Conducting Non-COVID-19 Clinical Trials during the Pandemic: Can Today's Learning Impact Framework Efficiency?

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted non-coronavirus clinical trials. In the case of life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, this is particularly dangerous, as treatment cannot simply be stopped. In the EU, guidelines for the management of ongoing studies were issued; however, national coordination is still lacking. This article aims to raise awareness on the struggle of managing ongoing clinical trials in the EU during the pandemic. The goals are to bring attention, from a legal and regulatory point of view to the difficulties faced by those involved in clinical research, and to critically position the current hurdles against the backdrop of the existing legal and ethical framework. We investigated the EU guidance and the national approaches of all EU/EEA Member States, and critically discussed selected issues. We argue that the crisis may be an opportunity to foresee meaningful changes in the EU clinical trials framework post-COVID-19.

Collaboration between EORTC and JCOG-how to accelerate global clinical research partnership.

The demand for international collaboration in cancer clinical trials has grown stronger to maximize efficiency, avoid duplication of effort and to achieve effective implementation of research results into medical practice. Infrastructures that could facilitate intercontinental collaboration not only between Europe and United States but also between Europe and Asia are urgently needed. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, one of the major cancer clinical research infrastructure in Europe, initiated collaboration with the Japan Clinical Oncology Group, the largest cancer research cooperative group in Japan. Their first pilot trial on unresectable colorectal liver metastasis will commence on fourth quarter of 2016. With similar goals and strategies as well as with similar structures, the two research organizations have a great potential for efficient collaboration that could deliver faster and global therapeutic improvement to cancer patients. However, international collaboration requires careful and structured approach to harmonize activities to ensure success. This article focuses on specific intercontinental differences and the necessary requirements to ensure a successful partnership between European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Japan Clinical Oncology Group. This could serve as a model to build more global international academic trials between the East and the West.

Rethinking informed consent in the time of COVID-19: An exploratory survey.

Background: Owing to the infectious nature of COVID-19, alternative solutions, such as electronic informed consent (eIC), needed to be implemented to inform research participants about study-related information and to obtain their consent. This study aimed to investigate stakeholders' experiences with alternative consenting methods as well as their views on any regulatory or legal guidelines for eIC implementation in clinical research. Results may serve as the cornerstone to rethink the informed consent process in clinical research. Materials and methods: This study consisted of an online survey among three stakeholder groups across European Union (EU) Member States and the United Kingdom. The stakeholder groups included (i) investigators, (ii) data protection officers (DPOs) or legal experts working in the pharmaceutical industry, academia, and academic biobanks, and (iii) ethics committee (EC) members. Data collection occurred between April and December 2021. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: The online survey was completed by 191 respondents, of whom 52% were investigators. Respondents were active in 24 out of the 27 EU Member States and the United Kingdom. The majority of each stakeholder group considered validated electronic methods moderately or extremely useful to re-consent previously enrolled research participants upon study amendments or to obtain consent from COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, this exploratory survey identified that only 13% of DPOs/legal experts, 26% of investigators, and 41% of EC members had experience with eIC. In addition, results suggest that the legal acceptance of eIC across EU Member States and the United Kingdom is variable and that a definition of eIC, issued by national law or policy, is rarely available. The results also showed that the COVID-19 pandemic brought additional challenges to inform participants and to obtain their consent; for example, related to travel restrictions. Conclusion: A number of alternative consenting methods were recommended, for example by the European Medicines Agency, to ensure clinical study continuation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although stakeholders support the use of eIC in clinical research, it seems that the experience with eIC is low. To harmonize eIC practices as much as possible, further investments in multi-stakeholder, multi-national guidance are needed.

Challenges related to data protection in clinical research before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: An exploratory study.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic brought global disruption to health, society and economy, including to the conduct of clinical research. In the European Union (EU), the legal and ethical framework for research is complex and divergent. Many challenges exist in relation to the interplay of the various applicable rules, particularly with respect to compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This study aimed to gain insights into the experience of key clinical research stakeholders [investigators, ethics committees (ECs), and data protection officers (DPOs)/legal experts working with clinical research sponsors] across the EU and the UK on the main challenges related to data protection in clinical research before and during the pandemic. Materials and methods: The study consisted of an online survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Data collection occurred between April and December 2021. Survey data was analyzed descriptively, and the interviews underwent a framework analysis. Results and conclusion: In total, 191 respondents filled in the survey, of whom fourteen participated in the follow-up interviews. Out of the targeted 28 countries (EU and UK), 25 were represented in the survey. The majority of stakeholders were based in Western Europe. This study empirically elucidated numerous key legal and ethical issues related to GDPR compliance in the context of (cross-border) clinical research. It showed that the lack of legal harmonization remains the biggest challenge in the field, and that it is present not only at the level of the interplay of key EU legislative acts and national implementation of the GDPR, but also when it comes to interpretation at local, regional and institutional levels. Moreover, the role of ECs in data protection was further explored and possible ways forward for its normative delineation were discussed. According to the participants, the pandemic did not bring additional legal challenges. Although practical challenges (for instance, mainly related to the provision of information to patients) were high due to the globally enacted crisis measures, the key problematic issues on (cross-border) health research, interpretations of the legal texts and compliance strategies remained largely the same.

