A call to action to advance patient-focused and decentralized clinical trials

This commentary is a call to action for a concerted commitment and effort to transform clinical trials and enable people with cancer to participate in clinical trials closer to home. Three key strategies are identified to address major barriers: confront challenges with the interpretation of US Food and Drug Administration Form 1572 requirements (Statement of Investigator); broaden acceptance of local laboratories and imaging centers; and invest in the creation of effective, sustainable partnerships between research centers and local providers.

Assessing feasibility and utility of an implicit bias training program for addressing disparities in cancer clinical trial participation

e18599

Background: Low participation of Black, Hispanic, Latinx and other underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in clinical research remains a problem across the U.S. Recent studies have highlighted that stereotypes, assumptions, and bias play a role in lack of diversity in cancer trial participation. To help address this, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) piloted an implicit bias training program for clinical research teams. Methods: Adapted from the Duke University Just Ask™ program, the pilot program is comprised of eLearning modules which can be completed in about 60 minutes. Features include education on diversity, equity, and bias in clinical trial participation, case vignettes, and strategies to mitigate disparities. A call was issued to members of both organizations. After completing the training, all individual participants were asked to complete a retrospective pre/post survey to assess change in knowledge and attitude. Focus groups explored participants’ experience with the training. Another survey was administered 6 weeks later to assess sustainability of changes. Results: Research teams from 50 programs were selected for the pilot. 129 individuals consented, and 126 completed the training and evaluations (98% response rate). 48% of participants reported that they had completed training on implicit bias and/or related topics prior to the pilot. Increased levels of knowledge were reported across all key training concepts, with an average % increase from 19% to 45%. Similar increases were observed for strategies for addressing implicit bias, with an average % increase from 10% to 31%. At 6 weeks post-training, there was a slight decrease in knowledge across most items, from -1% to -8%. Most (92%) participants reported satisfaction with the course, and most (92%) indicated they would recommend it to a colleague and would recommend implementing it at their program. Suggestions to improve the course included streamlining content and providing additional tools and resources. Conclusions: Pilot findings support the feasibility and utility of the training, which can help cancer programs to address disparities in clinical research. Next steps include modifying the course based on participant feedback, disseminating the training and supplementary resources, and exploring options for assessing the impact on upstream outcomes such as diversity in trial participation.[Table: see text]

Availability of data for screening, offering, and consenting patients to cancer clinical trials: Report from an ASCO-ACCC collaboration

6530

Background: Only a small fraction of patients with cancer participate in treatment trials. Patients identifying as members of racial and ethnic minority groups are consistently underrepresented in these trials. A recent systematic review reported that patients, regardless of race and ethnicity, are willing to enroll in trials if asked to participate by their treating clinician. Prospective and longitudinal data and metrics at the site- and clinician-level are necessary to understand whether patients are equitably considered for clinical trials. Methods: ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a self-assessment for trial sites to record and gauge the number of patients across races and ethnicities screened, offered, and enrolled into clinical trials. Research sites, from across the US, were recruited through an open call to apply to participate in the ASCO-ACCC Pilot Project. There were 65 sites assigned to this pilot study, which tested the feasibility and utility of the site assessment. Sites were asked to enter 2019 and 2020 aggregate data for each step along the clinical trial enrollment continuum by select races and ethnicities (Black, Hispanic/Latinx, White) and overall. Results: 62 of 65 sites completed the study and represented a range of settings and practice types (61% academic, 26% hospital/health system, 13% independent). Only 2 sites (3%) were able to provide the data requested at each enrollment step in the assessment (table). Sites that collected the data did not do so routinely (table) and most had to compile data through multiple sources and/or manual extraction (40-100% across enrollment steps). Sites with missing data reported they did not collect data at all (36-64% across enrollment steps), did not collect data in a systematic way (0-29% across enrollment steps), or stated it would be too burdensome to manually review charts to extract data (12-29% across enrollment steps). Conclusions: Data collection and routine evaluation of participation metrics, by race and ethnicity, are necessary to assess and monitor equity and diversity in clinical trials. Most sites in this study did not collect, or routinely collect, data for screening, offering, and consenting patients to clinical trials. Without these data, sites are unable to evaluate and monitor whether their patients have equitable access to clinical trials or establish strategies to address any inequities. ASCO and ACCC will continue to partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting such data in a systematic and automated way, such as through electronic health record systems. [Table: see text]

