<img alt="" src="https://secure.perk0mean.com/171547.png" style="display:none;">

CRF Design for Oncology Trials

CRF design for oncology trials

Clinical trial professionals are well aware of the unique challenges presented by oncology, a therapeutic area dedicated to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancers. When it comes to designing Case Report Forms (CRFs) for oncology studies, considerations become more intricate due to the nature of the therapeutic area, the complexity of tests and examinations, as well as the specific data required for statistical analysis.

In this article, we delve into key CRF design considerations for oncology clinical trials.

To ensure consistency and efficiency across studies, the CRF design process should be as standardized as possible. Standardization not only promotes familiarity among physicians but also aids in minimizing costs for the sponsor. The complexity of data collected for oncology studies surpasses that of other therapeutic areas. Cancer history CRFs, for instance, encompass details like the date of diagnosis or metastasis, with medical history pages tailored to the disease treatment specifics. Additional examinations, such as CT scans, MRI scans, biopsies, ECOG assessments, and other cancer-specific treatments, contribute to the comprehensive nature of these CRFs.

In the context of oncology trials, the administration of investigational study drugs follows a defined protocol with cycles and dosing days. Subjects are required to attend clinic visits on specified dosing days within the protocol time-window. These visits typically involve pre-dose and post-dose assessments, including ECG and Vital Signs collections. Adverse Events pages are integral, detailing infusion-related events with start/stop times and utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), which categorizes events on a severity scale from Grade 1 to Grade 5.

In the design of oncology studies, the Tumor Assessment CRF plays a crucial role in evaluating the size and response of tumors. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) provides standardized criteria for assessing tumor progression, stabilization, or responsiveness. Lesions are categorized as 'Target' or 'Non-target' with specific criteria for evaluation, such as 'complete response,' 'partial response,' 'stable disease,' and 'progressive disease.' These individual lesion responses culminate in an overall response for each visit, contributing to trial endpoints like the date of progression or best overall response.

Standardizing CRFs ensures uniformity in data collection across studies within the same indication, fostering clinical trial value and adequacy. For instance, in solid tumor studies, the same variables, including CT scans, MRI, lymph node examinations, and blood samples, are consistently measured. Endpoint terms, such as overall survival, maintain consistent event definitions across studies.

The benefits of standardization extend beyond cost-effectiveness and sponsor approval. It also garners acceptance from oncologists and regulatory authorities. Templates developed through standardization can be applied globally, enhancing overall study efficiency across diverse geographic locations.

Challenges of Oncology Studies whitepaper download button

Receive support on your CRF Design

Quanticate’s Clinical Data Management team have extensive knowledge in managing data across Phases I-IV and medical device trials, and are dedicated to ensuring high quality clinical data, with a wealth of experience in data capture, processing and collection tools. Our team offer flexible and customized solutions across various EDC platforms and are experts in CRF design. If you would like more information on how we can assist your clinical trial submit an RFI.

Subscribe to the Blog