Academic cancer center phase i program development

Arthur E. Frankel, Keith T. Flaherty, George J. Weiner, Robert Chen, Nilofer S. Azad, Michael J. Pishvaian, John A. Thompson, Matthew H. Taylor, Daruka Mahadevan, A. Craig Lockhart, Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Jordan D. Berlin, David C. Smith, John Sarantopoulos, Matthew Riese, Mansoor N. Saleh, Chul Ahn, Eugene P. Frenkel

    Research output: Research - peer-reviewComment/debate

    Abstract

    Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.

    LanguageEnglish (US)
    Pages369-374
    Number of pages6
    JournalOncologist
    Volume22
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

    Fingerprint

    Program Development
    Neoplasms
    Research
    Research Personnel
    Clinical Trials
    Physicians

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Oncology
    • Cancer Research

    Cite this

    Frankel, A. E., Flaherty, K. T., Weiner, G. J., Chen, R., Azad, N. S., Pishvaian, M. J., ... Frenkel, E. P. (2017). Academic cancer center phase i program development. Oncologist, 22(4), 369-374. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

    Academic cancer center phase i program development. / Frankel, Arthur E.; Flaherty, Keith T.; Weiner, George J.; Chen, Robert; Azad, Nilofer S.; Pishvaian, Michael J.; Thompson, John A.; Taylor, Matthew H.; Mahadevan, Daruka; Lockhart, A. Craig; Vaishampayan, Ulka N.; Berlin, Jordan D.; Smith, David C.; Sarantopoulos, John; Riese, Matthew; Saleh, Mansoor N.; Ahn, Chul; Frenkel, Eugene P.

    In: Oncologist, Vol. 22, No. 4, 01.04.2017, p. 369-374.

    Research output: Research - peer-reviewComment/debate

    Frankel, AE, Flaherty, KT, Weiner, GJ, Chen, R, Azad, NS, Pishvaian, MJ, Thompson, JA, Taylor, MH, Mahadevan, D, Lockhart, AC, Vaishampayan, UN, Berlin, JD, Smith, DC, Sarantopoulos, J, Riese, M, Saleh, MN, Ahn, C & Frenkel, EP 2017, 'Academic cancer center phase i program development' Oncologist, vol 22, no. 4, pp. 369-374. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409
    Frankel AE, Flaherty KT, Weiner GJ, Chen R, Azad NS, Pishvaian MJ et al. Academic cancer center phase i program development. Oncologist. 2017 Apr 1;22(4):369-374. Available from, DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409
    Frankel, Arthur E. ; Flaherty, Keith T. ; Weiner, George J. ; Chen, Robert ; Azad, Nilofer S. ; Pishvaian, Michael J. ; Thompson, John A. ; Taylor, Matthew H. ; Mahadevan, Daruka ; Lockhart, A. Craig ; Vaishampayan, Ulka N. ; Berlin, Jordan D. ; Smith, David C. ; Sarantopoulos, John ; Riese, Matthew ; Saleh, Mansoor N. ; Ahn, Chul ; Frenkel, Eugene P./ Academic cancer center phase i program development. In: Oncologist. 2017 ; Vol. 22, No. 4. pp. 369-374
    @article{3b6d76a96c87490cbb67c0b827907ee7,
    title = "Academic cancer center phase i program development",
    abstract = "Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.",
    author = "Frankel, {Arthur E.} and Flaherty, {Keith T.} and Weiner, {George J.} and Robert Chen and Azad, {Nilofer S.} and Pishvaian, {Michael J.} and Thompson, {John A.} and Taylor, {Matthew H.} and Daruka Mahadevan and Lockhart, {A. Craig} and Vaishampayan, {Ulka N.} and Berlin, {Jordan D.} and Smith, {David C.} and John Sarantopoulos and Matthew Riese and Saleh, {Mansoor N.} and Chul Ahn and Frenkel, {Eugene P.}",
    year = "2017",
    month = "4",
    doi = "10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409",
    volume = "22",
    pages = "369--374",
    journal = "Oncologist",
    issn = "1083-7159",
    publisher = "AlphaMed Press",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Academic cancer center phase i program development

    AU - Frankel,Arthur E.

    AU - Flaherty,Keith T.

    AU - Weiner,George J.

    AU - Chen,Robert

    AU - Azad,Nilofer S.

    AU - Pishvaian,Michael J.

    AU - Thompson,John A.

    AU - Taylor,Matthew H.

    AU - Mahadevan,Daruka

    AU - Lockhart,A. Craig

    AU - Vaishampayan,Ulka N.

    AU - Berlin,Jordan D.

    AU - Smith,David C.

    AU - Sarantopoulos,John

    AU - Riese,Matthew

    AU - Saleh,Mansoor N.

    AU - Ahn,Chul

    AU - Frenkel,Eugene P.

    PY - 2017/4/1

    Y1 - 2017/4/1

    N2 - Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.

    AB - Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017435066&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017435066&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

    DO - 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

    M3 - Comment/debate

    VL - 22

    SP - 369

    EP - 374

    JO - Oncologist

    T2 - Oncologist

    JF - Oncologist

    SN - 1083-7159

    IS - 4

    ER -