Trial Start-up Research Articles

Harmonizing Quality Improvement Metrics Across Global Trial Networks to Advance Paediatric Clinical Trials Delivery

BackgroundDespite global efforts to improve paediatric clinical trials, significant delays continue in paediatric drug approvals. Collaboration between research networks is needed to address these delays. This paper is a first step to promote interoperability between paediatric networks from different jurisdictions by comparing drivers for, and content of, metrics about clinical trial conduct.MethodsThree paediatric networks, Institute for Advanced Clinical Trials for Children, the Maternal Infant Child and Youth Research Network and conect4children, have each developed metrics to address delays and create efficiencies. We identified the methodology by which each network identified metrics, described the metrics of each network, and mapped consistency to come to consensus about core metrics that networks could share.ResultsMetric selection was driven by site quality improvement in one network (11 metrics), by network performance in one network (13 metrics), and by both in one network (five metrics). The domains of metrics were research capacity/capability, site identification/feasibility, trial start-up, and recruitment/enrolment. The network driven by site quality improvement did not have indicators for capacity/capability or identification/feasibility. Fifteen metrics for trial start up and conduct were identified. Metrics related to site approvals were found in all three networks. The themes for metrics can inform the development of ‘shared’ metrics.ConclusionWe found disparity in drivers, methodology and metrics. Tackling this disparity will result in a unified approach to addressing delays in paediatric drug approvals. Collaborative work to define inter-operable metrics globally is outlined.

Accelerating cancer research trial startup in the community setting: A quality-improvement study.

11066 Background: There is a large variation in activation times for cancer clinical trials, delaying the opportunity for patients to benefit from cutting edge treatments. Academic medical centers typically take longer to activate a clinical trial as compared to community settings. Some academic medical centers have adopted quality improvement processes to reduce clinical trial start-up time. Our center, TriHealth Cancer & Blood Institute (TCBI) in the SW Ohio community has also adopted quality improvement processes to further reduce startup time within our oncology research group. Methods: This study encompassed July 2022-June 2023, with baseline data drawn from January 2021 to December 2021 prior to the study period which revealed a mean clinical trial start-up time of 116 days. The research group used a swim-lane process to define the typical process & stakeholders for clinical activation time at our institution prior to the study time. Our group identified three major areas with significant lag-time - contracts, budgets, & IRB/ICF - with the overarching root cause for delays due to lack of organizational process & expertise in these major areas. Using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA), we instituted interventions, which included utilizing a central IRB, identifying a responsible member with extensive research budgeting to review research study budgets, & identified a responsible member with extensive contracts review & negotiations working with Central Legal throughout the contracts negotiation process with sponsor(s). Results: During this 12-month study time, our center demonstrated a 44% reduction in trial start up time (141 days to 79 days), while at the same time doubling the number of active trials. This process change resulted in sustainability that carried into 2023, further reducing start-up time to 70 days. In 2021, we opened 6 studies and after adoption of these process improvements (2022) we doubled the number of studies by 117%, while opening 67% more in 2023 than in 2021. The ability to open more studies has allowed us to shift patient enrollment to more investigational trials while increasing treatment enrollment from 2022 to 2023 by 24%. Through process improvement, more treatment studies are open & available for our community. Conclusions: By implementing interventions to streamline clinical trial activation time, our center was able to significantly & sustainably reduce the time required to start a clinical trial in our community health system in a 12-month period, resulting in our ability to initiate more clinical trials. As a result, more treatment trial patients were able to be enrolled in these clinical trials at TCBI, with the hope of improved outcomes. We anticipate that further adoption of just-in-time studies may help to decrease this activation time further. [Table: see text]

Improving eSource Site Start-Up Practices.

eSource software that copies patient electronic health record data into a clinical trial electronic case report form holds promise for increasing data quality while reducing data collection, monitoring and source document verification costs. Integrating eSource into multicenter clinical trial start-up procedures could facilitate the use of eSource technologies in clinical trials. We conducted a qualitative integrative analysis to identify eSource site start-up key steps, challenges that might occur in executing those steps, and potential solutions to those challenges. We then conducted a value analysis to determine the challenges and solutions with the greatest impacts for eSource implementation teams. There were 16 workshop participants: 10 pharmaceutical sponsor, 3 academic site, and 1 eSource vendor representatives. Participants identified 36 Site Start-Up Key Steps, 11 Site Start-Up Challenges, and 14 Site Start-Up Solutions for eSource-enabled studies. Participants also identified 77 potential impacts of the Challenges upon the Site Start-Up Key Steps and 70 ways in which the Solutions might impact Site Start-Up Challenges. The most important Challenges were: (1) not being able to identify a site eSource champion and (2) not agreeing on an eSource approach. The most important Solutions were: (1) vendors accepting electronic data in the FHIR standard, (2) creating standard content for eSource-related legal documents, and (3) creating a common eSource site readiness checklist. Site start-up for eSource-enabled multi-center clinical trials is a complex socio-technical problem. This study's Start-Up Solutions provide a basic infrastructure for scalable eSource implementation.

