Streamlining Ethics Approval for Cancer Research: Strategies for Faster, More Efficient Clinical Trials

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals on optimizing the ethics approval process for cancer clinical trials. It explores the foundational ethical principles and current regulatory bottlenecks, presents actionable methodologies for protocol design and operational efficiency, offers solutions for common challenges, and discusses validation through new standards and technological advancements. The goal is to equip the research community with strategies to accelerate trial startup, reduce administrative burden, and maintain the highest ethical standards, ultimately speeding the delivery of new therapies to patients.

Understanding the Ethics Approval Landscape: Core Principles and Current Bottlenecks in Cancer Research

The efficiency of cancer clinical research is inextricably linked to its ethical rigor. As the field moves toward streamlined processes and reduced operational burdens, such as the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) new standard data collection practices to alleviate complexity in late-phase trials [1], upholding foundational ethical principles becomes paramount. This application note addresses the critical interplay between clinical equipoise—the genuine uncertainty within the expert medical community about the preferred treatment due to a lack of comparative evidence [2] [3]—and the process of informed consent. It provides actionable protocols for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals to integrate these principles into their workflows, thereby enhancing the integrity, participant trust, and regulatory compliance of oncology trials within a modern, efficient research ecosystem.

Theoretical Framework and Contemporary Challenges

The Principle of Clinical Equipoise

Clinical equipoise is not merely a procedural hurdle but an essential ethical justification for conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It posits that a trial is ethically permissible only when there is genuine uncertainty regarding the comparative therapeutic merits of the interventions in each arm [3]. This state of collective, expert uncertainty protects participants from being assigned to a treatment known to be inferior. The principle has been debated, with some critics arguing it can restrict valuable research [3]. However, it remains a powerful anti-exploitation norm, ensuring that the altruistic contribution of participants to generalizable knowledge does not come at the cost of their own well-being [3].

The Reality of Equipoise in Practice

Despite its theoretical importance, maintaining and conveying clinical equipoise in practice is challenging. Qualitative studies embedded within trials, such as the ROAM/EORTC-1308 trial in atypical meningioma, reveal that practitioners often struggle to convey genuine uncertainty, particularly in trials comparing markedly different management pathways (e.g., adjuvant radiotherapy vs. active monitoring) [2].

Common challenges include:

• Lack of Practitioner Equipoise: Individual practitioners may hold personal preferences for one treatment arm, which can inadvertently, or deliberately, be communicated to potential participants, undermining recruitment and informed consent [2].
• Failure to Explore Patient Preferences: Practitioners often elicit but rarely explore the reasons behind a patient's initial treatment preference, especially if it aligns with a non-active monitoring arm. This misses a key opportunity to address misconceptions and reaffirm the state of clinical uncertainty [2].
• Contextual Pressures: Concerns about patient coercion, loss of practitioner agency, and time constraints can influence communication in ways that are "loaded against trial participation" [2].

The Evolving Landscape of Informed Consent

Informed consent is a dynamic process, not a single event. Its ethical demands are evolving, particularly with the integration of digital health technologies, AI-driven tools, and the rise of pragmatic clinical research embedded within "learning health-care systems" [3] [4]. In these integrated contexts, there is a movement to blur the lines between clinical care and research, potentially diluting the stringency of consent procedures [3]. A key claim in contemporary bioethics is that the principle of clinical equipoise can be reinterpreted and repurposed to help distinguish medical practices that require more demanding forms of informed consent from those that may not [3]. When equipoise exists, and a intervention falls within the scope of standard, uncertain choices, a less demanding consent process might be justified. When it does not, the full, demanding process of informed consent for research is required.

The following tables summarize key quantitative findings and regulatory trends related to ethics and efficiency in clinical trials.

Table 1: Findings from a Qualitative Study on Communication Challenges in the ROAM/EORTC-1308 Neuro-Oncology Trial

Aspect Studied	Data Collection Method	Sample Size	Key Finding
Practitioner communication of equipoise	Audio recordings of trial consultations	39 patients	Practitioners often demonstrated a lack of equipoise, especially with patients perceived as susceptible to side effects [2].
Exploration of patient preferences	Audio recordings & patient interviews	23 patients	Practitioners elicited but rarely explored patient preferences, particularly if a patient preferred active monitoring [2].
Practitioner perspectives	Semi-structured interviews	18 practitioners	Challenges included concerns about coercing patients, loss of practitioner agency, and time constraints [2].