Cross-Border Access to Clinical Trials in the EU: Exploratory Study on Needs and Reality.

Objectives: To analyze the current situation of cross-border access to clinical trials in the EU with an overview of stakeholders' real-life experience, and to identify the needs, challenges, and potential for facilitation of cross-border access. Methods: We employed a mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews and an online survey were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders: patient representatives, investigators/physicians, policy and regulatory experts, academic and commercial sponsor representatives, ethics committee members. Interviews underwent a framework analysis. The survey was analyzed descriptively. Results: Three hundred ninety six individuals responded to the survey. The majority were investigators/physicians (46%) and patient representatives (33%). Thirty eight individuals were interviewed. The majority were investigators/physicians (29%) and patient representatives (29%). All European regions were represented in the study. The highest response rate was received from residents of Western European countries (38% of survey respondents, 45% of interviewees), the lowest from Eastern Europe (9% of survey respondents, 5% of interviewees). The study suggested that cross-border participation in clinical trials occurs in practice, however very rarely. Ninety two percentage of survey respondents and the majority of interviewees perceived as needed the possibility to access clinical trials abroad. However, most interviewees also opined that patients ideally should not have to travel in order to access experimental treatment. The lack of access to treatment in the home country of the patient was described as the main motivation to participate in a clinical trial in another country. The logistical and financial burden for patients was perceived as the biggest challenge. Different stakeholders expressed diverging opinions regarding the allocation of financial and organizational responsibility for enabling cross-border access to clinical trials. Participants provided a number of proposals for improving the current system, which were carefully evaluated by the research team and informed future recommendations. Conclusions: Participation in clinical trials abroad is happening rarely but should be facilitated. There was a consensus on the need for reliable and accessible information regarding practical aspects, as well as multi-stakeholder, multi-national recommendations on existing options and best practice on cross-border access to clinical trials. Broader interdisciplinary research is recommended before discussing options in the EU legislative framework to enable clearly defined conditions for cross-border access to clinical trials.

Current models, challenges and best practices for work conducted between European academic cooperative groups and industry.

BACKGROUND: The academia-industry interface is important, and, despite challenges that inevitably occur, bears the potential for positive synergies to emerge. Perceived barriers to wider collaboration in academia-industry oncology research in Europe need to be addressed, current academic cooperative group and industry models for collaboration need to be discussed, and a common terminology to facilitate understanding of both sectors' concerns needs to be established with an eye towards improving academia-industry partnerships on clinical trials for the benefit of patients with cancer. METHODOLOGY: CAREFOR (Clinical Academic Cancer Research Forum), a multi-stakeholder platform formed to improve the direction for academic clinical trials in the field of oncology in Europe, formed the CAREFOR-Industry Working Group comprised of experienced professionals from European academic cooperative groups joined by industry representatives selected based on their activities in the area of medical oncology. They jointly discussed academic cooperative groups, clinical trials conducted between academic cooperative groups and industry, examples of successful collaborative models, common legal negotiation points in clinical trial contracts, data access, and principles of interaction. RESULTS: Four principles of interaction between the academia and industry are proposed: (1) clarify the roles and responsibilities of all partners involved in the study, (2) involve legal teams from an early stage; (3) acknowledge that data is an important output of the study, (4) agree on the intent of the trial prior to its start. CONCLUSIONS: The CAREFOR-Industry Working Group describes current models, challenges, and effective strategies for academia-industry research in Europe with an eye towards improving academia-industry partnerships on clinical trials for patients with cancer. Current perceived challenges are explained, and future opportunities/recommendations for improvement are described for the areas of most significant impact. Challenges are addressed from both the academic and industry perspectives, and principles of interaction for the optimal alignment between academia and industry in selected areas are proposed.

Gynecological Cancers Translational, Research Implementation, and Harmonization: Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup Consensus and Still Open Questions.

