Pediatric oncology clinical trial participation where the geography is vast: Development of a clinical research system for tertiary and satellite centers in Ontario, Canada.

Opportunities for participation in clinical trials are a core component of the care of children with cancer. In Ontario, many pediatric patients live long distances from their cancer center. This paper describes the work that was done in order to allow patients participating in Children's Oncology Group trials to receive care, including research protocol related care, jointly between the tertiary pediatric cancer center and the closer-to-home satellite center. The system is a pragmatic risk-based model, supporting excellence in care while ensuring good conduct of the research in compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines, including ethics oversight.

Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board: lessons learned from developing a multicenter regional institutional review board.

PURPOSE: We describe issues and outcomes in the development of a specialized, central institutional review board (IRB) for multicenter oncology protocols. Numerous authoritative bodies have called for a change to the ethics review system to better manage multicenter trials in terms of quality, timeliness, and efficiency. In 2003, the American Society of Clinical Oncology proposed a network of regional IRBs for cancer. Previous experience with central IRBs has been met with mixed success. METHODS: We took a bottom-up approach to organizing a province-wide IRB, which was led by an IRB chair and a clinical investigator at one cancer center. Participation on the part of institutions was voluntary. RESULTS: Uptake in the first 2 years was modest and increased from 11 clinical trials in year 1 to 21 in year 2. In the third year, there was an apparent upsurge in the number of involved centers (14) and in the number of submitted clinical protocols (54). CONCLUSION: Sponsors and investigators are loath to risk development of a novel IRB until there is a clear demonstration of quality, efficiency, and timeliness of decision. Development of a regional, specialized IRB requires considerable efforts to develop and maintain the trust of sponsors, investigators, and institutions despite prior demands for more efficient and timely ethics review. Voluntary institutional participation, clear delineation of roles and responsibilities, and effective execution promote development of this trust.

Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of oral contraceptives co-administered with alosetron (Lotronex).

The 5-HT3 receptor antagonist alosetron (Lotronex) is indicated for use in women with severe, chronic, diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) who have failed conventional therapy. Oral contraceptives (OCs) and alosetron are potential co-medications in women of childbearing age. This study assessed the effect of alosetron co-administration on pharmacodynamic markers of contraceptive efficacy, on the pharmacokinetics of estrogen and progesterone OC components, and on the activity of biochemical markers for the risk of thrombosis. This was an open label, nonrandomized two-way crossover study in 18 healthy women stabilized for 3 months on a low-dose OC containing ethinyl estradiol (EE) and levonorgestrel (LN). Alosetron had no effect on serum concentrations of luteinizing hormone (LH) or follicle-stimulating hormone. Ovarian activity grades (assessing follicle size, progesterone, and 17beta-estradiol concentrations) were similar during OC use with and without alosetron. Steady-state (Day 21) AUC24, Cmax, and tmax of both LN and EE were similar during coadministration of alosetron with an OC. Concentrations and activity of biochemical markers of thrombosis risk were not different in the presence of alosetron. These results indicate that alosetron does not alter the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamic markers of efficacy for a low-dose combination OC. The results also suggest that thromboembolic risk is not increased when alosetron is co-administered with an OC.