Reducing burdens of site feasibility assessments for conducting clinical trials

300

Background: Current methods to assess site feasibility for industry-funded clinical trials are onerous and delay patient access to novel treatment options and high-quality clinical trials. Industry sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) often probe for unnecessary and/or duplicative information. These burdens prolong trial start-up times and are a barrier to site participation in oncology trials. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Research Community Forum convened a task force to identify ways to improve the site feasibility assessment process. Methods: Data were collected in 3 steps: 1) survey to assess site burdens, 2) collation of sample feasibility questionnaires (FQs), and 3) stakeholder meeting to discuss potential solutions. The task force then developed recommendations for process improvements and obtained stakeholder feedback through a survey. Results: 113 oncology practices (66 community, 47 academic) reported completing a median 5 FQs and 2 pre-study site visits (PSSVs) per month. FQs took a median 2 hours to complete whereas PSSVs took a median 4 hours to complete. Most considered FQ (81%) and PSSV (91%) content redundant to information previously provided, and FQs similar between different sponsors (86%). The median time from first contact to first patient enrolled was 6 months. The 40 respondents to the stakeholder survey represented 19 academic- and 9 community-based sites, 8 industry sponsors, and 4 CROs. Most preferred a model with a short FQ plus a PSSV when there was not a prior relationship. If there was a prior relationship, either a PSSV or teleconference was preferred. All stakeholders identified time savings, expedited start-up, fewer staff resources, and cost savings as the greatest benefits. The greatest barriers to adoption were buy-in from sponsors and CROs, and insufficient information about site capabilities. Conclusions: Site feasibility assessments for industry-sponsored trials are important to ensure patient safety and access to high quality clinical trials. However, current methods are inefficient and time and resource intensive. This initiative provided insights about challenges for sites and the viability of a fundamental change to site feasibility assessments. ASCO recommendations are forthcoming on improving processes, standardizing and minimizing questions, and using portals that are effective across all trials and clinical research scenarios.

Transforming the site feasibility assessment process for oncology clinical trials

e14092

Background: Current methods to assess trial sites for clinical trial participation are onerous, with unnecessary redundancies and no-value steps that impact research site resources and clinical trial participation. This project sought stakeholder feedback on recommendations to transform industry sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) processes for evaluating sites for trials. Methods: An ASCO task force developed recommendations to improve the feasibility assessment process and standardize and centralize questions and forms. A survey was conducted with sites, industry trial sponsors, and CROs to obtain feedback and assess buy-in for the recommendations. Results: Respondents were from 28 oncology research sites (19 academic, 9 community-based), 8 sponsors, and 4 CROs. All stakeholders agreed that the current process is burdensome (93% sites, 90% sponsors, 100% CROs), standardization will improve the process (86% sites, 87% sponsors, 75% CROs). All agreed a centralized portal will reduce burdens (93% sites, 100% sponsors, 75% CROs) and expedite trial start-up (89% sites, 100% sponsors, 75% CROs). Site certification was a viable option for sites (86%) and CROs (75%), but less so for sponsors (57%). Most respondents preferred a two-tier model: 1) a short site questionnaire followed by a pre-study visit for new interactions, and 2) only a pre-study site visit or a teleconference if there is an existing relationship. The greatest benefits were time savings, expedited start-up, reduction in personnel resources, and cost savings. The greatest barriers to adoption were buy-in and alignment from sponsors/CROs and insufficient information about site or protocol. Top predictors of a site’s success on a trial were physician engagement, available patients, and site experience. Conclusions: Site feasibility assessments are important for all stakeholders to establish trial suitability. However, current methods impose tremendous burdens on site resources (reported by authors elsewhere). While this sample is limited, the proposed process and standardization changes show promise to reduce burdens and costs for all stakeholders and expedite patient enrollment onto clinical trials.

ASCO Research Community Forum: Impact on clinical research

299

Background: In 2011, ASCO launched a forum for the oncology research community to facilitate and promote the implementation of quality clinical research. The ASCO Research Community Forum (RCF) was created to provide a solution-oriented venue for research sites to address common challenges with conducting clinical trials. It offers in-person and virtual forums and resources to learn and share best practices with peers on a variety of topics, including site quality assessment and improvement, research site operations, and clinical trial access and accrual. Methods: An assessment was performed to measure the ASCO RCF output and to gather information on its potential impact on the cancer community. Results: The ASCO RCF has provided an in-person venue for physicians and research administrators with a steady increase in attendance, from 52 attendees in 2012 to 159 in 2018. Multi-stakeholder meetings and manuscripts have promoted best practices and solutions to address challenges with implementing quality clinical trials. Tools and resources to facilitate best practices and quality improvement at trial sites have been accessed by a range of types of research sites from across the U.S. and internationally. Its web-based library of resources was accessed over 27,000 times in 2018, alone. An online forum was launched in 2019 to provide a new opportunity to connect and impact the research community. Conclusions: The ASCO RCF is a productive and esteemed resource for the cancer research community. In-person and virtual forums, along with practical tools, promote access and accrual to clinical trials by facilitating networking, developing solutions, and providing education and resources. The ASCO RCF impact has extended from community-based oncology practices to larger research networks and academic centers across the U.S. and internationally. Its efforts to promote and facilitate access to quality clinical trials align with the vision and mission of ASCO to conquer cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality patient care.

