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。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Health physics Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1097/HP.0000000000001873
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:机构辐射安全委员会负责审查有辐射照射的研究项目。然而,为了确保潜在的患者获益和获得的知识能够抵消辐射风险,往往需要对方案进行修订,从而无意中延误了方案的启动。这项质量改进研究分析了研究方案,确定了与辐射安全委员会审批时间相关的因素,并制定了在不影响质量的前提下加快审查速度的指导原则。研究人员对 2017 年至 2021 年期间提交给宾夕法尼亚大学辐射研究安全委员会(RRSC)审查的临床方案进行了研究。总结了方案特征、审查结果、规定和批准时间。统计分析(Spearman's rho)用于调查规定和批准时间;秩和分析(Kruskal-Wallis 或 Wilcoxon)用于确定批准时间是否因方案特征而异。共分析了 110 份方案。约有三分之二的方案使用已获批准的放射性药物来辅助研究性治疗试验。23%的方案获得了RRSC的批准,73%的方案在获得批准的同时附有规定,其中包括要求编辑或提供更多信息。提交方案的规定中位数为三项。RRSC 批准时间的中位数和平均值分别为 62 天和 80.1 天,41% 的方案在获得 IRB 批准后才获得 RRSC 批准。RRSC 批准时间与规定呈正相关(Spearman's rho = 0. 632,p < 0.001)。与已批准的放射性药物(中位数为 57 d,p = 0.05)相比,使用研究性新药的研究的 RRSC 批准时间更长(中位数为 80 d)。审查过程冗长,可能会因改革而受益,包括发布标准化的辐射安全语言和通常要求的文件,以及鼓励对规定做出及时回应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health physics
Health physics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
324
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY . 2025 AFFILIATE MEMBERS. Response to Dapra comments on "How Hermann J. Muller Viewed the Ernest Sternglass Contributions to Hereditary and Cancer Risk Assessment". THE HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY: An Affiliate of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). A Critique of Edward Calabrese's and James Giordano's Review Article about Ernest Sternglass. Estimate of the Deterministic Neutron RBE for Radiation-induced Pseudo-Pelger Huët Cell Formation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1