The Translational Research Working Group developmental pathways: introduction and overview.

The Translational Research Working Group (TRWG) was created as a national initiative to evaluate the current status of the National Cancer Institute's investment in translational research and envision its future in an inclusive, representative, and transparent manner. To clarify the challenges facing translational research and facilitate its deliberations, the TRWG conceptualized translational research as a set of developmental processes or pathways focused on various clinical goals. Drawing on the collective knowledge of the TRWG members, six pathways were derived, with two addressing the development of tools designed to characterize an individual's cancer-related health status (biospecimen-based and image-based assessment modalities) and four addressing the development of interventions intended to change cancer-related health status (drugs or biological agents, immune response modifiers, interventive devices, and life-style alterations). The pathways, which share a number of common structural elements, are graphically represented by schematic flowcharts that capture relevant contingencies, decision points, and interdependencies. They are conceived not as comprehensive descriptions of the corresponding real-world processes but as tools designed to serve specific purposes including research program management and research project management, coordination of research efforts, and professional and lay education and communication. Further development of the pathways is encouraged, as is application of the pathway concept to translational research on other diseases.

Cancer Care Delivery Research: Building the Evidence Base to Support Practice Change in Community Oncology.

Understanding how health care system structures, processes, and available resources facilitate and/or hinder the delivery of quality cancer care is imperative, especially given the rapidly changing health care landscape. The emerging field of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) focuses on how organizational structures and processes, care delivery models, financing and reimbursement, health technologies, and health care provider and patient knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors influence cancer care quality, cost, and access and ultimately the health outcomes and well-being of patients and survivors. In this article, we describe attributes of CCDR, present examples of studies that illustrate those attributes, and discuss the potential impact of CCDR in addressing disparities in care. We conclude by emphasizing the need for collaborative research that links academic and community-based settings and serves simultaneously to accelerate the translation of CCDR results into practice. The National Cancer Institute recently launched its Community Oncology Research Program, which includes a focus on this area of research.

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.