Table 2: Key Regulatory and Strategic Updates Influencing Oncology Trial Ethics (2024-2025)

Initiative / Guidance	Issuing Body	Key Focus	Relevance to Ethics & Streamlining
Considerations for Generating Clinical Evidence from Oncology MRCTs (Draft, 2024)	FDA	Representativeness of the U.S. population in Multiregional Clinical Trials (MRCTs); alignment of standard of care [5].	Reinforces the need for equitable participant inclusion, impacting the generalizability of results and justice in research [5].
Project Optimus	FDA	Optimizing oncology dosing to maximize efficacy and minimize toxicity, moving beyond Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) [6].	Directly addresses the ethical principle of beneficence by prioritizing patient safety and quality of life within trial design [6].
ICH E6(R3) Good Clinical Practice (GCP)	International Council for Harmonisation	Modernizing GCP guidelines to be more flexible, proportional, and adaptive to technological advances [6].	Promotes a risk-based approach to quality management, streamlining data collection and oversight while protecting participants [6] [1].
Streamlined Data Collection for NCI Late-Phase Trials	National Cancer Institute (NCI)	Limiting data collection to elements essential for primary and secondary trial objectives to reduce burden [1].	Reduces operational burden on sites and participants, aligning with the ethical principle of respecting participants' time and welfare [1].

Experimental Protocols for Assessing and Implementing Equipoise

Protocol 1: Qualitative Assessment of Equipoise in Trial Communications

This protocol is adapted from methodologies used in embedded qualitative research [2].

1. Objective: To identify patterns in practitioner communication that support or undermine the conveyance of clinical equipoise and the ethical exploration of patient preferences.

2. Materials:

• Research Reagent Solutions for Qualitative Analysis:
  • Audio-Recording Equipment: High-fidelity digital recorders for capturing trial consultations verbatim.
  • Transcription Service/Software: To generate accurate, anonymized transcripts from audio recordings.
  • Qualitative Data Analysis Software (e.g., NVivo, MAXQDA): For systematic coding and thematic analysis of textual data.
  • Semi-Structured Interview Guides: For post-consultation interviews with patients and practitioners to explore perspectives on decision-making [2].

3. Methodology:

• A. Study Design: Embedded, prospective qualitative study within an ongoing oncology RCT.
• B. Data Collection:
  • Consultation Recordings: Audio-record trial recruitment consultations after obtaining permission from both practitioner and patient [2].
  • Patient Interviews: Conduct semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patients after their consultation to explore their understanding, perceptions of equipoise, and decision-making factors [2].
  • Practitioner Interviews: Conduct semi-structured interviews with recruiting practitioners (neurosurgeons, oncologists, research nurses) to understand their challenges, preferences, and attitudes toward the trial arms [2].
• C. Data Analysis:
  • Thematic Analysis: Use an iterative process to develop codes and identify emergent themes related to equipoise, preference exploration, and randomization [2].
  • Argumentation Theory Analysis: Examine the structure of arguments used by practitioners to present information and by patients to justify preferences, identifying logical fallacies or biases [2].

4. Output: A report detailing communication challenges, which can be used to develop targeted feedback, training materials, and "hints and tips" sheets for practitioners to optimize informed consent and recruitment [2].

Protocol 2: Implementing a Structured Consent Dialogue to Reinforce Equipoise

1. Objective: To provide a standardized framework for practitioners to effectively communicate clinical equipoise and explore patient preferences during the informed consent process.

2. Materials:

• Structured conversation guide.
• Visual aids comparing trial arms.
• List of frequently asked questions with balanced responses.

3. Methodology:

• Step 1: State the Clinical Uncertainty. Begin by clearly articulating the genuine collective uncertainty in the medical community. E.g., "For patients in your situation, doctors around the world do not know whether it is better to receive radiotherapy or to be actively monitored with scans. This is why we are doing this trial." [2] [3].
• Step 2: Present Arms in a Balanced Manner. Systematically describe each intervention arm, using parallel structure. For each arm, state a potential advantage and a potential disadvantage, ensuring neither is presented as definitively superior.
• Step 3: Elicit and Explore Initial Preferences. Actively ask for the patient's initial thoughts. E.g., "Having heard this, do you have an initial leaning towards one of the options?" If a preference is stated, explore the reasons without judgment. E.g., "Can you tell me a bit about what is leading you to lean that way?" This allows you to correct misconceptions and reaffirm equipoise [2].
• Step 4: Reaffirm the Value of Randomization. Explain that randomization is the only fair way to resolve the uncertainty in a way that will benefit future patients, and that the clinical team fully supports either choice within the trial.
• Step 5: Provide Ample Time for Decision-Making. Encourage patients to discuss with family and return with further questions, separating the information session from the final consent decision.

