Data Monitoring Committees and clinical trials: From scientific justification to organisation.

Clinical trials often last several months or even several years. As the trial progresses, it can be tempting to find out whether the data obtained already answers the question posed at the start of the trial in order to stop inclusions or monitoring earlier. However, knowing and taking into account interim results can sometimes compromise the integrity of the results, which is counterproductive. To minimise this risk and ensure that the treatments are assessed reliably, safety and/or efficacy criteria are monitored during the study by a Data Monitoring Committee. After receiving the results confidentially, the Data Monitoring Committee assesses the benefit/risk ratio of the study treatment and recommends that the trial be continued, modified or terminated. Data Monitoring Committee members issuing these recommendations have an important responsibility: a hasty decision to end the trial may lead to inconclusive results unable to answer the initial question and, inversely, delaying the decision to end the trial may expose the subjects to potentially ineffective or even harmful interventions. The Data Monitoring Committee's task is therefore particularly complex. With this in mind, the round table discussion at the Giens workshops was a chance to review the scientific justification for creating Data Monitoring Committees and to recall the need for their members to receive comprehensive training on the complexities of multiple analyses, confidentiality requirements applying to the results and the need for them to be aware that recommendations to end a trial must be based on data that is robust enough to assess the benefit/risk ratio of the treatment studied.

[Clinical research activity of the French cancer cooperative network: Overview and perspectives]. / Activité de recherche clinique académique des investigateurs du réseau des Groupes coopérateurs en oncologie (GCO) : bilan et perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The French Cancer Plan 2014-2019 stresses the importance of strengthening collaboration between all stakeholders involved in the fight against cancer, including cancer cooperative groups and intergroups. This survey aimed to describe the basics characteristics and clinical research activity among the Cancer Cooperative Groups (Groupes coopérateurs en oncologie). The second objective was to identify facilitators and barriers to their research activity. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all the clinicians involved in 2014 as investigators in a clinical trial sponsored by one of the ten members of the Cancer Cooperative Groups network. The questions were related to their profile, research activity and the infrastructure existing within their healthcare center to support clinical research and related compliance activities. RESULTS: In total, 366 investigators responded to our survey. The academic clinical trials sponsored by the Cancer Cooperative Groups represented an important part of the research activity of the investigators in France in 2014. These academic groups contributed to the opening of many research sites throughout all regions in France. Factors associated with a higher participation of investigators (more than 10 patients enrolled in a trial over a year) include the existing support of healthcare professionals (more than 2 clinical research associate (CRA) OR=11.16 [3.82-32.6] compared to none) and the practice of their research activity in a University Hospital Center (CHU) rather than a Hospital Center (CH) (OR=2.15 [1.20-3.83]). CONCLUSION: This study highlighted factors that can strengthen investigator clinical research activities and subsequently improve patient access to evidence-based new cancer therapies in France.

Longitudinal quality of life study in patients with metastatic gastric cancer. Analysis modalities and clinical applicability of QoL in randomized phase II trial in a digestive oncology.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the longitudinal quality of life (QoL) between LV5FU2-irinotecan and LV5FU2 alone or LV5FU2-cisplatin in a randomized Phase II trial in patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Among 134 eligible patients, QLQ-C30 scores were collected and described at each 2 monthly follow-up visit during 6 months. The frequencies of QLQ-C30 score improvement were calculated and mixed models for repeated measurements were applied with or without extreme poorest imputation for missing scores. The "survival" until definitive global health score (GHS) deterioration was estimated. RESULTS: At the 3rd follow-up, patients with a stable or improved global health ranged from 11% in the LV5FU2-cisplatin arm to 18% in the LV5FU2-irinotecan arm. The irinotecan-based-therapy presented 14 to 15 scores with a better QoL. The time until definitive GHS deterioration was globally similar between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: This study highlights a better impact of LV5FU2-irinotecan and the interest of QoL assessment in phase II trials to complement the risk-benefit judgement.