Abstract 1302: Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials

Abstract Background: There has been a shift in the clinical trial landscape toward early-phase studies where data from well-designed and pivotal phase I/II trials is leading to accelerated drug approval. Our goal was to develop a standardized approach to the measurement and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early-phase trials to improve assessment of tolerability, address noted barriers to inclusion, and enhance patient-provider communication to inform treatment decisions and ultimately improve outcomes. Methods: The Office of Patient Centered Outcomes Research (OPCORe) was established in 2022 within the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) with the mission to advance understanding of the clinical benefit and tolerability of cancer therapies by integrating patient-centered approaches into CCR clinical trials by fostering education and collaboration with stakeholders. Implementation of regulatory/consortia guidelines related to use of core constructs, assessment frequency, and hypothesis-driven objectives and analysis plans through protocol template, development of data capture, email-based alerts and data visualization for clinical providers was developed and standardized templates for protocol language, research staff education, tools for workflow, and tracking implemented. Results: The OPCORe protocol template includes measurement of 3 constructs, including tolerability, clinical benefit and disease-specific impact, as well as anchors of meaningful change. Core symptomatic toxicities are measured to inform understanding across trials with agent/class-specific symptomatic toxicities added to assure relevance. Baseline and standardized weekly electronic capture of tolerability during early cycles with alerts to clinical research staff if moderate-severe toxicities reported helps facilitate patient check-ins. Repeat PROs assessments in later cycles are expanded to include disease-specific assessments and align with disease evaluation to further inform clinical impact. To date, we have collaborated with 7 research groups and developed approaches for first-in-human, phase I, and phase II studies with trial start-up and data collection in process. Conclusion: The value of including PROs in cancer trials is increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, patients, and advocates to advance understanding of the clinical benefit & tolerability of emerging therapies. Standardization and incorporation of PROs in earlier phase trials may enable PROs to be optimized, improve later phase trial design, and help inform health policy, support drug approval, and promote shared decision making between providers and patients to inform treatment decisions. Citation Format: Amanda L. King, Jason E. Levine, Elizabeth Vera, Yuti Gandhi, Elaine Novakovich, Theresa Yu, Sefanit Berhanu, Ciara Locke, Kaelyn Julmeus, Tito Mendoza, Terri S. Armstrong. Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1302.

Factors influencing the time to ethics and governance approvals for clinical trials: a retrospective cross-sectional survey

BackgroundThe findings from multi-centre trials are central to the practice of evidence-based medicine, enabling the development and implementation of new treatments. The time it takes to commence clinical trials at sites can be long, and ethics and governance approvals are key steps on the pathway to site activation. The goal of this study was to explore factors influencing the times to ethics approval, governance approval and site activation for multi-centre clinical trials.MethodsThis paper assessed the associations of trial characteristics (disease area and trial phase), site characteristics (government or private ownership, country) and characteristics of the ethics and governance processes (scope guidelines, mutual acceptance requirements and triage of projects by risk) with times to approvals and activation. Median times were compared between site initiations that were and were not exposed to each characteristic using non-parametric tests in univariable and multivariable regressions.ResultsThere were data from 150 site activations done across 91 sites, 16 trials and 5 countries from November 2013 to November 2021. The overall median time to activation was 234 days (range 74 to 657), with ethics approval taking a median of 48 days (0 to 369) and governance approval a median of 34 days (0 to 489). Both the univariable and multivariable analyses identified associations of disease area, particularly oncology (p univariable = 0.012, p multivariable = 0.044), use of scope guidelines (p < 0.001, p = 0.020) and use of a triage process (p < 0.001, 0.043) with shorter median times for governance approval. These characteristics (all p < 0.001) plus early trial phase (p = 0.028) were also predictive of shorter median times for ethics approval in univariable analyses, but none remained predictive in multivariable models (all p > 0.054). The only factors associated with reduced overall time to site activation in both univariable and multivariable analyses were the early trial phase (p < 0.001, p = 0.013) and mutual acceptance of ethics approvals (p = 0.031, p = 0.030).InterpretationTimes to ethics and governance approvals were only one third of total trial start-up time. Factors influencing times to approval and activation were somewhat inconsistent across analyses, but it seems likely that the introduction of selected governance and ethics processes can reduce approval times.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in clinical trials: A practical guide from the perspective of a trial sponsor

