Capacity for Cancer Care Delivery Research in National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program Community Practices: Availability of Radiology and Primary Care Research Partners.

PURPOSE: Cancer care spans the spectrum from screening and diagnosis through therapy and into survivorship. Delivering appropriate care requires patient transitions across multiple specialties, such as primary care, radiology, and oncology. From the program's inception, the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites were tasked with conducting cancer care delivery research (CCDR) that evaluates structural, organizational, and social factors, including care transitions that determine patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to describe the capacity of the NCORP to conduct multidisciplinary CCDR that includes radiology and primary care practices. METHODS: The NCORP includes 34 community and 12 minority and underserved community sites. The Landscape Capacity Assessment was conducted in 2015 across these 46 sites, composed of the 401 components and subcomponents designated to conduct CCDR. Each respondent had the opportunity to designate an operational practice group, defined as a group of components and subcomponents with common care practices and resources. The primary outcomes were the proportion of adult oncology practice groups with affiliated radiology and primary care practices. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of those affiliated radiology and primary care groups that participate in research. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of components and subcomponents responded to at least some portion of the assessment, representing 230 practice groups. Analyzing the 201 adult oncology practice groups, 85% had affiliated radiologists, 69% of whom participate in research. Seventy-nine percent had affiliated primary care practitioners, 31% of whom participate in research. Institutional size, multidisciplinary group practice, and ownership by large regional or multistate health systems was associated with research participation by affiliated radiology and primary care groups. Research participation by these affiliated specialists was not significantly different between the community and the minority and underserved community sites. CONCLUSIONS: Research relationships exist between the majority of community oncology sites and affiliated radiology practices. Research relationships with affiliated primary care practices lagged. NCORP as a whole has the opportunity to encourage continued and expanded engagement where relationships exist. Where no relationship exists, the NCORP can encourage recruitment, particularly of primary care practices as partners.

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.

Negotiating for success: navigating the contracting process for an exemplary research program.

Developing successful contracts is imperative for research sites conducting company-sponsored or investigator-initiated clinical trials. Good contracts help ensure sustainability and guide how research will be conducted.