Visualization of Ethical Frameworks and Workflows

Ethical Justification Pathway for Clinical Trials

This diagram outlines the logical pathway for justifying a clinical trial based on the principle of clinical equipoise.

Integrated Workflow for Streamlined Ethics and Trial Conduct

This workflow integrates ethical considerations with practical steps for efficient trial conduct, reflecting modern regulatory guidance.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Ethical Research

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Implementing Ethical Protocols

Item / Tool	Function in Ethical Research	Application Example
Semi-Structured Interview Guides	To collect rich, qualitative data on patient and practitioner experiences, understandings, and decision-making processes in a systematic yet flexible manner.	Used in embedded qualitative studies to identify communication barriers and refine consent approaches [2].
Communication Training Modules	To equip practitioners with skills to convey clinical equipoise convincingly, explore patient preferences without bias, and manage therapeutic misconception.	Based on study findings, used to provide feedback and "hints and tips" to optimize recruitment consultations [2].
Digital eConsent Platforms	To facilitate the informed consent process using interactive, multimedia platforms that can enhance understanding, provide consistent information, and streamline documentation across sites.	Supports adherence to FDA guidance on informed consent and single IRB reviews, while improving participant comprehension [6].
Diversity Action Plan Templates	To provide a structured framework for setting enrollment goals for underrepresented populations and outlining strategies to overcome barriers to participation.	Ensures trials meet FDA expectations for diversity, enhancing equity and the generalizability of results [5] [6].
AI Ethics Review Framework	A structured tool for IRBs and researchers to evaluate protocols involving AI, addressing algorithmic bias, data identifiability, and human oversight.	Ensures ethical challenges of AI in trials (e.g., in data analysis or recruitment) are proactively managed [7].
Risk-Based Quality Management System	A system to focus monitoring and data collection on critical-to-quality factors, reducing unnecessary burden and concentrating resources on key ethical and data integrity risks.	Aligns with ICH E6(R3) principles to streamline trials while protecting participant safety and data validity [6].

Within the domain of cancer research, the ethics review pipeline represents a critical juncture where scientific ambition meets regulatory oversight. Delays in this pipeline can significantly impede the timely initiation of clinical trials, ultimately slowing the delivery of novel therapies to patients. The process of obtaining ethics approval, termed "procedural ethics," is often characterized as static and inflexible, creating a fundamental mismatch with the dynamic nature of modern research methodologies [8]. This article analyzes the predominant sources of systemic friction within the ethics review system and provides detailed protocols and application notes designed to streamline approvals, with a specific focus on accelerating cancer research.

A synthesis of documented challenges and their prevalence reveals common pressure points. The following table summarizes key frictions and their operational impacts.

Table 1: Common Systemic Frictions in the Ethics Review Pipeline

Systemic Friction	Operational Impact	Documented Evidence
Inconsistent Application of Exemptions	Unnecessary full-board reviews for low-risk studies, consuming IRB time and researcher resources [9].	Some institutions insist on review for all research, contravening federal categories for exemption [9].
Duplicative Multi-Center Review	Significant delays in initiating multi-site trials; wasted effort from multiple IRBs reviewing identical protocols [9].	Common practice of each institution's IRB reviewing the same protocol, mandating minor, often conflicting changes [9].
Mismatch with Qualitative Methodology	Inability of pre-approval protocols to accommodate emergent research designs, requiring lengthy amendments [8].	Rigid pre-approval requirements clash with dynamic qualitative methods like theoretical sampling [8].
Political and Funding Instability	Premature termination of grants, interruption of clinical trials, and wasted resources [10] [11].	Termination of over 1,450 NIH grants in 2025, directly impacting cancer and HIV prevention trials [10] [11].

Analysis of Key Delay Factors and Streamlining Strategies

Underutilization of Regulatory Flexibility

A primary source of delay is the underuse of existing regulatory mechanisms designed for efficiency. The U.S. review system already allows for exemptions and expedited reviews for minimal-risk research, yet these are often underutilized [9].