BackgroundConsidering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in clinical trials ensures that data collected for investigational treatments reflect the populations most likely to benefit from those therapies. Resources and recommendations regarding DEI were assembled by the trial sponsor to assist clinical trial development. MethodsA cross-disciplinary team from the sponsoring organization was assembled to inform trial planning and collate resources that promote DEI throughout the clinical trial life cycle. ResultsRepresentatives from clinical operations, health economic outcomes research, medical affairs, patient advocacy, procurement, and research and development functional groups united together to implement DEI strategies in clinical trials. Planning strategies focus on eligibility, participant/patient engagement, feedback through patient advocacy organizations, and community interactions. Informed site, investigator, and vendor selection at trial startup supports efforts to recruit diverse target trial populations and engage underrepresented businesses; establishing relationships and demographic target-goal tracking should be maintained throughout trial management. Continued communication during trial closeout consolidates learnings and enhances partnerships with trial participants and patient advocacy organizations. The sponsoring organization continuously updates an internal library of resources to facilitate implementation of outlined strategies. ConclusionsThis first iteration of guidance intends to improve the representation of target populations who will ultimately benefit from investigational therapies; to assist sponsor clinical trial teams in developing recruitment and retention plans; and to ensure compliance with federal granting agencies. The sponsoring organization anticipates data from future clinical trials will help characterize the impact of these initiatives to ensure evidence-based practices are used in future clinical trials to enhance DEI.

Mechanisms to expedite pediatric clinical trial site activation: The DOSE trial experience

BackgroundTimely trial start-up is a key determinant of trial success; however, delays during start-up are common and costly. Moreover, data on start-up metrics in pediatric clinical trials are sparse. To expedite trial start-up, the Trial Innovation Network piloted three novel mechanisms in the trial titled Dexmedetomidine Opioid Sparing Effect in Mechanically Ventilated Children (DOSE), a multi-site, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in the pediatric intensive care setting. MethodsThe three novel start-up mechanisms included: 1) competitive activation; 2) use of trial start-up experts, called site navigators; and 3) supplemental funds earned for achieving pre-determined milestones. After sites were activated, they received a web-based survey to report perceptions of the DOSE start-up process. In addition to perceptions, metrics analyzed included milestones met, time to start-up, and subsequent enrollment of subjects. ResultsTwenty sites were selected for participation, with 19 sites being fully activated. Across activated sites, the median (quartile 1, quartile 3) time from receipt of regulatory documents to site activation was 82 days (68, 113). Sites reported that of the three novel mechanisms, the most motivating factor for expeditious activation was additional funding available for achieving start-up milestones, followed by site navigator assistance and then competitive site activation. ConclusionStudy start-up is a critical time for the success of clinical trials, and innovative methods to minimize delays during start-up are needed. Milestone-based funds and site navigators were preferred mechanisms by sites participating in the DOSE study and may have contributed to the expeditious start-up timeline achieved.ClinicalTrials.gov #: NCT03938857

Using gamification to enhance clinical trial start-up activities.

The Trial Innovation Network (TIN) is a collaborative initiative within the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program. To improve and innovate the conduct of clinical trials, it is exploring the uses of gamification to better engage the trial workforce and improve the efficiencies of trial activities. The gamification structures described in this article are part of a TIN website gamification toolkit, available online to the clinical trial scientific community. The game designers used existing electronic trial platforms to gamify the tasks required to meet trial start-up timelines to create friendly competitions. Key indicators and familiar metrics were mapped to scoreboards. Webinars were organized to share and applaud trial and game performance. Game scores were significantly associated with an increase in achieving start-up milestones in activation, institutional review board (IRB) submission, and IRB approval times, indicating the probability of completing site activation faster by using games. Overall game enjoyment and feelings that the game did not apply too much pressure appeared to be an important moderator of performance in one trial but had little effect on performance in a second. This retrospective examination of available data from gaming experiences may be a first-of-kind use in clinical trials. There are signals that gaming may accelerate performance and increase enjoyment during the start-up phase of a trial. Isolating the effect of gamification on trial outcomes will depend on a larger sampling from future trials, using well-defined, hypothesis-driven statistical analysis plans.

