Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 24, No 28 (October 1), 2006: pp. 4553-4557
© 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.7819
Processes to Activate Phase III Clinical Trials in a Cooperative Oncology Group: The Case of Cancer and Leukemia Group B
David M. Dilts,
Alan B. Sandler,
Matthew Baker,
Steven K. Cheng,
Stephen L. George,
Kathleen S. Karas,
Stephen McGuire,
Gourija S. Menon,
Jason Reusch,
Debbie Sawyer,
Maren Scoggins,
Amy Wu,
Kai Zhou,
Richard L. Schilsky
From the Center for Management Research in Healthcare; Management of Technology Program; Owen Graduate School of Management; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN; and Cancer and Leukemia Group B, Chicago, IL
Address reprint requests to David M. Dilts, PhD, Owen Graduate School of Management, 401 21st Ave S, Nashville, TN 37203; e-mail: david.dilts{at}vanderbilt.edu
PURPOSE: National Cancer Institute–sponsored cooperative oncology groups are major sponsors of phase III clinical trials, yet the time and steps required to design and activate such studies has not been well studied. We examine the processes and document the calendar time required to activate such studies opened by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB).
METHODS: Setup steps were documented by (1) interviewing CALGB headquarters and statistical center staff and committee chairs to discover the steps required to transit from concept development to final study activation, (2) reviewing procedure manuals, and (3) inspecting all study records, documents, and e-mails to identify any additional steps. Calendar time was collected for each major process.
RESULTS: Thirteen phase III studies were activated by CALGB during the study period of May 2002 to May 2005. More than 370 distinct processes were required for study activation: 317 work steps, 42 decision points, and 29 processing loops. Sixty-three percent of the decision points were outside CALGB. The complete process map measures 243.5" x 41" in 8-point font. Median calendar days to activate a phase III study at CALGB was 580 days (range, 295 to 1,248 days) from concept approval and 784 days (range, 537 to 1,130 days) from initial conception of the study.
CONCLUSION: Setup of a phase III study at a major cooperative oncology group is a complex and lengthy process, with the majority of decision points external to the cooperative group. To improve the activation process, research should to be directed toward both internal and external groups and processes.
Supported by Grant No. CA 31946 from the National Cancer Institute to R.L.S. and by subcontract to D.M.D. and A.B.S.
Presented in part at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, June 2-6, 2006, Atlanta, GA.
Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
Related Correspondence
- Processes to Activate Phase III Clinical Trials in a Cooperative Oncology Group: The Elephant Is Monstrous
David P. Steensma
JCO 2007 25: 1148
[Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
R. Kurzrock, S. Pilat, M. Bartolazzi, D. Sanders, J. Van Wart Hood, S. D. Tucker, K. Webster, M. A. Mallamaci, S. Strand, E. Babcock, et al.
Project Zero Delay: A Process for Accelerating the Activation of Cancer Clinical Trials
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 10, 2009;
27(26):
4433 - 4440.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. A. McJoynt, M. A. Hirzallah, D. V. Satele, J. H. Pitzen, S. R. Alberts, and S. V. Rajkumar
Building a Protocol Expressway: The Case of Mayo Clinic Cancer Center
J. Clin. Oncol.,
August 10, 2009;
27(23):
3855 - 3860.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. R. Luce, J. M. Kramer, S. N. Goodman, J. T. Connor, S. Tunis, D. Whicher, and J. S. Schwartz
Rethinking Randomized Clinical Trials for Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Need for Transformational Change
Ann Intern Med,
August 4, 2009;
151(3):
206 - 209.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Dilts, A. B. Sandler, S. K. Cheng, J. S. Crites, L. B. Ferranti, A. Y. Wu, S. Finnigan, S. Friedman, M. Mooney, and J. Abrams
Steps and Time to Process Clinical Trials at the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program
J. Clin. Oncol.,
April 10, 2009;
27(11):
1761 - 1766.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. P. Steensma
The Ordinary Miracle of Cancer Clinical Trials
J. Clin. Oncol.,
April 10, 2009;
27(11):
1737 - 1739.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. W. Glickman, J. G. McHutchison, E. D. Peterson, C. B. Cairns, R. A. Harrington, R. M. Califf, and K. A. Schulman
Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of Clinical Research
N. Engl. J. Med.,
February 19, 2009;
360(8):
816 - 823.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. P. Peters
Cooperative Groups Are Not...
Arch Intern Med,
October 27, 2008;
168(19):
2172 - 2173.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Dilts, A. Sandler, S. Cheng, J. Crites, L. Ferranti, A. Wu, R. Gray, J. MacDonald, D. Marinucci, and R. Comis
Development of Clinical Trials in a Cooperative Group Setting: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
Clin. Cancer Res.,
June 1, 2008;
14(11):
3427 - 3433.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. R. Bressler and R. L. Schilsky
Collaboration Between Cooperative Groups and Industry
J. Oncol. Pract,
May 1, 2008;
4(3):
140 - 141.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. B. Benson III
From Silos to a Critical Path of New Agent Development: A Paradigm to Revolutionize Clinical Research
J. Clin. Oncol.,
April 20, 2008;
26(12):
1924 - 1925.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Dilts and A. B. Sandler
In Reply
J. Clin. Oncol.,
April 20, 2007;
25(12):
1634 - 1634.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Dilts and A. Sandler
In Reply
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 20, 2007;
25(9):
1148 - 1149.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