• Exemption Categories: Two categories are particularly relevant to biomedical research:
  • Category 2: Research involving educational tests, surveys, interviews, or public behavior observation, provided identifiers are not recorded and disclosure of responses could not reasonably place subjects at risk [9].
  • Category 4: Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, or specimens, if these sources are publicly available or the information is recorded by the investigator in such a way that subjects cannot be identified [9]. For example, a retrospective chart review can be exempt if data are properly de-identified.
• Expedited Review: For research not in an exempt category but presenting no more than minimal risk, expedited review is permissible. This review is conducted by the IRB chair or one or more experienced reviewers, rather than the full convened board, which can significantly accelerate the process [9]. This applies to specific categories, such as non-invasive biological specimen collection or minor changes to already approved research.

The underuse of these options stems from a lack of knowledge and institutional risk aversion, fearing regulatory consequences for non-compliance. However, this over-compliance expends excessive resources on low-risk studies, diverting attention from protocols that are truly ethically challenging [9].

Inefficiencies in Multi-Center Cancer Trials

Multi-center clinical trials are the backbone of cancer research but are notoriously hampered by redundant ethics reviews. The Common Rule explicitly permits cooperative arrangements to "avoid duplication of effort," such as relying on a single, qualified IRB's review for all participating sites [9]. Despite this, institutional reluctance to cede control and liability concerns have limited its adoption.

A leading model for overcoming this friction is the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB) Initiative [9]. This protocol provides a streamlined framework for multi-center adult and pediatric cancer studies.

• Protocol Title: Leveraging the NCI CIRB for Streamlined Multi-Center Cancer Trial Review.
• Objective: To utilize a centralized IRB for the initial, continuing, and amendment reviews of a multi-center cancer trial, with local IRBs performing only a facilitated review of local context issues.
• Application Notes:
  • Eligibility Verification: Confirm the trial is eligible for review under the NCI CIRB Initiative.
  • Local Context Review: The local IRB at each participating site cedes authority for the central protocol review to the CIRB but retains responsibility for reviewing site-specific considerations (e.g., local consent form additions, investigator qualifications).
  • Communication Plan: Establish clear communication channels between the principal investigator, the CIRB, and local site coordinators to manage amendments and adverse event reporting efficiently.
• Experimental Workflow: The workflow for this centralized review process is delineated below.

Procedural Ethics vs. Ethics in Practice

A significant methodological friction arises from the conflict between "procedural ethics" (the pre-approval of a fixed protocol) and "ethics in practice" (the ongoing ethical management during research) [8]. This is especially pertinent in qualitative cancer research, which explores patient experiences and requires flexible, emergent designs.

• The Challenge: Research ethics committees require a fixed protocol for pre-approval review. However, qualitative methodologies like theoretical sampling require that inclusion criteria and interview questions evolve based on ongoing data analysis [8]. Submitting repeated formal amendments for each change is impractical and creates major delays.
• The Solution: Researchers and IRBs must adopt a collaborative approach that supplements pre-approval with ongoing ethical reflexivity. This involves pre-authorizing a range of methodological adaptations and committing to ethical oversight throughout the research process [8].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successfully navigating the ethics review process requires specific "reagents" or tools. The following table details essential components for a streamlined ethics application.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Ethics Applications

Research Reagent	Function & Purpose	Application Note
Institutional Protocol Template	Provides a structured, pre-vetted format for drafting a research protocol that meets all IRB requirements [12].	Using the correct, latest version (e.g., Emory's Biomedical Protocol Template) prevents delays from incomplete submissions [12].
De-identification Protocol	A predefined plan for removing the 18 HIPAA identifiers from data, allowing research to be classified as "non-human subjects" or exempt [9].	Enables use of existing data/biospecimens without full IRB review. A trustee holds the code, separating researchers from identifiers [9].
Central IRB (CIRB) Agreement	A formal agreement for a single IRB to provide the ethical review for all participating sites in a multi-center trial [9].	The NCI CIRB is a pre-established model for cancer trials. For other studies, a lead site's IRB can be designated [9].
Ethics Review Flowchart	A decision-tree tool to help researchers determine if their project requires ethical review and what type [13].	Tools like the University of Cambridge's interim flowchart guide researchers in performing a proportionate ethical risk assessment [13].

Integrated Workflow for Streamlined Ethics Review

To synthesize the strategies discussed, the following diagram provides a consolidated workflow for researchers to identify the most efficient ethics review pathway for their study.