Engaging the radiology community in the National Clinical Trials Network: The ECOG-ACRIN TMIST experience.

TPS10609 Background: ECOG-ACRIN launched the Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) through the National Cancer Institute’s National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN)— a network of academic medical centers, community hospitals, and private clinical practices that are committed to participating in NCI-funded clinical trials. The NCI NCTN was developed to support rapid trial start-up of NCI-funded cancer control/prevention, cancer treatment, and non-therapeutic clinical trials that occur within the institution through centralized institutional administration and shared clinical resource allocation (personnel, lab services). TMIST is a randomized clinical trial assessing two breast cancer screening imaging modalities, tomosynthesis and digital mammography, in the population of women presenting for screening mammography and therefore requires active involvement of radiology. Methods: TMIST seeks to enroll 164,946 women, ages 45 to 74 years who present for screening mammography. Because the population under evaluation are women already scheduled for screening mammography, the mammography clinic is critical to successful recruitment as well as adherence to imaging randomization assignments over a 5-year period and therefore must be actively engaged in this trial with a breast imaging radiologist championing the trial within this service. To get active engagement of breast imaging radiologists, we needed to first make them aware of TMIST. Breast imaging radiologists that were already actively involved in the NCTN received notification of the trial through the NCTN email lists. So our goal was to come up with a strategy to reach out to breast imaging radiologists that were not active members in the NCTN. This was achieved through in-person informational sessions to introduce the trial at national and international breast imaging meetings, introduction of the trial and the workings of the NCTN network to the radiology community through articles placed in American College of Radiology (ACR) newsletters, ads promoting TMIST on ACR social media platforms, and direct email by the TMIST study chair to key radiology stakeholders. As of February 15, 2021, there are 115 sites open: 106 in the U.S. and 9 internationally with an additional 54 sites planning to open. A total of 39,366 women are enrolled in the trial with two-thirds also consenting to optional blood and/or buccal cell collection. Minority populations’ participation in the trial is over 20%. A significant drop in enrollment occurred in Spring 2020 coinciding with the suspension of mammography services globally due to COVID-19 beginning mid-March 2020. Enrollment and follow-up screening visits for TMIST restarted in May 2020 and gradually ramped back up to pre-COVID totals in September 2020. Our highest monthly accrual so far occurred in November 2020 with 2,148 subjects enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT03233191 .

Recommendations to Streamline and Standardize Clinical Trial Site Feasibility Assessments: An ASCO Research Statement.

Feasibility assessments (FAs) are important to establish site capabilities to conduct clinical trials and their suitability for specific trials. However, current FA methods used by biotechnology and pharmaceutical (biotech-pharma) trial sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) are costly, inefficient, unnecessarily burdensome, and resource intensive. These methods delay trial start-up, act as a barrier to site participation, and ultimately reduce timely patient access to clinical trials and novel treatments. An ASCO Task Force was convened to assess the specific burdens and challenges with FAs and to develop recommendations to improve their efficiencies and effectiveness. Stakeholders (including trial sites, biotech-pharma sponsors, and CROs) provided insights into challenges and offered solutions through two surveys and an in-person meeting. The Task Force used the feedback to formulate consensus recommendations to improve FAs for oncology clinical trials. Three key recommendations were identified for application across all biotech-pharma sponsored trials: (1) implement a streamlined and uniform FA process across trials and sponsors; (2) minimize and standardize questions; and (3) leverage technology to centralize FAs, facilitate communications, and reduce redundancies. There is an urgency to improve the current FA process, which is costly, inconsistent, inefficient, labor intensive, and of uncertain effectiveness. All stakeholders stand to benefit from implementing these recommendations, which aim to minimize burdens and ensure that more trial sites and patients have timely access to oncology clinical trials. To have meaningful impact, adoption and consistent execution of these recommendations across all trials, sponsors, CROs, and sites are essential.

