Sylvia S Rhodes, Janelle E Jesikiewicz, Nikhil Yegya-Raman, Kavya Prasad, Alexandra Dreyfuss, David A Mankoff, Neil K Taunk
{"title":"优化使用放射性药物的临床方案的监管审查:宾夕法尼亚大学辐射研究安全委员会的研究成果。","authors":"Sylvia S Rhodes, Janelle E Jesikiewicz, Nikhil Yegya-Raman, Kavya Prasad, Alexandra Dreyfuss, David A Mankoff, Neil K Taunk","doi":"10.1097/HP.0000000000001873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Institutional radiation safety committees review research studies with radiation exposure. However, ensuring that the potential patient benefit and knowledge gained merit the radiation risks involved often necessitates revisions that inadvertently delay protocol activations. This quality-improvement study analyzed protocols, identified factors associated with approval time by a radiation safety committee, and developed guidelines to expedite reviews without compromising quality. Clinical protocols submitted to the University of Pennsylvania's Radiation Research Safety Committee (RRSC) for review between 2017 and 2021 were studied. Protocol characteristics, review outcome, stipulations, and approval times were summarized. Statistical analysis (Spearman's rho) was used to investigate stipulations and approval time; rank-sum analysis (Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon) was used to determine whether approval time differed by protocol characteristics. One hundred ten (110) protocols were analyzed. Approximately two-thirds of protocols used approved radiopharmaceuticals to aid investigational therapy trials. Twenty-three percent (23%) of protocols received RRSC approval, and 73% had approval withheld with stipulations, which included requests for edits or additional information. Submissions had a median of three stipulations. Median and mean RRSC approval times were 62 and 80.1 d, and 41% of protocols received RRSC approval after IRB approval. RRSC approval time was positively correlated with stipulations (Spearman's rho = 0. 632, p < 0.001). RRSC approval time was longer for studies using investigational new drugs (median 80 d) than approved radiopharmaceuticals (median 57 d, p = 0.05). The review process is lengthy and may benefit from changes, including publishing standardized radiation safety language and commonly required documents and encouraging timely response to stipulations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":" ","pages":"702-711"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing Regulatory Reviews for Clinical Protocols That Use Radiopharmaceuticals: Findings of the University of Pennsylvania Radiation Research Safety Committee.\",\"authors\":\"Sylvia S Rhodes, Janelle E Jesikiewicz, Nikhil Yegya-Raman, Kavya Prasad, Alexandra Dreyfuss, David A Mankoff, Neil K Taunk\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HP.0000000000001873\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Institutional radiation safety committees review research studies with radiation exposure. However, ensuring that the potential patient benefit and knowledge gained merit the radiation risks involved often necessitates revisions that inadvertently delay protocol activations. This quality-improvement study analyzed protocols, identified factors associated with approval time by a radiation safety committee, and developed guidelines to expedite reviews without compromising quality. Clinical protocols submitted to the University of Pennsylvania's Radiation Research Safety Committee (RRSC) for review between 2017 and 2021 were studied. Protocol characteristics, review outcome, stipulations, and approval times were summarized. Statistical analysis (Spearman's rho) was used to investigate stipulations and approval time; rank-sum analysis (Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon) was used to determine whether approval time differed by protocol characteristics. One hundred ten (110) protocols were analyzed. Approximately two-thirds of protocols used approved radiopharmaceuticals to aid investigational therapy trials. Twenty-three percent (23%) of protocols received RRSC approval, and 73% had approval withheld with stipulations, which included requests for edits or additional information. Submissions had a median of three stipulations. Median and mean RRSC approval times were 62 and 80.1 d, and 41% of protocols received RRSC approval after IRB approval. RRSC approval time was positively correlated with stipulations (Spearman's rho = 0. 632, p < 0.001). RRSC approval time was longer for studies using investigational new drugs (median 80 d) than approved radiopharmaceuticals (median 57 d, p = 0.05). The review process is lengthy and may benefit from changes, including publishing standardized radiation safety language and commonly required documents and encouraging timely response to stipulations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12976,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health physics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"702-711\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000001873\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000001873","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Optimizing Regulatory Reviews for Clinical Protocols That Use Radiopharmaceuticals: Findings of the University of Pennsylvania Radiation Research Safety Committee.
Abstract: Institutional radiation safety committees review research studies with radiation exposure. However, ensuring that the potential patient benefit and knowledge gained merit the radiation risks involved often necessitates revisions that inadvertently delay protocol activations. This quality-improvement study analyzed protocols, identified factors associated with approval time by a radiation safety committee, and developed guidelines to expedite reviews without compromising quality. Clinical protocols submitted to the University of Pennsylvania's Radiation Research Safety Committee (RRSC) for review between 2017 and 2021 were studied. Protocol characteristics, review outcome, stipulations, and approval times were summarized. Statistical analysis (Spearman's rho) was used to investigate stipulations and approval time; rank-sum analysis (Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon) was used to determine whether approval time differed by protocol characteristics. One hundred ten (110) protocols were analyzed. Approximately two-thirds of protocols used approved radiopharmaceuticals to aid investigational therapy trials. Twenty-three percent (23%) of protocols received RRSC approval, and 73% had approval withheld with stipulations, which included requests for edits or additional information. Submissions had a median of three stipulations. Median and mean RRSC approval times were 62 and 80.1 d, and 41% of protocols received RRSC approval after IRB approval. RRSC approval time was positively correlated with stipulations (Spearman's rho = 0. 632, p < 0.001). RRSC approval time was longer for studies using investigational new drugs (median 80 d) than approved radiopharmaceuticals (median 57 d, p = 0.05). The review process is lengthy and may benefit from changes, including publishing standardized radiation safety language and commonly required documents and encouraging timely response to stipulations.
期刊介绍:
Health Physics, first published in 1958, provides the latest research to a wide variety of radiation safety professionals including health physicists, nuclear chemists, medical physicists, and radiation safety officers with interests in nuclear and radiation science. The Journal allows professionals in these and other disciplines in science and engineering to stay on the cutting edge of scientific and technological advances in the field of radiation safety. The Journal publishes original papers, technical notes, articles on advances in practical applications, editorials, and correspondence. Journal articles report on the latest findings in theoretical, practical, and applied disciplines of epidemiology and radiation effects, radiation biology and radiation science, radiation ecology, and related fields.