Effectiveness of ASCO’s adverse event reporting decision aid: Results from an interventional study

3065

Background: Investigators often send adverse event (AE) reports to sponsors that are incorrectly categorized as serious or attributed to the investigational drug. Such errors contribute to a high volume of uninformative IND safety reports that sponsors submit to FDA and all participating investigators, straining stakeholder resources and impeding the detection of valid safety signals. To improve the quality of AE reporting, ASCO developed and tested a Decision Aid Tool (DAT). Methods: An interventional study with a cross-over design was conducted. Physician investigators and research staff were randomized to receive case studies. Cases were assessed for seriousness and attribution, first unassisted and then with the DAT. Participants completed a feedback survey. Effectiveness of reporting and attribution were assessed using logistic regression. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Most of the 29 participants reported that the DAT was helpful (93%), improved their decision-making time (69%) and confidence in reporting (83%), and that they would use it in practice (83%). The DAT did not significantly affect accuracy of determining seriousness (OR, 0.87; 95% CI: 0.31, 2.46) but it did significantly increase accuracy of attributing a serious AE to a drug (OR, 3.60; 95% CI: 1.15, 11.4). Conclusions: The DAT shows promise as a method to reduce errors in attribution of AEs, which may help to ensure the detection of valid safety signals. Many participants were experienced clinical trialists, and the DAT may show greater utility as an educational tool for novice investigators, research staff, and students.

Barriers to clinical trial accrual: Clinical trialists' perspectives

e18156

Background: Oncology clinical trial participation rates remain at historic lows. There are many barriers that impede participation. Understanding those barriers, from the perspective of cancer clinical trialists, will help develop solutions to increase physician and site engagement, with the goal of improving accrual rates and advancing cancer treatment. Methods: Physician investigators and research staff from community-based and academic-based research sites were surveyed during ASCO’s Research Community Forum (RCF) Annual Meeting (N = 159) and through a pre-meeting survey (N = 124) in 2018. Findings and potential solutions were discussed during the meeting. Results: 84% of respondents (n = 84) reported that it took 6-8 months to open a trial and 86% (n = 81) reported that trials had unnecessary delays 70% of the time. The top 10 barriers to accrual identified were: insufficient staffing resources, restrictive eligibility criteria, physician buy-in, site access to trials, burdensome regulatory requirements, difficulty identifying patients, lack of suitable trials, sponsor and contract research organization requirements, patient barriers, and site cost-benefit. Respondents shared strategies to address these barriers. Conclusions: The current state of conducting clinical trials is not sustainable and hinders clinical trial participation. New strategies are needed to ensure patients and practices have access to trials, standardize and streamline processes, reduce inefficiencies, simplify trial activation, reduce regulatory burden, provide sufficient compensation to sites, engage the community and patients, educate the public, and increase collaborations. The ASCO RCF offers resources, available to the public, that offer practical strategies to overcome barriers to clinical trial accrual and has ongoing efforts to facilitate oncology practice participation in clinical trials.

Qualifying sites for oncology clinical trials

6619

Background: Current methods to assess trial sites for clinical trial participation are onerous, with unnecessary redundancies and “no-value” steps that impact clinical trial participation. This project assessed the impact of current sponsor and contract research organizations (CRO) methods to evaluate sites for trials. Methods: A survey was conducted with community- and academic-based trial sites. Samples of feasibility questionnaires (FQs) used by sponsors and CROs were also compiled. An ASCO sponsored multi-stakeholder meeting was held to identify strategies to more effectively assess trial sites. Results: 113 oncology practices (63 community, 50 academic) reported completing 11 FQs and 4 pre-study site visits (PSV) on average per month. On average, each FQ took 4 hours (528 hours/site and 59,664 hours for all respondents, annually) and each PSV took 10 hours (480 hours/site and 54,240 hours for all respondents, annually) to complete. Thus, the total staff hours required to complete site feasibility assessments was 113,904 annually. Respondents reported that content in both FQs (82%) and PSVs (91%) was redundant to information previously provided and FQs were redundant between different sponsors (86%). The 42 sample FQs had a median 45 questions (range 13 to 96). Respondents noted that sponsors/CROs provided insufficient study documentation to accurately complete FQs. It took 7 months on average from first contact to first patient enrolled. Respondents also provided feedback about standardizing and streamlining site qualification processes. Conclusions: The current methods of assessing site feasibility for clinical trials poses tremendous burden on site resources and is not sustainable. New methods are needed that standardize, harmonize, and streamline criteria and site assessments. Such changes will reduce burden and costs for all stakeholders, and will expedite and increase patient enrollment onto clinical trials.