An investigation into the factors affecting investigator-initiated trial start-up in Ireland

BackgroundIn common with many countries, Ireland has seen an increasing trend in the number of clinical trials conducted over the past few years. Yet, as elsewhere, trialists in Ireland face several problems and barriers in the starting-up of clinical trials. These barriers impede trial activity significantly, with consequent impacts on patient care. It is critical to understand these issues, to develop approaches to facilitate trial start up. This study identifies the challenges in conducting clinical trials in Ireland and specifically the contractual, ethical, logistical, and regulatory barriers that hinder the start-up of investigator-led trials in Ireland.MethodsData for this study were collected in two stages. In the first stage, a survey was conducted among trialists in Ireland. A total of 44 trialists responded to the survey, and information was collected about their experience in conducting clinical trials, the scale and nature of their most recently completed trial, and the details of specific barriers they encountered during the starting-up of the trial. In the second stage, nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with the awardees of 2018 Irish Health Research Board’s Definitive Intervention Feasibility Award. These interviews facilitated a deeper exploration of issues and problems in conducting clinical trials in Ireland.ResultsThis study identified several issues and bottlenecks in starting-up clinical trials in Ireland with contracts and ethical approval cited as the major issues. The data shows that site identification and activation was also problematic in some cases. Several respondents reported difficulties in accessing dedicated time for protocol development and believe that support in this area can be greatly beneficial. It was reported that availability of skilled staff members like statisticians and data managers was as an issue, especially for small trials.ConclusionThis study found that several factors impact trial initiation and progression in Ireland. Delays associated with obtaining contract and ethics approval are perceived as major barriers. Specialist supports in areas such as ethics and regulatory affairs and availability of specialised staff members in areas such as statistics and data management are key actions to enable enhanced clinical trial activity in Ireland.

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.

The Platform Vector Gene Therapies Project: Increasing the Efficiency of Adeno-Associated Virus Gene Therapy Clinical Trial Startup.

no abstract.

Drivers of Start-Up Delays in Global Randomized Clinical Trials.

BackgroundGlobal, randomized clinical trials are extremely complex. Trial start-up is a critical phase and has many opportunities for delay which adversely impact the study timelines and budget. Understanding factors that contribute to delay may help clinical trial managers and other stakeholders to work more efficiently, hastening patient access to potential new therapies.MethodsWe reviewed the available literature related to start-up of global, Phase III clinical trials and then created a fishbone diagram detailing drivers contributing to start-up delays. The issues identified were used to craft a checklist to assist clinical trial managers in more efficient trial start-up.ResultsWe identified key drivers for start-up delays in the following categories: regulatory, contracts and budgets, insurance, clinical supplies, site identification and selection, site activation, and inefficient processes/pitfalls.ConclusionInitiating global randomized clinical trials is a complex endeavor, and reasons for delay are well documented in the literature. By using a checklist, clinical trial managers may mitigate some delays and get clinical studies initiated as soon as possible.

When should we order a next generation sequencing test in a patient with cancer?

Technical advances in genome sequencing and the implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in clinical oncology have paved the way for individualizing cancer patient therapy based on molecular profiles. When and how to use NGS testing in the clinic is at present an unsolved issue, although new research results provide evidence favoring this approach in some types of advanced cancer. Clinical research is evolving rapidly, from basket and umbrella trials to adaptative design precision oncology clinical studies, and genomic and molecular data often displace the classical clinical validation procedures of biomarkers. In this context, physicians must be aware of the clinical evidence behind these new biomarkers and NGS tests available, in order to use them in the right moment, and with a critical point of view. This review will present the status of currently available targeted drugs that can be effective based on actionable molecular alterations, and the NGS tests that are currently available, offering a practical guide for the application of Clinical Precision Oncology in the real world routine practice.

Clinical trial feasibility assessment and start-up tool (CTFAST).

e14089 Background: Selecting the right clinical trials for patients remains a challenging job. The better the match between a clinical trial and the target patient population before conducting a study, the more likely the study will successfully reach the target goal of recruitment. We developed a feasibility assessment scoring system based on our vast clinical research experience, managing multiple sites across a large health system, applicable to oncology as well. Methods: Our feasibility team (FT) is responsible for identifying clinical trials and determining if they are an appropriate match for our institution and unique patient population. Once a potential trial is identified, FT performs a feasibility assessment of the research protocol to determine the resources required to conduct the trial. We developed a Clinical Trial Feasibility Assessment &amp; Start-up Tool (CTFAST) to help sites streamline their feasibility assessments and track their trial through the start-up phase. With CTFAST a feasibility score is generated based on the cumulative value assigned to several items such as: sponsor, study type, pharmacokinetic studies, trial phase, etc. A feasibility scale is assigned as follows: &gt; 25 – Accepted; 15-25 – On Hold; &lt; 15- Rejected. Accepted studies are assigned a color coded priority track (fast, intermediate, routine), that allows team members to prioritize their studies accordingly. Once a study is accepted, the study is processed for enrollment. Results: CTFAST has increased productivity and clinical trial revenues by 40%. CTFAST allows for early identification of bottlenecks in workflow, thereby improving outcomes. By appropriately matching of clinical trials to our site, enrollments increased by 50% with an expanded clinical trial portfolio across 9 different departments. Study start-up times have been reduced to a minimum of 21 days and the use of time &amp; effort has been optimized. Conclusions: CTFAST is replicable across all clinical trial sites and provides an expansive and critical feasibility analysis that is not attainable by traditional querying of investigators and questionnaires. It is an excellent work flow improvement tool as it critically analyzes all aspects of a study, prior to enrollment. When conducting an effective feasibility analysis the clinical trial site can optimize clinical trial outcomes.