Systemic friction in the ethics review pipeline is not an intractable problem. Significant efficiencies can be gained by fully leveraging existing regulatory flexibilities, embracing centralized review models for multi-center cancer trials, and adopting a more dynamic approach to ethics that complements procedural requirements with practical oversight. For the cancer research community, mastering these protocols and application notes is not merely an administrative exercise; it is a critical step in accelerating the translation of scientific discovery into patient care. As political and funding landscapes evolve, a proactive and knowledgeable approach to navigating ethics review is more essential than ever to ensure that lifesaving research can proceed without undue delay [10] [14].

The year 2025 represents a pivotal moment in the regulatory oversight of oncology clinical trials, marked by significant evolution from major international agencies. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and other global bodies have introduced updated guidelines that collectively shape the design, conduct, and analysis of cancer clinical research. These developments occur within a broader context of efforts to streamline ethics approval processes, emphasizing efficient evaluation without compromising patient safety or scientific rigor. The 2025 guidelines reflect a matured regulatory perspective on complex trial designs, novel endpoints, and the integration of real-world evidence into drug development programs.

The convergence of these regulatory updates creates both opportunities and challenges for oncology researchers and drug development professionals. Understanding the specific requirements and strategic implications of each new guideline is crucial for designing successful clinical development plans. This document provides a detailed analysis of these key 2025 regulatory developments, with practical application notes and experimental protocols to facilitate implementation within the framework of efficient ethics approval processes.

Key 2025 Regulatory Guidelines: Comparative Analysis

The table below summarizes the major regulatory guidelines issued in 2025 that directly impact the design and conduct of oncology clinical trials.

Table 1: Key 2025 Regulatory Guidelines Impacting Cancer Clinical Trials

Agency	Guideline/Topic	Key Focus Areas	Status/Date
FDA	Approaches to Assessment of Overall Survival in Oncology Clinical Trials [15]	Analysis of OS as a pre-specified safety endpoint; Statistical considerations when OS is not the primary endpoint [15]	Draft Guidance (August 2025) [15]
FDA	Development of Cancer Drugs for Use in Novel Combination [16]	Determining the contribution of individual drugs' effects in combination therapies [16]	Draft Guidance (July 2025) [16]
FDA	E6(R3) Good Clinical Practice [16]	Modernized GCP standards for clinical trial design and conduct [16]	Final Guidance (September 2025) [16]
EMA	Evaluation of Anticancer Medicinal Products (6th Revision) [17]	Biomarker-guided development, master protocol studies, endpoints (PFS, PRO, HRQoL) [17]	Scientific Guideline (2025 Revision) [17]
ICH	E20 Guideline on Adaptive Designs [16]	Methodological standards for adaptive clinical trial designs [16]	Step 2b, Public Consultation (June 2025) [16]
ICH	M14 Guideline on Real-World Data [16]	Planning, designing, analysing, and reporting non-interventional studies using RWD for safety assessment [16]	Step 4 Reached (September 2025) [16]

Detailed Guideline Analysis and Application Notes

The August 2025 FDA draft guidance, "Approaches to Assessment of Overall Survival in Oncology Clinical Trials," provides critical recommendations for sponsors on the use of OS in randomized trials supporting marketing approval [15]. While it discusses situations where OS can serve as a primary endpoint, its primary focus is on statistical and design considerations when OS is not the primary endpoint but is analyzed as a pre-specified safety endpoint [15]. This is particularly relevant for oncology trials where surrogate endpoints like progression-free survival (PFS) are increasingly used for accelerated approval.

Application Note 1.1: For trials where OS is a key secondary or safety endpoint, the guidance recommends pre-specifying the analysis strategy in the protocol, including the handling of cross-over effects and subsequent therapies. This pre-specification is crucial for streamlining ethics committee reviews, as it demonstrates a comprehensive statistical approach to evaluating overall patient benefit, which is a core ethical consideration.

EMA Revised Guideline on Anticancer Medicinal Products

The EMA's 6th revision of its comprehensive scientific guideline addresses the entire clinical development pathway for anticancer treatments [17]. Key updates for 2025 include clarified guidance on biomarker-guided medicinal product development and the use of master protocol studies (e.g., basket, umbrella, platform trials) [17]. Furthermore, the guideline is complemented by detailed appendices, including Appendix 1 on the use of PFS as an endpoint and Appendix 2 on Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) from a regulatory perspective [17].

Application Note 1.2: The EMA's explicit endorsement of complex trial designs like master protocols provides a framework for more efficient evaluation of multiple hypotheses within a single trial infrastructure. When submitting such protocols for ethics approval, researchers should highlight the statistical robustness of the design and the independent oversight mechanisms (e.g., Data Monitoring Committees) that protect participant safety. This can facilitate review by demonstrating built-in safeguards.