In the era of personalized medicine, the introduction of translational studies in clinical trials has substantially increased their costs, but provides the possibility of improving the productivity of trials with a better selection of recruited patients. With the overall goal of creating a roadmap to improve translational design for future gynecological cancer trials and of defining translational goals, a main discussion was held during a brainstorming day of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Translational Research Committee and overall conclusions are here reported. A particular emphasis was dedicated to the new frontier of the immunoprofiling of gynecological cancers. The discussion pointed out that to maximize patients' benefit, translational studies should be integral to clinical trial design with standardization and optimization of procedures including a harmonization program of Standard Operating Procedures. Pathology-reviewed sample collection should be mandatory and ensured by dedicated funding. Biomarker validation and development should be made public and transparent to ensure rapid progresses with positive outcomes for patients. Guidelines/templates for patients' informed consent are needed. Importantly for the public, recognized goals are to increase the involvement of advocates and to improve the reporting of translational data in a forum accessible to patients.

Making Change Happen in Health.

Integrating personalised medicine into Europe's healthcare systems will undoubtedly need to draw upon diverse talents via a multi-stakeholder approach taking expertise from academia, industry, healthcare organisations, government, policymakers and, of course, patient groups. It will also need a long-term budget commitment geared towards stimulating research and innovation in order to succeed. The role of HTA also needs to be boosted, while EU engagement in health needs to increase, not decrease, and requires a long-term strategy to provide a structure, a framework, and a consensus. Health equals wealth and the authors argue here that investment in research and innovation, alongside laws and rules that are fit-for-purpose and reflect the swiftly changing world of medicine, are vital. Europe needs to grasp these points at every level for the benefit of the millions of potential patients spread across the soon-to-be 27 Member States.

Safeguarding the future of independent, academic clinical cancer research in Europe for the benefit of patients.

Cancer is a complex disease that is constantly evolving. It is now the most common cause of death in Europe after cardiovascular diseases. There are inequalities among European countries, potentially unsustainable healthcare systems impacting quality of cancer care and increasing number of patients with cancer with rare conditions. Clinical and translational research are the backbone in establishing scientific advances as novel treatments and advancing progress to the benefit of patients. Commercially sponsored clinical trials are responsible for developing new medicines that can treat various disease areas, including cancer. It is important to note, however, that these clinical trials only assess the viability of compounds that are chosen by a commercial entity that funds the entire process. By their design and focus, these trials need to fulfil commercial interests and market expectations, which do not always coincide with patients' needs. As soon or even before novel treatments and compounds obtain formal market authorisation, academia will take these existing and new medicines to further conduct research in order to optimise their use, develop new combinations and with a strong focus on the patients and their needs. Established standard of care most commonly relies on clinical cancer research stemming from non-commercial entities, cooperative groups or academic clinical research. This article provides a consensus on the definition of academic research, illustrates its added value and suggests and calls to European Union institutions to support this type of research for the benefit of patients.

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Colorectal Cancer. A critical review.

BACKGROUND: ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Colorectal cancer: essential requirements for quality care CONCLUSION: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality CRC service. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a 'one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary units or centres must be guaranteed for all those with CRC.

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Soft Tissue Sarcoma in Adults and Bone Sarcoma. A critical review.

BACKGROUND: ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Sarcoma: essential requirements for quality care • Sarcomas - which can be classified into soft tissue and bone sarcomas - are rare, but all rare cancers make up more than 20% of cancers in Europe, and there are substantial inequalities in access to high-quality care. Sarcomas, of which there are many subtypes, comprise a particularly complex and demanding challenge for healthcare systems and providers. This paper presents essential requirements for quality cancer care of soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. • High-quality care must only be carried out in specialised sarcoma centres (including paediatric cancer centres) which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Access to such units is far from universal in all European countries. • It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for high-quality comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis and follow-up, to treatment, to improve survival and quality of life for patients. CONCLUSION: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality service for soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a 'one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary teams is guaranteed to all patients with sarcoma.

Accelerating the Development and Validation of New Value-Based Diagnostics by Leveraging Biobanks.

The challenges faced in developing value-based diagnostics has resulted in few of these tests reaching the clinic, leaving many treatment modalities without matching diagnostics to select patients for particular therapies. Many patients receive therapies from which they are unlikely to benefit, resulting in worse outcomes and wasted health care resources. The paucity of value-based diagnostics is a result of the scientific challenges in developing predictive markers, specifically: (1) complex biology, (2) a limited research infrastructure supporting diagnostic development, and (3) the lack of incentives for diagnostic developers to invest the necessary resources. Better access to biospecimens can address some of these challenges. Methodologies developed to evaluate biomarkers from biospecimens archived from patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials offer the greatest opportunity to develop and validate high-value molecular diagnostics. An alternative opportunity is to access high-quality biospecimens collected from large public and private longitudinal observational cohorts such as the UK Biobank, the US Million Veteran Program, the UK 100,000 Genomes Project, or the French E3N cohort. Value-based diagnostics can be developed to work in a range of samples including blood, serum, plasma, urine, and tumour tissue, and better access to these high-quality biospecimens with clinical data can facilitate biomarker research.

