View Item 

Show simple item record

Academic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development
dc.contributor.authorFrankel, Arthur E.
dc.contributor.authorFlaherty, Keith T.
dc.contributor.authorWeiner, George J.
dc.contributor.authorChen, Robert
dc.contributor.authorAzad, Nilofer S.
dc.contributor.authorPishvaian, Michael J.
dc.contributor.authorThompson, John A.
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Matthew H.
dc.contributor.authorMahadevan, Daruka
dc.contributor.authorLockhart, A. Craig
dc.contributor.authorVaishampayan, Ulka N.
dc.contributor.authorBerlin, Jordan D.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, David C.
dc.contributor.authorSarantopoulos, John
dc.contributor.authorRiese, Matthew
dc.contributor.authorSaleh, Mansoor N.
dc.contributor.authorAhn, Chul
dc.contributor.authorFrenkel, Eugene P.
dc.date.accessioned2017-12-15T16:47:07Z
dc.date.available2018-05-15T21:02:50Zen
dc.date.issued2017-04
dc.identifier.citationFrankel, Arthur E.; Flaherty, Keith T.; Weiner, George J.; Chen, Robert; Azad, Nilofer S.; Pishvaian, Michael J.; Thompson, John A.; Taylor, Matthew H.; Mahadevan, Daruka; Lockhart, A. Craig; Vaishampayan, Ulka N.; Berlin, Jordan D.; Smith, David C.; Sarantopoulos, John; Riese, Matthew; Saleh, Mansoor N.; Ahn, Chul; Frenkel, Eugene P. (2017). "Academic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development." The Oncologist 22(4): 369-374.
dc.identifier.issn1083-7159
dc.identifier.issn1549-490X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/139928
dc.description.abstractMultiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator‐initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand‐alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease‐oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.This commentary assesses the factors necessary for the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs. The metrics presented here may be useful as a rubric for new and established programs.
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.titleAcademic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelHematology and Oncology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139928/1/onco12106-sup-0001-suppinfo1.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139928/2/onco12106.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139928/3/onco12106-sup-0002-suppinfo2.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409
dc.identifier.sourceThe Oncologist
dc.identifier.citedreferencePenberthy L, Brown R, Wilson‐Genderson M et al. Barriers to therapeutic clinical trials enrollment: Differences between African‐American and white cancer patients identified at the time of eligibility assessment. Clin Trials 2012; 9: 788 – 797.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSCT Working Group on Data Monitoring, Dixon DO, Freedman RS et al. Guidelines for data and safety monitoring for clinical trials not requiring traditional data monitoring committees. Clin Trials 2006; 3: 314 – 319.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTerrin ML. Evaluating and implementing data and safety monitoring plans. J Investig Med 2004; 52: 459 – 463.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHibberd PL, Weiner DL. Monitoring participant safety in phase I and II interventional trials. J Investig Med 2004; 52: 446 – 452.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDilts DM, Sandler AB. Invisible barriers to clinical trials: The impact of structural, infrastructural, and procedural barriers to opening oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 4545 – 4552.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCheng SK, Dietrich MS, Dilts DM. A sense of urgency: Evaluating the link between clinical trial development time and the accrual performance of cancer therapy evaluation program (NCI‐CTEP) sponsored studies. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16: 5557 – 5563.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang‐Gillam A, Williams K. Paving the road to clinical trial participation: Removing road blocks and directing patients toward novel therapies. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2015; 13: 118 – 120.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDenson A, Burke N, Wapinsky G et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies participating in phase I clinical trials. Am J Clin Oncol 2015 [Epub ahead of print].