The Prospects for Issue-Voting in Contemporary Congressional Elections

A number of research reports on presidential elections have found evidence for increased issue voting in recent years. This article extends the concern with such possible attitudinal and behavioral changes to midterm Congressional elections. To do so, we focus on one particular requirement for issue voting—the existence of accurate knowledge of candidates' policy positions. With data for 1978, we examine the existence and accuracy of constituents' perceptions of their own representative's positions in five issue domains and on a generalized liberal-conservative dimension. We also consider the quality of representation in these policy areas by comparing representatives' voting with constituents' personal policy preferences. The evidence indicates generally poor knowledge of candidates, but also that both candidates and citizens contribute to this situation. Similarly, there is only modest convergence between the preferences of individual citizens and their representative's voting behavior in Congress on the issues tested.

Challenges With Research Contract Negotiations in Community-Based Cancer Research

Purpose:

Community-based research programs face many barriers to participation in clinical trials. Although the majority of people with cancer are diagnosed and treated in the community setting, only roughly 3% are enrolled onto clinical trials. Research contract and budget negotiations have been consistently identified as time consuming and a barrier to participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Community Research Forum conducted a survey about specific challenges of research contract and budget negotiation processes in community-based research settings. The goal was to ultimately identify potential solutions to these barriers.

Methods:

A survey was distributed to 780 community-based physician investigators and research staff. The survey included questions to provide insight into contract and budget negotiation processes and perceptions about related barriers.

Results:

A total of 77% of the 150 respondents acknowledged barriers in the process. Respondents most frequently identified budget-related issues (n = 133), inefficiencies in the process (n = 80), or legal review and negotiation issues (n = 70). Of the respondents, 44.1% indicated that contract research organizations made the contract negotiations process harder for their research program, and only 5% believed contract research organizations made the process easier. The contract negotiations process is perceived to be impeded by sponsors through underestimation of costs, lack of flexibility with the contract language, and excessive delays.

Conclusion:

Improving clinical trial activation processes and reducing inefficiencies would be beneficial to all interested stakeholders, including patients who may ultimately stand to benefit from participation in clinical trials. The following key recommendations were made: standardization of contracts and negotiation processes to promulgate transparency and efficiencies, improve sponsor processes to minimize burden on sites, create and promote use of contract templates and best practices, and provide education and consultation.

ASCO research program quality assessment tool: Basics for a quality community-based research site

97

Background: In 2008, ASCO published a statement to identify minimum standards and exemplary attributes of clinical trial sites. Recommendations were made to assist with the development and implementation of high-quality research programs. Based on feedback from an ASCO needs assessment survey, ASCO’s Community Research Forum (CRF) sought to develop a tool to help community-based research sites exceed the minimum standards of conducting clinical research, and to identify important components for an internal quality assurance program. Methods: A tool was developed to incorporate elements of ASCO publications on minimal standards and exemplary attributes of research sites. The tool was designed to assist community-based research sites with the development and implementation of an internal quality assurance program. A checklist was also developed to help sites easily conduct an assessment of their program. Community-based researchers provided feedback on the tool’s content and utilization. Feedback was incorporated and the tool was released for widespread use in March 2014. Results: The tool was very well received by reviewers. All reviewers indicated that the level of detail of the tool was sufficient; 94% indicated that it presented realistic expectations, in terms of resources required to implement; and 81% indicated that it would be valuable for conducting a quality assessment of their research program. As of July 2014, the tool was downloaded by over 150 practices from 8 different countries and early feedback continued to be favorable, particularly from small and/or new research programs. Conclusions: Many community-based research programs do not have the resources to support an effective quality assurance program and rely heavily on external audits. The ASCO Research Program Quality Assessment Tool provides self-directed continual process improvement to help community-based research sites create an internal quality assurance program and exceed minimum standards of conducting clinical research. The CRF will learn more from users of the tool about the quality of research programs and processes, and key quality metrics. The tool is available for download at www.asco.org/communityresearchforum.

