develop local identification and outreach networks (LIONs). Each LION comprised a LION coordinating centre servicing multiple hospitals. Hospitals provided names of patients with stroke or transient ischaemic attack to researchers at the LION coordinating centre who initiated contact; patients were offered home visits for consent and randomization. Outcomes were feasibility, enrolment, data quality, and cost.

RESULTS

Five LIONs varied in size from two to eight hospitals. All 24 hospitals we approached agreed to participate. The average monthly rate of enrolment at the research sites increased from 1.4 participants to 3.5 after expanding from a single institution model to the LION format (mean change = 2.1, range 0.9-3.7). Monthly performance improved over time. Data quality was similar for LIONs and non-LION sites, except for drug adherence which was lower at LIONs. The average cost to randomize and follow one participant during the study interval was 2.4 times the cost under the per-patient, cost-reimbursement strategy at non-LION sites. The cost ratio declined from 3.4 in year one to 1.8 in year two.

LIMITATIONS

The LION strategy requires unprecedented collaboration and trust among institutions. Applicability beyond stroke requires confirmation.

CONCLUSION

LIONs are a practical, reproducible method to increase enrolment in trial research. Twelve months were required for the average site to reach its potential. The per-participant cost at LIONs was higher than conventional sites but declined over time.

Five steps for structural reform in clinical cancer research

Despite advances in the prevention and early detection of cancer and the treatment of some malignancies, clinical research has not yet delivered treatment benefits of the magnitude anticipated after the launch of imatinib, which established highly effective new treatment standards. The primary impediments to progress are scientific, but the efficiency of research is also affected by structural deficiencies relating to where and by whom it is conducted, as well as how it is organized and regulated. To optimize the research environment and maximize the benefits of improved funding, adjustments in the roles of government, industry, the academic community, national research bodies, and regulatory authorities are needed. A patchwork of reforms that are enabling in character and build on existing expertise can deliver substantial progress without the need for radical intervention.

Globalization of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: implementation of a model for service expansion and public health improvement

The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) is part of the cooperative group network that is overseen by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Although the NCI is a US-based group, it has empowered the cooperative groups to recruit foreign institutions to participate in collaborative clinical trials. The RTOG undertook the challenge of globalizing its efforts in 2004. This article describes the rationale for this decision and the tactics adopted by the first hospital outside of North America to enroll patients onto RTOG trials. The challenges confronted by foreign institutions seeking admission to the RTOG and the mechanism by which Tel Aviv Medical Center (TAMC) met these challenges are described. Shortly after its acceptance, TAMC emerged as one of the leading accruers of patients to RTOG studies. The public health implications of this accomplishment are discussed.