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLevy A, Gomez‐Roca C, Massard C et al. Clinical benefit for patients with non‐small cell lung cancer enrolled in phase I trials. Onkologie 2013; 36: 357 – 362.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTsimberidou AM, Iskander NG, Hong DS et al. Personalized medicine in a phase I clinical trials program: The MD Anderson Cancer Center initiative. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 6373 – 6383.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRobinson D, Van Allen EM, Wu YM et al. Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer. Cell 2015; 161: 1215 – 1228.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKempf E, Lemoine N, Tergemina‐Clain G et al. A case‐control study brings to light the causes of screen failures in phase I cancer clinical trials. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0154895.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWheler J, Tsimberidou AM, Hong D et al. Survival of 1,181 patients in a phase I clinic. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 2922 – 2929.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGarrido‐Laguna I, Janku F, Vaklavas C et al. Validation of the Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score in patients treated in the phase I clinical trials program at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Cancer 2012; 118: 1422 – 1428.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBailey CH, Jameson G, Sima C et al. Progression‐free survival decreases with each subsequent therapy in patients presenting for phase I clinical trials. J Cancer 2012; 3: 7 – 13.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaid R, Banchs J, Wheler J et al. The prognostic significance of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with advanced cancer treated in phase I clinical trials. Ann Oncol 2014; 25: 276 – 282.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMalik L, Mejia A, Weitman S. Eligibility of patients with renal impairment for phase I trials: Time for a rethink? Eur J Cancer 2014; 50: 2893 – 2896.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRowe J, Patel S, Mazo‐Canola M et al. An evaluation of elderly (>70 years old) enrolled in phase I clinical trials at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio‐Cancer Therapy Research Center from 2009 to 2011. J Geriatr Oncol 2014; 5: 65 – 70.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChalela P, Suarez L, Muñoz E et al. Promoting factors and barriers to participation in early phase clinical trials: Patients perspectives. J Comm Med Health Educ 2014; 4: 1000281.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTrevino M, Padalecki S, Karnad A et al. The development of a minority recruitment plan for cancer clinical trials. J Community Med Health Educ 2013; 3: 1000230.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFouad MN, Acemgil A, Bae S et al. Patient navigation as a model to increase participation of African Americans in cancer clinical trials. J Oncol Pract 2016; 12: 556 – 563.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePawlowski J, Malik Laeeq, Mahalingam D. Advanced cancer patients’ understanding and perceptions of phase I clinical trials. Cancer Invest 2015; 33: 490 – 495.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRamirez AG, Chalela P, Suarez L et al. Early phase clinical trials: Referral barriers and promoters among physicians. J Community Med Health Educ 2013; 2: 1000173.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePetrelli NJ, Grubbs S, Price K. Clinical trial investigator status: You need to earn it. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2440 – 2441.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox AC, Fallowfield LJ, Jenkins VA. Communication and informed consent in phase I trials: A review of the literature. Support Care Cancer 2006; 14: 303 – 309.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang‐Gillam A, Wiliams K, Novello S et al. Time to activate lung cancer clinical trials and patient enrollment: A representative comparison study between two academic centers across the Atlantic. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 3803 – 3807.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoff LW, Cohen RB, Berlin JD et al. A phase I study of the anti‐activin receptor‐like kinase 1 (ALK‐1) monoclonal antibody PF‐03446962 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 2146 – 2154.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChan E, Arlinghaus LR, Cardin DB et al. Phase I trial of vorinostat added to chemoradiation with capecitabine in pancreatic cancer. Radiother Oncol 2016; 119: 312 – 318.
dc.identifier.citedreferencede la Fuente MI, Young RJ, Rubel J et al. Integration of 2‐hydroxyglutarate proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy into clinical practice for disease monitoring in isocitrate dehydrogenase mutant glioma. Neuro Oncol 2016; 18: 283 – 290.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZent CS, Smith BJ, Ballas ZK et al. Phase I clinical trial of CpG oligonucleotide 7909 (PF‐03512676) in patients with previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 2012; 53: 211 – 217.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDenicoff AM, McCaskill‐Stevens W, Grubbs SS et al. The National Cancer Institute—American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Summary and recommendations. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9,: 267 – 276.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVose JM, Levit LA, Hurley P et al. Addressing administrative and regulatory burden in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2016 [Epub ahead of print]
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChabner BA, Roberts TG Jr. Timeline: Chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2005; 5: 65 – 72.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHirsch BR, Califf RM, Cheng SK et al. Characteristics of oncology clinical trials: Insights from a systematic analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173: 922 – 979.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSertkaya A, Wong HH, Jessup A et al. Key cost drivers of pharmaceutical clinical trials in the United States. Clin Trials 2016; 13: 117 – 126.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEisenhauer EA, Twelves C, Buyse M. Phase I cancer clinical trials. A practical guide. 2nd Ed, Oxford University Press, 2015.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGood MJ, Hurley P, Woo KM et al. Assessing clinical trial‐associated workload in community‐based research programs using the ASCO clinical trial workload assessment tool. J Oncol Pract 2016; 12: e536 – e547.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLosch S, Traut‐Mattausch E, Mühlberg MD et al. Comparing the effectiveness of individual coaching, self‐coaching, and group training: How leadership makes the difference. Front Psychol 2016; 7: 629.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceXiong K, Lin W, Li JC et al. Employee trust in supervisors and affective commitment: the moderating role of authentic leadership. Psychol Rep 2016; 118: 829 – 848.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOtte A, Maier‐Lenz H, Dierckx RA. Good clinical practice: Historical background and key aspects. Nucl Med Commun 2005; 26: 563 – 574.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZon R, Meropol NJ, Catalano RB et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology statement on minimum standards and exemplary attributes of clinical trial sites. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2562 – 2567.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNing N, Yan J, Xie XJ et al. Impact of NCI‐mandated scientific review on protocol development and content. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015; 13: 409 – 416.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeMets D, Califf R, Dixon D et al. Issues in regulatory guidelines for data monitoring committees. Clin Trials 2004; 1: 162 – 169.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilhelmsen L. Role of the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC). Stat Med 2002; 21: 2823 – 2829.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
onco12106-sup-0001-suppinfo1.pdf
Size:
163.1KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
onco12106.pdf
Size:
200.3KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
onco12106-sup-0002-suppinfo2.pdf
Size:
124.6KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.