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.

Systematically Prioritizing Candidates in Genome-Based Drug Repurposing.

Drug repurposing is the application of approved drugs to treat diseases separate and distinct from their original indications. Herein, we define the scope of all practical precision drug repurposing using DrugBank, a publicly available database of pharmacological agents, and BioVU, a large, de-identified DNA repository linked to longitudinal electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. We present a method of repurposing candidate prioritization through integration of pharmacodynamic and marketing variables from DrugBank with quality control thresholds for genomic data derived from the DNA samples within BioVU. Through the synergy of delineated “target-action pairs,” along with target genomics, we identify ∼230 “pairs” that represent all practical opportunities for genomic drug repurposing. From this analysis, we present a pipeline of 14 repurposing candidates across 7 disease areas that link to our repurposability platform and present high potential for randomized controlled trial startup in upcoming months.

Feasibility of a Centralized Clinical Trials Coverage Analysis: A Joint Initiative of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Cancer Institute.

Clinical trial billing compliance is a challenge that is faced by overburdened clinical trials sites. The requirements place institutions and research sites at increased potential for financial risk. To reduce their risk, sites develop a coverage analysis (CA) before opening each trial. For multisite trials, this translates into system-wide redundancies, inconsistencies, trial delays, and potential costs to sites and patients. These factors exacerbate low accrual rates to cancer clinical trials. ASCO and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) collaborated to address this problem. An ASCO Research Community Forum working group proposed the concept of providing centrally developed CAs to research sites at protocol startup. The group collaborated with NCI and billing compliance experts to hold a symposium for key stakeholders to share knowledge, build skills, provide tools to conduct centralized CAs, and strategize about the next steps. Forty-eight attendees, who represented a range of stakeholders, participated in the symposium. As a result of this initiative, NCI directed the Cancer Trials Support Unit to convene a working group with NCI's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) to develop tools and processes for generating CAs for their trials. A CA template with core elements was developed and is being adapted in a pilot project across NCTN Group and NCORP Research Bases. Centralized CAs for multisite trials-using standardized tools and templates-are feasible. They have the potential to reduce risk for patients and sites, forecast budget needs, and help decrease trial startup times that impede patient access and accrual to clinical trials.

Improving Conduct and Feasibility of Clinical Trials to Evaluate Antibacterial Drugs to Treat Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia: Recommendations of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative Antibacterial Drug Development Project Team.

The etiology of hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) is often multidrug-resistant infections. The evaluation of new antibacterial drugs for efficacy in this population is important, as many antibacterial drugs have demonstrated limitations when studied in this population. HABP/VABP trials are expensive and challenging to conduct due to protocol complexity and low patient enrollment, among other factors. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) seeks to advance antibacterial drug development by streamlining HABP/VABP clinical trials to improve efficiency and feasibility while maintaining ethical rigor, patient safety, information value, and scientific validity. In 2013, CTTI engaged a multidisciplinary group of experts to discuss challenges impeding the conduct of HABP/VABP trials. Separate workstreams identified challenges associated with HABP/VABP protocol complexity. The Project Team developed potential solutions to streamline HABP/VABP trials using a Quality by Design approach. CTTI recommendations focus on 4 key areas to improve HABP/VABP trials: informed consent processes/practices, protocol design, choice of an institutional review board (IRB), and trial outcomes. Informed consent processes should include legally authorized representatives. Protocol design decisions should focus on eligibility criteria, prestudy antibacterial therapy considerations, use of new diagnostics, and sample size. CTTI recommends that sponsors use a central IRB and discuss trial endpoints with regulators, including defining a clinical failure and evaluating the impact of concomitant antibacterial drugs. Streamlining HABP/VABP trials by addressing key protocol elements can improve trial startup and patient recruitment/retention, reduce trial complexity and costs, and ensure patient safety while advancing antibacterial drug development.