Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T21:37:56.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Central IRB Review Is an Essential Requirement for Cancer Clinical Trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Lowell E. Schnipper
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are compelling medical, ethical, and legal arguments that support mandating use of a central institutional review board (CIRB) for the review of clinical trials performed at multiple institutional sites. Progress against serious diseases depends on this.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 45 , Issue 3: Symposium - Controversies in Clinical Research Ethics , Fall 2017 , pp. 341 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NIH, available at <https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/researchtraining/initiatives/pmi/20160516-pmi-infographic.jpg>..>Google Scholar
Tan, D. S., Yom, S. S., Tsao, M. S., and Pass, H. I. et. al., “The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Consensus Statement on Optimizing Management of EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Status in 2016,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology 11, no. 7 (2016): 946–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Nuremberg Code (1947), in Mitscherlich, A. and Mielke, F., Doctors of Infamy: The Story of the Nazi Medical Crimes (New York: Schuman, 1949): at xxiii-xxv.Google Scholar
Snežana, B., Bošnjak, , “The Declaration of Helsinki: The Cornerstone of Research Ethics,” Archive of Oncology 9, no. 3 (2001): 179-184.Google Scholar
CDC, “Tuskegee Study – Timeline,” NCHHSTP, June 25, 2008.Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW), The Belmont Report, September 30, 1978 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
45CFR.46 111; Grady, C., “Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges,” Chest 148, no. 5 (2015): 1148-1155.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
American Society of Clinical Oncology, “Policy Statement: Oversight of Clinical Research,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 21, no. 12 (2003): 2377-2386.Google Scholar
Check, D. K., Weinfurt, K. P., and Dombeck, C. B. et al., “Use of Central Institutional Review Boards for Multicenter Clinical Trials in the United States: A Review of the Literature,” Clinical Trials 10 (2013): 560-567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FDA, “Institutional Review boards,” 21 CFR56, April 1, 2010.Google Scholar
HHS, “Use of a Central IRB: Menikoff to McDeavitt, April 30, 2010,” available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/april-30-2010-letter-to-dr-james-mcdeavitt/index.html#> (last visited July 28, 2017).+(last+visited+July+28,+2017).>Google Scholar
NIH, available at <http://osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/resources/revisedlocalconstext.pdf>..>Google Scholar
NIH, available at <http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-clinical-research-and-bioethics-policy/clinical-research-policy/models-irb-review>..>Google Scholar
HHS, “Attachment F: Recommendations Regarding the Draft NIH Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board for Multi-site Research,” available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp-committee/recommendations/2015-april-24-attachment-f/index.html> (last visited July 28, 2017).+(last+visited+July+28,+2017).>Google Scholar
See supra note 8.Google Scholar
Goldberg, J., 2016, personal communication with author.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Check et al., supra note 10; Flynn, K. E., Hahn, C. L., Kramer, J. M., Check, D. K., and Dombeck, C. B. et al., “Using Central IRBs for Multicenter Clinical Trials in the United States,” PLOS ONE 8, no. 1 (2013): e54999.Google Scholar
Ravina, B., Deuel, L., Siderowf, A., and Dorsey, E. R., “Local Institutional Review Board (IRB) Review of a Multicenter Trial: Local Costs without Local Context,” Annals of Neurology 67 (2010): 258-260.Google Scholar
Stark, A. R., Tyson, J. E., and Hibberd, P. L., “Variation among Institutional Review Boards in Evaluating the Design of a Multicenter Randomized Trial,” Journal of Perinatololgy 30 (2010): 163-169.Google Scholar
Helfand, B. T., Mongiu, A. K., and Roehrborn, C. G. et al., Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Surgical Trial,” Journal of Urology 181 (2009): 2674-2679.Google Scholar
Wagner, T. H., Murray, C., Goldberg, J., Adler, J. M., and Abrams, J., “Costs and Benefits of the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 28 (2010): 662-666.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Flynn, et al., supra note 19.Google Scholar
See Ravina et al., supra note 20; The Lancet Neurology. “NeuroNEXT: Accelerating Drug Development in Neurology,” The Lancet Neurology 11 (2012): 119; Kaufmann, P. and O'Rourke, P. P., “Central Institutional Review Board Review for an Academic Trial Network,” Academic Medicine 90, no. 3 (2015): 321–323.Google Scholar