Schwann cells revert to non-myelinating phenotypes in the deafened rat cochlea

Loss of sensory hair cells within the cochlea results in a permanent sensorineural hearing loss and initiates the gradual degeneration of spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs) - the primary afferent neurons of the cochlea. While these neurons are normally myelinated via Schwann cells, loss of myelin occurs as a precursor to neural degeneration. However, the relationship between demyelination and the status of Schwann cells in deafness is not well understood. We used a marker of peripheral myelin (myelin protein zero; P0) and a marker of Schwann cells (S100) to determine the temporal sequence of myelin and Schwann cell loss as a function of duration of deafness. Rat pups were systemically deafened for periods ranging from 2 weeks to greater than 6 months by co-administration of frusemide and gentamicin. Cochleae were cryosectioned and quantitative immunohistochemistry used to determine the extent of P0 and S100 labelling within the peripheral processes, SGN soma and their central processes within the modiolus. SGN density was also determined for each cochlear turn. P0 labelling decreased throughout the cochlea with increasing duration of deafness. The reduction in P0 labelling occurred at a faster rate than the SGN loss. In contrast, S100 labelling was not significantly reduced compared with age-matched controls in any cochlear region until 6 months post-deafening. These results suggest that Schwann cells may revert to non-myelinating phenotypes in response to deafness and exhibit greater survival traits than SGNs. The potential clinical significance of these findings for cochlear implants is discussed.

Cochlear immunochemistry--a new technique based on gelatin embedding

Histological processing of the cochlea for immunochemistry is often a compromise between good anatomical resolution and preservation of antigenicity. Techniques able to preserve tissue architecture invariably demand elevated temperatures and harsh chemicals or a combination of both. The likely result is reduced antigenicity, enzyme activity and nucleic acid integrity. We have modified an existing embedding medium for use in the cochlea that operates at physiological temperature and avoids denaturing agents and organic solvents. Tissue antigenicity is maximised and anatomical detail preserved, normally two mutually exclusive goals. The method is attractive because of its simplicity, speed and transparency for easy cochlear orientation. It is also likely to be adaptable for the infiltration of other heterogeneous structures prone to distortion during frozen sectioning.

Senior House Officer training: some myths exposed

A prospective study of general surgical experience obtained by 13 first year Senior House Officers (SHOs) in South East Scotland is presented. On average a Senior House Officer (SHO) operating as the principal surgeon performed 15 appendicectomies (range 7-26), 17 inguinal herniorrhaphies (range 7-42) and 17 varicose vein operations (range 5-33) over their first 12 months. The senior author, as a first year SHO in 1985, performed 23 appendicectomies, 36 inguinal herniorrhaphies and 18 varicose vein operations as the principal surgeon. The operative supervision of SHOs provided either by the Consultant or the Registrar varied widely between units despite a uniformity in available training operations. Clearly many opportunities are being lost within the region and greater organisation is necessary in some units to capitalise on existing training opportunities and thus optimise SHO training. In general, it is still possible, despite the reduction in working hours, for SHOs to receive similar operative experience now as was possible 13 years ago.

Serum PAPP-A measurements in first-trimester screening for Down syndrome

Serum PAPP-A measurements taken from 254 women in the first trimester are reported. Eleven chromosomal abnormalities were detected. The mean serum PAPP-A levels in cases of Down syndrome were 0.44 MOM at 9 weeks gestation, 0.15 MOM at 10 weeks, and 0.29 MOM at 11 weeks. The PAPP-A level at 10 weeks was below those of pregnancies which aborted spontaneously. At 11 weeks, the pregnancies with Down syndrome recorded the lowest PAPP-A levels at that gestation. On this small sample, offering chorionic villus sampling to women with singleton pregnancies and a PAPP-A level below 0.3 MOM (approximately 6.5 per cent of this at-risk group) would have detected all the Down syndrome fetuses at 10 weeks and 50 per cent at 11 weeks without selecting those cases destined to abort. This suggests that serum PAPP-A should continue to be investigated as a potential first-trimester screening test for Down syndrome.

Fetal therapy

In the past year, the results of the European trial comparing chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis have been published, supporting the findings of the Canadian Collaborative Study of an increased risk associated with chorionic villus sampling. The reporting of an increase in limb reduction abnormalities with chorionic villus sampling before 9 weeks has made us review our current practice. Other developments covered by this review include the management of mild cerebral ventriculomegaly, the treatment of tachyarrhythmias, and developments in fetal surgery. Throughout, the needs for continued collaboration, pooling of data, and the formation of international registers to extend the database from which both doctors and patients may benefit are highlighted.