Please Wait...

Seeking Clarity in the Audit Approach

Many questions still remain several years after the July 2012 ODAC (Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee) Meeting on the "Evaluation of Radiologic Review of Progression-free Survival in Non-Hematologic Malignancies." Further investigation was recommended into the utility of taking an audit approach (central reads of a test sample) to identify potential bias in the local evaluation (LE) of patient data.

During Bioclinica's recently held webinar on 'Critical Regulatory Considerations in Imaging Trials,' attendees were asked to identify any fears associated with utilizing the Auditing Approach in central imaging trial design. The results of the poll are summarized in the graph below. It is interesting to note that the main worry continues to be the non-acceptance by regulators of their trial data during study-filing – confirming industry-wide apprehension over this recent alternative to guidance of past.

Audit methodology review and other discussion takeaways:

  • Certain activities are still required if images are collected, and any portion of them analyzed centrally. There are two proposed audit methodologies, both of which would keep prospective image collection in place, since there is a possibility that a complete central review would be needed. If scans are not collected prospectively during a trial, experience shows that retrospective collection of image data typically results in 30% of the necessary image data being unavailable.
  • Further concerns relate to the auditability of Investigator Site analysis, especially if used as the primary endpoint in regulatory submissions.  Investigators may contract external resources to support image analysis and reproducibility in the form of standard processes as well as system auditability can be challenging.
  • Potential cost savings? Additional costs may be introduced that potentially offset any meaningful savings by only centrally analyzing samples of images. These costs, may include but are not limited to:
    • Central imaging laboratories reduce variability.  Relying on many local site readers increase variability in the endpoint measurements, which may require larger trials with more subjects.
    • Investigator sites may not be prepared to have their procedures and techniques scrutinized during a regulatory inspection.
    • Local site readers whose performance falls outside of acceptable inter/intra observer thresholds. Inter/intra reader monitoring implementation across a network of investigator sites is a difficult and expensive proposition.
    • The services of senior level statisticians would be required to model sample methodology and develop the techniques for comparing the central physician analysis sample to the local reads.
  • Clarity is still being sought when deciding between the need for a full blinded independent radiologic review (BICR) or the alternative auditing methods. There exists many critical points to consider with adoption of this new methodology. Early in the protocol planning stage, consultation with a medical imaging provider, highly experienced with working alongside regulatory agencies, is critical to trial success. View the full on demand webinar for additional insight: Critical Regulatory Considerations for Imaging Trials: What You Need to Know
Category: 

Critical Regulatory Considerations for Imaging Trials: What You Need to Know

LEARN MORE OR SPEAK WITH OUR EXPERTS

CONTACT US
Leader in Clinical Trial
Management Solutions

Successful clinical trials require the ability to see key details and uncover hidden insights. Bioclinica utilizes science and technology to bring clarity to clinical trials, helping companies to develop new life-improving therapies more efficiently and safely.

RT @ACROhealth: @MaryWolleyRA Mary Woolley @ResearchAmerica: 80% have heard of #clinicaltrials. 75% think trial participation is as importa…
bioclinica (3 days ago)
#Pharma & CROs: Ck it out! Enterprise tools for site payments automation & reconciliation. https://t.co/LFri5Kv0WC
bioclinica (3 days ago)
Can having a geographically diverse network of high performing sites mean fewer sites are needed in a trial? Can ha… https://t.co/tZYvWrNzHg
bioclinica (3 days ago)
Confidence is a good thing ─ especially in the clinical supply chain for global clinical trials. Here’s how accurat… https://t.co/70VwXCwuWw
bioclinica (4 days ago)
#Pharmacovigilance: Get up-to-speed on latest ind. trends & best practices + hear how others R meeting today's most… https://t.co/3YNpB9hTXs
bioclinica (1 week ago)
Announcing our new Chief of Staff @bioclinica Adrienne Rossi! Also welcoming President Bioclinica Site Network Eliz… https://t.co/toB9yk534k
bioclinica (2 weeks ago)

Latest Blogs:

Latin America: Benefit from the Right Partner
Removing Risk from Clinical Trial Management System (CTMS) Implementations
Collaboration Between Clinical Operations and the Logistics and Supply Chain Teams is Key to Trial Success
The Value of Protocol Review
CTMS and RBM: Hot Topics at OCT Nordics in Copenhagen