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol for Implementing Novel Combination Therapy Guidance

The FDA's draft guidance "Development of Cancer Drugs for Use in Novel Combination" (July 2025) necessitates a rigorous experimental approach to deconvolute the contribution of individual agents [16]. The following workflow diagram and protocol outline a strategy for preclinical and early clinical development.

Diagram Title: Novel Combination Drug Assessment Workflow

Title: Experimental Protocol for Evaluating Novel Oncology Drug Combinations

Objective: To systematically determine the contribution of a novel investigational agent (Drug A) when used in combination with an established backbone therapy (Drug B), in accordance with FDA 2025 combination therapy guidance.

Materials and Reagents: Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Combination Therapy Studies

Reagent/Solution	Function/Application	Considerations
Validated In Vitro Model	Screening for synergistic, additive, or antagonistic effects.	Use patient-derived organoids (PDOs) or well-characterized cell lines with relevant genetic backgrounds.
Syngeneic or PDX Models	In vivo evaluation of efficacy and tumor microenvironment modulation.	Models should reflect the intended patient population and disease setting.
Phospho-Specific Antibodies	Interrogation of on-target pathway modulation by each agent via Western Blot/IHC.	Essential for demonstrating dual pathway inhibition or unexpected signaling changes.
Dose-Ranging Formulations	Establishing the dose-response relationship for each agent alone and in combination.	Cover anticipated clinical exposure ranges; use vehicle controls.

Methodology:

• In Vitro Synergy Assessment: Conduct a matrix of dose-response experiments for Drug A and Drug B alone and in combination using validated cellular models. Analyze data using established reference models (e.g., Bliss Independence or Zero Interaction Potency (ZIP)) to quantify synergy scores.
• Mechanism of Action Elucidation: Employ phospho-proteomics, flow cytometry, and immunohistochemistry (IHC) to assess:
  • The specific pathway inhibition caused by Drug A alone.
  • The specific pathway inhibition caused by Drug B alone.
  • The combined effects on both primary and compensatory signaling pathways.
• In Vivo Dose-Ranging and Efficacy: In patient-derived xenograft (PDX) or other relevant in vivo models, establish four study arms: (1) Vehicle control, (2) Drug A monotherapy, (3) Drug B monotherapy, (4) Drug A + Drug B combination. The design should include multiple dose levels to model the contribution of each drug to the overall effect.
• Back-Translation and Biomarker Development: Analyze tumor samples from in vivo studies to correlate pathway modulation with efficacy outcomes. Identify potential predictive biomarkers for patient selection in subsequent clinical trials.

Ethics and Regulatory Integration: This comprehensive preclinical data package, which clearly delineates the contribution of the novel agent, should be included in Investigational New Drug (IND) applications and Clinical Trial Application (CTA) submissions. For ethics committees, explicitly outlining the scientific rationale and preliminary evidence for the combination can streamline the review process by addressing potential concerns regarding the necessity of exposing patients to multiple investigational agents.

Protocol for Integrating Real-World Evidence (RWE) in Oncology Trials

The ICH M14 guideline and the EMA's RWE framework encourage the use of real-world data to support regulatory decision-making [16]. The following protocol outlines a methodology for incorporating RWE into cancer trial designs.

Diagram Title: RWE Generation and Analysis Workflow

Title: Protocol for Generating RWE to Support External Control Arms and Safety Assessment

Objective: To design and execute a non-interventional study using real-world data (RWD) to construct an external control arm for a single-arm oncology trial or to supplement long-term safety assessment, compliant with ICH M14 [16].

Materials and Reagents (Data Sources): Table 3: Essential Components for RWE Study Solutions

Component/Solution	Function/Application	Considerations
Structured EHR Data	Source for patient demographics, treatments, labs, and outcomes.	Requires extensive curation and mapping to a common data model (e.g., OMOP CDM).
Medical Chart Abstraction Tools	Capture unstructured clinical data (e.g., progression status, line of therapy).	Critical for ensuring oncology-specific endpoint accuracy; requires trained abstractors.
Terminology Mapping Services	Harmonize codes (e.g., ICD-10, NDC, CPT) across disparate data sources.	Essential for defining consistent inclusion/exclusion criteria and study variables.
Statistical Analysis Software (e.g., R, Python)	Perform propensity score matching/weighting and comparative analyses.	The analysis plan (SAP) must be finalized and documented prior to data analysis.

