Impact of Workforce Challenges and Funds Flow on Cancer Clinical Trial Development and Conduct.

The conduct of clinical cancer research has faced considerable challenges in recent years, and the situation has only been exacerbated by the global pandemic. The growing complexity of clinical trials and rising administrative burdens had been causing greater expense and difficulty in recruiting and retaining an appropriately trained workforce even before the well-publicized increase in turnover caused by the pandemic. Longstanding issues such as restrictive inclusion criteria and complicated trial designs have negatively affected already low clinical trial accrual rates, limited sites capable of opening studies and enrolling patients, and worsened disparities in trial participation. Opposing these elements are efforts by ASCO and other organizations to increase affordability, access, and equity in clinical trial enrollment. To provide diverse perspectives on how these challenges are affecting cancer research as we emerge from the pandemic, we asked a panel of experienced clinical research leaders from both academic and community cancer centers to answer questions they felt most pressing about the business of conducting clinical research today and where they felt the field was moving in the near future.

Feasibility of a Centralized Clinical Trials Coverage Analysis: A Joint Initiative of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: Clinical trial billing compliance is a challenge that is faced by overburdened clinical trials sites. The requirements place institutions and research sites at increased potential for financial risk. To reduce their risk, sites develop a coverage analysis (CA) before opening each trial. For multisite trials, this translates into system-wide redundancies, inconsistencies, trial delays, and potential costs to sites and patients. These factors exacerbate low accrual rates to cancer clinical trials. ASCO and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) collaborated to address this problem. METHODS: An ASCO Research Community Forum working group proposed the concept of providing centrally developed CAs to research sites at protocol startup. The group collaborated with NCI and billing compliance experts to hold a symposium for key stakeholders to share knowledge, build skills, provide tools to conduct centralized CAs, and strategize about the next steps. RESULTS: Forty-eight attendees, who represented a range of stakeholders, participated in the symposium. As a result of this initiative, NCI directed the Cancer Trials Support Unit to convene a working group with NCI's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) to develop tools and processes for generating CAs for their trials. A CA template with core elements was developed and is being adapted in a pilot project across NCTN Group and NCORP Research Bases. CONCLUSION: Centralized CAs for multisite trials-using standardized tools and templates-are feasible. They have the potential to reduce risk for patients and sites, forecast budget needs, and help decrease trial startup times that impede patient access and accrual to clinical trials.

Assessing Clinical Trial-Associated Workload in Community-Based Research Programs Using the ASCO Clinical Trial Workload Assessment Tool.

PURPOSE: Clinical research program managers are regularly faced with the quandary of determining how much of a workload research staff members can manage while they balance clinical practice and still achieve clinical trial accrual goals, maintain data quality and protocol compliance, and stay within budget. A tool was developed to measure clinical trial-associated workload, to apply objective metrics toward documentation of work, and to provide clearer insight to better meet clinical research program challenges and aid in balancing staff workloads. A project was conducted to assess the feasibility and utility of using this tool in diverse research settings. METHODS: Community-based research programs were recruited to collect and enter clinical trial-associated monthly workload data into a web-based tool for 6 consecutive months. Descriptive statistics were computed for self-reported program characteristics and workload data, including staff acuity scores and number of patient encounters. RESULTS: Fifty-one research programs that represented 30 states participated. Median staff acuity scores were highest for staff with patients enrolled in studies and receiving treatment, relative to staff with patients in follow-up status. Treatment trials typically resulted in higher median staff acuity, relative to cancer control, observational/registry, and prevention trials. Industry trials exhibited higher median staff acuity scores than trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, academic institutions, or others. CONCLUSION: The results from this project demonstrate that trial-specific acuity measurement is a better measure of workload than simply counting the number of patients. The tool was shown to be feasible and useable in diverse community-based research settings.