Standard requirements for GCP-compliant data management in multinational clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A recent survey has shown that data management in clinical trials performed by academic trial units still faces many difficulties (e.g. heterogeneity of software products, deficits in quality management, limited human and financial resources and the complexity of running a local computer centre). Unfortunately, no specific, practical and open standard for both GCP-compliant data management and the underlying IT-infrastructure is available to improve the situation. For that reason the "Working Group on Data Centres" of the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) has developed a standard specifying the requirements for high quality GCP-compliant data management in multinational clinical trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>International, European and national regulations and guidelines relevant to GCP, data security and IT infrastructures, as well as ECRIN documents produced previously, were evaluated to provide a starting point for the development of standard requirements. The requirements were produced by expert consensus of the ECRIN Working group on Data Centres, using a structured and standardised process. The requirements were divided into two main parts: an IT part covering standards for the underlying IT infrastructure and computer systems in general, and a Data Management (DM) part covering requirements for data management applications in clinical trials.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The standard developed includes 115 IT requirements, split into 15 separate sections, 107 DM requirements (in 12 sections) and 13 other requirements (2 sections). Sections IT01 to IT05 deal with the basic IT infrastructure while IT06 and IT07 cover validation and local software development. IT08 to IT015 concern the aspects of IT systems that directly support clinical trial management. Sections DM01 to DM03 cover the implementation of a specific clinical data management application, i.e. for a specific trial, whilst DM04 to DM12 address the data management of trials across the unit. Section IN01 is dedicated to international aspects and ST01 to the competence of a trials unit's staff.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The standard is intended to provide an open and widely used set of requirements for GCP-compliant data management, particularly in academic trial units. It is the intention that ECRIN will use these requirements as the basis for the certification of ECRIN data centres.</p

Standard requirements for GCP-compliant data management in multinational clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: A recent survey has shown that data management in clinical trials performed by academic trial units still faces many difficulties (e.g. heterogeneity of software products, deficits in quality management, limited human and financial resources and the complexity of running a local computer centre). Unfortunately, no specific, practical and open standard for both GCP-compliant data management and the underlying IT-infrastructure is available to improve the situation. For that reason the "Working Group on Data Centres" of the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) has developed a standard specifying the requirements for high quality GCP-compliant data management in multinational clinical trials. METHODS: International, European and national regulations and guidelines relevant to GCP, data security and IT infrastructures, as well as ECRIN documents produced previously, were evaluated to provide a starting point for the development of standard requirements. The requirements were produced by expert consensus of the ECRIN Working group on Data Centres, using a structured and standardised process. The requirements were divided into two main parts: an IT part covering standards for the underlying IT infrastructure and computer systems in general, and a Data Management (DM) part covering requirements for data management applications in clinical trials. RESULTS: The standard developed includes 115 IT requirements, split into 15 separate sections, 107 DM requirements (in 12 sections) and 13 other requirements (2 sections). Sections IT01 to IT05 deal with the basic IT infrastructure while IT06 and IT07 cover validation and local software development. IT08 to IT015 concern the aspects of IT systems that directly support clinical trial management. Sections DM01 to DM03 cover the implementation of a specific clinical data management application, i.e. for a specific trial, whilst DM04 to DM12 address the data management of trials across the unit. Section IN01 is dedicated to international aspects and ST01 to the competence of a trials unit's staff. CONCLUSIONS: The standard is intended to provide an open and widely used set of requirements for GCP-compliant data management, particularly in academic trial units. It is the intention that ECRIN will use these requirements as the basis for the certification of ECRIN data centres.</p

Clinical Impact of Circulating Tumor RAS and BRAF Mutation Dynamics in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With First-Line Chemotherapy Plus Anti–Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Therapy

PURPOSE RAS and BRAF mutations can be detected as a mechanism of acquired resistance in circulating tumor (ct) DNA in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with anti–epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. METHODS RAS and BRAF mutational status was assessed in ctDNA in a baseline plasma sample and a serum sample collected at the time of the last available determination (named secondary extraction) from patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated in two first-line prospective biomarker-designed clinical trials (PULSE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01288339; and POSIBA, ClincialTrials.gov identifier: NCT01276379). RESULTS Analysis of extended RAS and BRAF in tissue and plasma from 178 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer showed a sensitivity of 64.1% and a specificity of 90%. The median overall survival (OS) of baseline patients with RAS and BRAF mutations in ctDNA was 22.3 months (95% CI, 15.6 to 29 months) and 8.9 months (95% CI, 6.3 to 11.4 months), respectively, which was significantly inferior to the median OS of 40.4 months (95% CI, 35.9 to 44.9 months) in two patients with wild-type disease ( P &lt; .001). Acquisition of RAS/BRAF mutations occurred in nine of 63 patients (14%) with progressive disease (PD; ie, blood draw within 1 month before PD or after PD) compared with six of 73 patients (8%) with no PD or blood extraction for ctDNA analysis before 1 month of PD ( P = .47). Median OS in patients with RAS/BRAF acquisition was 23.9 months (95% CI, 19.7 to 27.9 months) compared with 40.6 months (95% CI, not reached to not reached) in patients who remained free of mutations ( P = .016). CONCLUSION Our results confirm that baseline RAS and BRAF testing in ctDNA discriminates survival. The emergence of RAS/BRAF mutations has limited relevance for the time to progression to anti–epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. </jats:sec