Methodology:

• RWD Source Selection and Feasibility: Identify appropriate RWD sources (e.g., hospital EHR systems, cancer registries, structured claims data) that adequately capture the target patient population, key covariates (e.g., line of therapy, biomarker status), and outcomes of interest (e.g., overall survival, time to next treatment).
• Data Curation and Harmonization: Extract and transform RWD into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model or another standardized format. This includes mapping local codes to standard terminologies (e.g., SNOMED, LOINC) and implementing data quality checks.
• Study Design and Cohort Definition: Pre-specify the study design (e.g., retrospective cohort study) and explicitly define the eligibility criteria for the external control cohort to mirror the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the interventional trial as closely as possible. Define index dates (e.g., start of first-line treatment) for both groups.
• Bias Assessment and Mitigation: A priori, identify potential confounding factors (e.g., performance status, disease stage, comorbidities). Implement robust statistical methods to minimize bias, such as propensity score matching (PSM) or inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), to create a balanced external control cohort.
• Statistical Analysis: Execute a pre-specified Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) to compare outcomes between the investigational arm and the external control arm. The primary analysis should include sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the findings to different assumptions and potential unmeasured confounding.

Ethics and Regulatory Integration: For ethics committees, studies using RWD often qualify for expedited or waived consent review, as they typically involve research on pre-existing, de-identified data. The protocol should clearly describe data privacy and protection measures, including de-identification strategies and secure data handling, which are critical for ethical approval. When used to support a clinical trial application, engaging with regulators via FDA's Complex Innovative Trial Design or EMA's scientific advice procedures early in the process is highly recommended.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The implementation of 2025 regulatory guidelines requires a set of specialized reagents and tools to generate the robust data demanded by regulators and ethics committees.

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for 2025-Compliant Oncology Trials

Category	Specific Item	Brief Function/Explanation
Biomarker Development	Validated NGS Assay (Tumor/NGS)	For patient stratification in biomarker-guided trials per EMA 2025 guideline [17].
Biomarker Development	Digital Pathology & IHC Scoring Software	Quantifies protein expression and tumor microenvironment changes for combination therapy studies.
Data Integrity & Management	Electronic Data Capture (EDC) System with ALCOA+	Ensures data is Attributable, Legible, Contemporaneous, Original, Accurate, and Complete for GCP compliance [18].
Data Integrity & Management	Clinical Trial Management System (CTMS)	Manages site performance, documents ethics approvals, and tracks patient recruitment diversity.
Novel Endpoint Assessment	Validated Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Instrument	Captures HRQoL data, a focus of EMA Appendix 2, as a key secondary endpoint [17].
Novel Endpoint Assessment	Central Imaging Vendor for Blinded Independent Review	Provides standardized, unbiased assessment of PFS, critical when used as a primary endpoint [17].
Statistical Innovation	Statistical Software for Adaptive Designs (e.g., R, East)	Enables implementation of complex adaptive trial designs referenced in ICH E20 [16].

The 2025 regulatory landscape for oncology trials is characterized by a embrace of innovation—from complex combination therapies and adaptive designs to the pragmatic use of real-world evidence. Successfully navigating this landscape requires a proactive, strategic approach that integrates these new guidelines from the earliest stages of protocol development. By adopting the detailed application notes and experimental protocols outlined in this document, researchers and drug development professionals can generate the high-quality, comprehensive data necessary to meet evolving regulatory standards. Furthermore, a deep understanding of these guidelines, when effectively communicated in submissions, serves to streamline the ethics approval process by proactively addressing key scientific and ethical concerns, ultimately accelerating the delivery of new cancer therapies to patients.

Streamlining ethics approval processes is a critical factor in accelerating the pace of cancer research. Delays in obtaining regulatory approvals can significantly impede study initiation, patient recruitment, and ultimately, the delivery of innovative therapies to those in need. This application note examines the unmet needs from three key stakeholder perspectives—researchers, patients, and research sites/ethics committees—within the context of cancer research ethics approval processes. By synthesizing recent evidence and stakeholder insights, we provide structured frameworks, experimental protocols, and practical tools to enhance the efficiency and ethical integrity of oncology research oversight. The complex interplay between scientific rigor, patient-centeredness, and regulatory compliance requires systematic approaches that address the distinct challenges faced by each stakeholder group while fostering collaborative solutions that benefit the entire cancer research ecosystem.

Unmet Needs from the Researcher Perspective

Researchers conducting cancer trials face significant administrative and methodological challenges that can delay ethics approval and study implementation. Recent evidence highlights several systemic barriers that impede efficient research progress.

