Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology 1/2016

01-02-2016 | Review Article

Statistical challenges for central monitoring in clinical trials: a review

Author: Koji Oba

Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Recently, the complexity and costs of clinical trials have increased dramatically, especially in the area of new drug development. Risk-based monitoring (RBM) has been attracting attention as an efficient and effective trial monitoring approach, which can be applied irrespectively of the trial sponsor, i.e., academic institution or pharmaceutical company. In the RBM paradigm, it is expected that a statistical approach to central monitoring can help improve the effectiveness of on-site monitoring by prioritizing and guiding site visits according to central statistical data checks, as evidenced by examples of actual trial datasets. In this review, several statistical methods for central monitoring are presented. It is important to share knowledge about the role and performance capabilities of statistical methodology among clinical trial team members (i.e., sponsors, investigators, data managers, monitors, and biostatisticians) in order to adopt central statistical monitoring for assessing data quality in the actual clinical trial.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Green SG, Benedetti J, Smith A, et al (2012) Data management and quality control. In: Clinical Trials in Oncology 3rd edn. CRC Press, New York, pp 129–153 Green SG, Benedetti J, Smith A, et al (2012) Data management and quality control. In: Clinical Trials in Oncology 3rd edn. CRC Press, New York, pp 129–153
3.
go back to reference Journot V, Pignon JP, Gaultier C et al (2011) Validation of a risk-assessment scale and a risk-adaptive monitoring plan for academic clinical research studies—the pre-optimon study. Contemp Clin Trials 32:16–24CrossRefPubMed Journot V, Pignon JP, Gaultier C et al (2011) Validation of a risk-assessment scale and a risk-adaptive monitoring plan for academic clinical research studies—the pre-optimon study. Contemp Clin Trials 32:16–24CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Venet D, Doffagne E, Burzykowski T et al (2012) A statistical approach to central monitoring of data quality in clinical trials. Clin Trials 9:705–713CrossRefPubMed Venet D, Doffagne E, Burzykowski T et al (2012) A statistical approach to central monitoring of data quality in clinical trials. Clin Trials 9:705–713CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Buyse M, George S, Evans S et al (1999) The role of biostatistics in detection and treatment of fraud in clinical trials. Stat Med 18:3435–3451CrossRefPubMed Buyse M, George S, Evans S et al (1999) The role of biostatistics in detection and treatment of fraud in clinical trials. Stat Med 18:3435–3451CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Evans S (2008) Statistical aspects of the detection of fraud. In: Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research. The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd., London, pp 161–176 Evans S (2008) Statistical aspects of the detection of fraud. In: Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research. The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd., London, pp 161–176
11.
go back to reference Kirkwood AA, Cox T, Hackshaw A (2013) Application of methods for central statistical monitoring in clinical trials. Clin Trials 10:783–806CrossRefPubMed Kirkwood AA, Cox T, Hackshaw A (2013) Application of methods for central statistical monitoring in clinical trials. Clin Trials 10:783–806CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Zink R (2014) Risk-based monitoring and fraud detection in clinical trials using JMP and SAS. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, pp 44–47 Zink R (2014) Risk-based monitoring and fraud detection in clinical trials using JMP and SAS. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, pp 44–47
13.
go back to reference Lindblad AS, Manukyan Z, Purohit-Sheth T et al (2014) Central site monitoring: results from a test of accuracy in identifying trials and sites failing Food and Drug Administration inspection. Clin Trials 11:205–217CrossRefPubMed Lindblad AS, Manukyan Z, Purohit-Sheth T et al (2014) Central site monitoring: results from a test of accuracy in identifying trials and sites failing Food and Drug Administration inspection. Clin Trials 11:205–217CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Baigent C, Harrell FE, Buyse M et al (2008) Ensuring trial validity by data quality assurance and diversification of monitoring methods. Clin Trials 5:49–55CrossRefPubMed Baigent C, Harrell FE, Buyse M et al (2008) Ensuring trial validity by data quality assurance and diversification of monitoring methods. Clin Trials 5:49–55CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference O’Kelly M (2004) Using statistical techniques to detect fraud: a test case. Pharm Stat 3:237–246CrossRef O’Kelly M (2004) Using statistical techniques to detect fraud: a test case. Pharm Stat 3:237–246CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Taylor RN, McEntegart DJ, Stillman EC (2002) Statistical techniques to detect fraud and other data irregularities in clinical questionnaire data. Drug Inf J 36:115–125CrossRef Taylor RN, McEntegart DJ, Stillman EC (2002) Statistical techniques to detect fraud and other data irregularities in clinical questionnaire data. Drug Inf J 36:115–125CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Al-Marzouki S, Evans S, Marchall T et al (2005) Are these data real? Statistical methods for the detection of data fabrication in clinical trials. BMJ 331:267–270PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Al-Marzouki S, Evans S, Marchall T et al (2005) Are these data real? Statistical methods for the detection of data fabrication in clinical trials. BMJ 331:267–270PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Edwards P, Shakur H, Barnetson L et al (2014) Central and statistical data monitoring in the clinical randomisation of an antifibrinolytic in significant haemorrhage (CRASH-2) trial. Clin Trials 11:336–343CrossRef Edwards P, Shakur H, Barnetson L et al (2014) Central and statistical data monitoring in the clinical randomisation of an antifibrinolytic in significant haemorrhage (CRASH-2) trial. Clin Trials 11:336–343CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Zink R, Wolfinger R, Mann G (2013) Summarizing the incidence of adverse events using volcano plots and time intervals. Clin Trials 10:398–406CrossRefPubMed Zink R, Wolfinger R, Mann G (2013) Summarizing the incidence of adverse events using volcano plots and time intervals. Clin Trials 10:398–406CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Tsuburaya A, Yoshida K, Kobayashi M et al (2014) Sequential paclitaxel followed by tegafur and uracil (UFT) or S1 versus UFT or S1 monotherapy as adjuvant chemotherapy for T4a/b gastric cancer (SAMIT): a phase 3 factorial randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:886–893CrossRefPubMed Tsuburaya A, Yoshida K, Kobayashi M et al (2014) Sequential paclitaxel followed by tegafur and uracil (UFT) or S1 versus UFT or S1 monotherapy as adjuvant chemotherapy for T4a/b gastric cancer (SAMIT): a phase 3 factorial randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:886–893CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Timmermans C, Doffagne E, Venet D, et al (2015). Using central statistical monitoring to assess data quality and consistency in the stomach cancer adjuvant multi-institutional group trial (SAMIT). (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1007/s10120-015-0533-9 Timmermans C, Doffagne E, Venet D, et al (2015). Using central statistical monitoring to assess data quality and consistency in the stomach cancer adjuvant multi-institutional group trial (SAMIT). (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.​1007/​s10120-015-0533-9
Metadata
Title
Statistical challenges for central monitoring in clinical trials: a review
Author
Koji Oba
Publication date
01-02-2016
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Oncology / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1341-9625
Electronic ISSN: 1437-7772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0914-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

International Journal of Clinical Oncology 1/2016 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine