Meeting the Challenge: The National Cancer Institute's Central Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a new policy that requires a single institutional review board (IRB) of record be used for all protocols funded by the NIH that are carried out at more than one site in the United States, effective January 2018. This policy affects several hundred clinical trials opened annually across the NIH. Limited data exist to compare the use of a single IRB to that of multiple local IRBs, so some institutions are resistant to or distrustful of single IRBs. Since 2001, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has funded a central IRB (CIRB) that provides human patient reviews for its extensive national cancer clinical trials program. This paper presents data to show the adoption, efficiencies gained, and satisfaction of the CIRB among NCI trial networks and reviews key lessons gleaned from 16 years of experience that may be informative for others charged with implementation of the new NIH single-IRB policy.

Implementation of timeline reforms speeds initiation of National Cancer Institute-sponsored trials.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) organized the Operational Efficiency Working Group in 2008 to develop recommendations for improving the speed with which NCI-sponsored clinical trials move from the idea stage to a protocol open to patient enrollment. METHODS: Given the many stakeholders involved, the Operational Efficiency Working Group advised a multifaceted approach to mobilize the entire research community to improve their business processes. New staff positions to monitor progress, protocol-tracking Web sites, and strategically planned conference calls were implemented. NCI staff and clinical teams at Cooperative Groups and Cancer Centers strived to achieve new target timelines but, most important, agreed to abide by absolute deadlines. For phase I-II studies and phase III studies, the target timelines are 7 months and 10 months, whereas the absolute deadlines were set at 18 and 24 months, respectively. Trials not activated by the absolute deadline are automatically disapproved. RESULTS: The initial experience is encouraging and indicates a reduction in development times for phase I-II studies from the historical median of 541 days to a median of 442 days, an 18.3% decrease. The experience with phase III studies to date, although more limited (n = 25), demonstrates a 45.7% decrease in median days. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon this progress, the NCI and the investigator community have agreed to reduce the absolute deadlines to 15 and 18 months for phase I-II and III trials, respectively. Emphasis on initiating trials rapidly is likely to help reduce the time it takes for clinical trial results to reach patients in need of new treatments.