Clinical Trials, Data Protection and Patient Empowerment in the Era of the New EU Regulations.

Cancer clinical trials and, in general, cancer clinical research by definition need a multi-modality approach. It is not enough to discover and register new drugs. To get cancer under control requires us to perform complex clinical studies that integrate drugs, companion diagnostics, new or improved surgical procedures and new radiotherapy approaches as well as, most importantly, to integrate all available information. This includes biological material and, of increasing importance, large amounts of data using big data technologies. To personalise treatment, genetic data are more and more frequently used. Therefore, the general approach is holistic. Legislators, on the other hand, work in a silo mentality; the needs of clinical research are poorly understood, and legislation focuses on either health care or the commercialisation of a product, and not on clinical research. In the last 2 years the EU has drafted several major regulations touching on clinical trials, in vitro diagnostics, medical devices and data protection, all of which will impact clinical research, although the silo mentality makes the overall framework inconsistent and potentially highly damaging to the EU's capacity to make rapid progress in the field of personalised medicine.

Clinical trial designs for rare diseases: studies developed and discussed by the International Rare Cancers Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The past three decades have seen rapid improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of most cancers and the most important contributor has been research. Progress in rare cancers has been slower, not least because of the challenges of undertaking research. SETTINGS: The International Rare Cancers Initiative (IRCI) is a partnership which aims to stimulate and facilitate the development of international clinical trials for patients with rare cancers. It is focused on interventional--usually randomized--clinical trials with the clear goal of improving outcomes for patients. The key challenges are organisational and methodological. A multi-disciplinary workshop to review the methods used in ICRI portfolio trials was held in Amsterdam in September 2013. Other as-yet unrealised methods were also discussed. RESULTS: The IRCI trials are each presented to exemplify possible approaches to designing credible trials in rare cancers. Researchers may consider these for use in future trials and understand the choices made for each design. INTERPRETATION: Trials can be designed using a wide array of possibilities. There is no 'one size fits all' solution. In order to make progress in the rare diseases, decisions to change practice will have to be based on less direct evidence from clinical trials than in more common diseases.

International clinical trials setting for rare cancers: organisational and regulatory constraints-the EORTC perspective.

Rare diseases are a serious public health problem that presents unique challenges to many countries. There is no internationally accepted definition for rare diseases. Patients suffering from rare cancers often face challenges, including late or incorrect diagnoses, difficulties finding clinical expertise and accessing appropriate treatments, and uncertainty in clinical decision making, with difficult and rare access for these patients to clinical trials. Treatment choice is difficult as little information is available in the literature. In such situations, clinicians will base treatment decisions on retrospective data or case report series with a lower scientific level of evidence than that obtained from randomised controlled clinical trials. The only way forward is clinical trials organisation, but to perform it within rare indications we are always faced with many methodological, regulatory, and organisational challenges, besides stakeholders' different views, which are not usually concurrent. The aims of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) are to develop, conduct, coordinate, and stimulate translational and clinical research in Europe to improve the management of cancer and related problems by increasing survival but also patient quality of life. In particular, extensive and comprehensive research in the field of rare cancers is beyond the means of individual European hospitals and can be best accomplished through the multidisciplinary multinational efforts of basic scientists and clinicians. In this paper, we will present an overview of the clinical research scene for rare cancers and will try to propose possible steps to improve the current situation.

Phase III intergroup study of fludarabine phosphate compared with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with stage III and IV low-grade malignant Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of fludarabine phosphate with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) in 381 previously untreated, advanced-stage, low-grade (lg) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients in a phase III, multicenter study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1993 and 1997, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with either fludarabine (25 mg/m2 intravenously [IV] daily for 5 days every 4 weeks) or CVP (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 IV on day 1; vincristine, 1.4 mg/m2 IV on day 1; and prednisone, 40 mg/m2 orally on days 1 through 5 every 4 weeks). Results Overall response (OR) rates were significantly improved in the fludarabine arm versus the CVP arm, both for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and assessable patients (P < .001). Complete response (CR) rates in the ITT population were also higher after fludarabine treatment. The CR rate was 38.6% for fludarabine compared with 15.0% for CVP. There were no statistically significant differences in time to progression (TTP), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall survival (OS) between treatment groups. WHO grades 3 and 4 hematologic adverse events were more common in the fludarabine arm. However, concerning the higher incidence of granulocytopenia, this did not translate to more infections in fludarabine-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Newly diagnosed lgNHL patients who received fludarabine achieved higher OR and CR rates compared with CVP-treated patients. No differences in TTP, TTF, and OS were noted. Fludarabine is a highly active single agent in lgNHL. Combination therapies incorporating fludarabine are now being further evaluated as first-line therapy in follicular NHL.