Academic cancer center phase i program development

Arthur E. Frankel; Keith T. Flaherty; George J. Weiner; Robert Chen; Nilofer S. Azad; Michael J. Pishvaian; John A. Thompson; Matthew H. Taylor; Daruka Mahadevan; A. Craig Lockhart; Ulka N. Vaishampayan; Jordan D. Berlin; David C. Smith; John Sarantopoulos; Matthew Riese; Mansoor N. Saleh; Chul Ahn; Eugene P. Frenkel

doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

Academic cancer center phase i program development

Arthur E. Frankel, Keith T. Flaherty, George J. Weiner, Robert Chen, Nilofer S. Azad, Michael J. Pishvaian, John A. Thompson, Matthew H. Taylor, Daruka Mahadevan, A. Craig Lockhart, Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Jordan D. Berlin, David C. Smith, John Sarantopoulos, Matthew Riese, Mansoor N. Saleh, Chul Ahn, Eugene P. Frenkel

Producción científica: Comment/debate › revisión exhaustiva

Resumen

Multiple 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.

Idioma original	English (US)
Páginas (desde-hasta)	369-374
Número de páginas	6
Publicación	Oncologist
Volumen	22
N.º	4
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409
Estado	Published - abr 2017
Publicado de forma externa	Sí

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Medicine

Acceder al documento

10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

Otros archivos y enlaces

Citar esto

Frankel, A. E., Flaherty, K. T., Weiner, G. J., Chen, R., Azad, N. S., Pishvaian, M. J., Thompson, J. A., Taylor, M. H., Mahadevan, D., Lockhart, A. C., Vaishampayan, U. N., Berlin, J. D., Smith, D. C., Sarantopoulos, J., Riese, M., Saleh, M. N., Ahn, C., & Frenkel, E. P. (2017). Academic cancer center phase i program development. Oncologist, 22(4), 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

Frankel, AE, Flaherty, KT, Weiner, GJ, Chen, R, Azad, NS, Pishvaian, MJ, Thompson, JA, Taylor, MH, Mahadevan, D, Lockhart, AC, Vaishampayan, UN, Berlin, JD, Smith, DC, Sarantopoulos, J, Riese, M, Saleh, MN, Ahn, C & Frenkel, EP 2017, 'Academic cancer center phase i program development', Oncologist, vol. 22, n.º 4, pp. 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

@article{32ee1cfb6caa4412b04a6c88d4415e26,

title = "Academic cancer center phase i program development",

abstract = "Multiple 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.",

author = "Frankel, {Arthur E.} and Flaherty, {Keith T.} and Weiner, {George J.} and Robert Chen and Azad, {Nilofer S.} and Pishvaian, {Michael J.} and Thompson, {John A.} and Taylor, {Matthew H.} and Daruka Mahadevan and Lockhart, {A. Craig} and Vaishampayan, {Ulka N.} and Berlin, {Jordan D.} and Smith, {David C.} and John Sarantopoulos and Matthew Riese and Saleh, {Mansoor N.} and Chul Ahn and Frenkel, {Eugene P.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2017 The Authors.",

year = "2017",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "22",

pages = "369--374",

journal = "Oncologist",

issn = "1083-7159",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Academic cancer center phase i program development

AU - Frankel, Arthur E.

AU - Flaherty, Keith T.

AU - Weiner, George J.

AU - Chen, Robert

AU - Azad, Nilofer S.

AU - Pishvaian, Michael J.

AU - Thompson, John A.

AU - Taylor, Matthew H.

AU - Mahadevan, Daruka

AU - Lockhart, A. Craig

AU - Vaishampayan, Ulka N.

AU - Berlin, Jordan D.

AU - Smith, David C.

AU - Sarantopoulos, John

AU - Riese, Matthew

AU - Saleh, Mansoor N.

AU - Ahn, Chul

AU - Frenkel, Eugene P.

PY - 2017/4

Y1 - 2017/4

N2 - Multiple 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.

AB - Multiple 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017435066&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017435066&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

DO - 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 28314841

AN - SCOPUS:85017435066

SN - 1083-7159

VL - 22

SP - 369

EP - 374

JO - Oncologist

JF - Oncologist

IS - 4

ER -

Academic cancer center phase i program development

Resumen

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Acceder al documento

Otros archivos y enlaces

Huella

Citar esto