Open AccessAcademic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development
Author(s) -
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.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the oncologist
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.176
H-Index - 164
eISSN - 1549-490X
pISSN - 1083-7159
DOI - 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409
Subject(s) - rubric , medicine , phase (matter) , bureaucracy , cancer , clinical trial , center (category theory) , grant funding , family medicine , medical education , psychology , pathology , political science , chemistry , mathematics education , organic chemistry , politics , law , crystallography , public administration
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.