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.

A phase II study of capecitabine and lapatinib in advanced refractory colorectal adenocarcinoma: A Wisconsin Oncology Network study.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis remains poor after progression on first-line chemotherapy for colorectal adenocarcinoma, and inactivation of the EGFR pathway with monoclonal antibodies is an effective treatment strategy in selected patients with metastatic disease. Lapatinib is an oral EGFR and HER-2 dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has not shown significant activity in metastatic colorectal cancer. However, lapatinib may act synergistically with capecitabine in anticancer effects. METHODS: This was an open-label, non-randomized phase II study of lapatinib 1,250 mg orally daily and capecitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) by mouth split into twice-daily dosing for 14 days of a 21 days cycle. Inclusion criteria included metastatic or locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum with progression by RECIST on or within six months of receiving a fluoridopyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-containing regimen. Prior EGFR monoclonal antibody was permitted. K-ras testing was not routinely performed and was not a part of the study protocol. RESULTS: Twenty nine patients (16 M; 13 F) were enrolled in this study. There were no complete or partial responses. 41.4% of patients achieved stable disease as a best response. Median overall survival was 6.8 months, with a 1-year survival rate of 22%, and median progression-free survival was 2.1 months. The combination produced few grade 3 and no grade 4 toxicities. No grade 3 toxicity occurred in more than 10% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although capecitabine and lapatinib is well tolerated, it is not an effective regimen in patients with refractory colorectal adenocarcinoma.