Table 1: Key Unmet Needs for Cancer Researchers

Need Category	Specific Challenges	Impact on Research
Protocol Completeness	Inadequate description of primary outcomes, treatment allocation, blinding, adverse event measurement, and analysis methods [19]	Leads to avoidable protocol amendments, inconsistent trial conduct, and transparency issues
Risk Assessment	Overestimation of iatrogenic risk in sensitive research areas; excessive risk aversion [20]	Exclusion of suicidal cancer patients from trials; hindered progress in psycho-oncology
Methodological Recognition	Dominance of quantitative research traditions; underappreciation of qualitative approaches [20]	Limited approval for patient experience studies; reduced understanding of psychosocial aspects
Ethics Standardization	Lack of standardization in REC decision-making; variable interpretation of guidelines [20]	Inconsistent approval requirements; unpredictable timeline

Beyond these administrative challenges, researchers experience significant emotional labor when navigating ethics approval processes. This labor involves both "surface acting" (performative compliance with REC requirements) and "deep acting" (suppressing genuine frustration about requested amendments), which can become exhausting and detract from scientific productivity [20]. The SPIRIT 2025 statement provides an updated framework to address protocol completeness issues through a checklist of 34 minimum items, including new emphasis on open science, harms assessment, and patient involvement [19]. Implementation of these guidelines could substantially reduce protocol-related delays in ethics approval.

Experimental Protocol: Assessing Institutional Ethics Variation

Objective: To quantitatively analyze variation in ethics approval requirements, timelines, and conditions across multiple research ethics committees for a standardized cancer research protocol.

Materials:

• Master protocol for a multi-site cancer study involving patient-reported outcomes and biomarker collection
• Electronic data capture system for tracking submission dates, responses, and requirements
• Structured coding framework for categorizing REC concerns and requested modifications

Procedure:

• Submit identical study protocol to 10 different institutional review boards
• Record submission dates, acknowledgment receipts, and first response timing
• Code all REC requests for modifications using standardized categories: risk concerns, consent modifications, safety monitoring, methodological changes
• Track final approval dates and total processing time
• Analyze correlation between REC characteristics and approval requirements

Statistical Analysis:

• Calculate inter-REC variability using coefficient of variation
• Perform multivariate regression to identify institutional factors predicting approval timelines
• Use consensus measures to evaluate consistency of requested modifications

Unmet Needs from the Patient Perspective

Patients with cancer experience distinct challenges within current research and care systems that impact their participation in and benefit from clinical research. Recent qualitative studies reveal significant gaps between patient priorities and research processes.

Table 2: Patient-Identified Unmet Needs in Cancer Research and Care

Need Domain	Patient Experience	Consequence
Symptom Management	Feeling personally responsible for redirecting clinical consultations toward symptoms; unmet needs remain unaddressed [21] [22]	Marginalization of broader lived experiences; reduced quality of life
Communication	Biomedical concerns dominate clinical encounters; symptom-related needs marginalized [22]	Poorer patient-clinician communication; decreased satisfaction with care
Trust and Engagement	Unmet social needs (housing, food, transportation) associated with reduced trust in cancer information from doctors [23]	Lower uptake of cancer screening and vaccination; widened health disparities
Holistic Care	Disease-centered approach limits attention to broader needs and experiences [22]	Fragmented care experience; inadequate addressing of psychosocial needs

A qualitative study with cancer patients revealed that they often operate within a framework of "symptom management in the shadow of disease-centered care" [22]. Patients reported that biomedical concerns typically dominate clinical encounters, while their broader lived experiences and symptom-related needs remain marginalized. Importantly, patients expressed that electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) could serve as bridges between holistic care and disease management by amplifying patient voices and enabling more responsive follow-up [21] [22].

The relationship between social determinants of health and research participation cannot be overstated. A recent American Cancer Society study found that individuals with unmet social needs have substantially reduced trust in cancer information from healthcare professionals—with 39% lower odds of trust among those with one unmet need and 51% lower odds among those with two or more unmet needs [23]. This trust deficit creates significant barriers to inclusive cancer research recruitment and retention.

Experimental Protocol: Assessing ePROM Implementation for Patient-Centered Research

Objective: To evaluate the impact of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) on patient engagement, symptom management, and research participation in cancer clinical trials.

Materials:

• ePROM platform with adaptive assessment capabilities (e.g., MyPath ePROM tool)
• Secure data integration with electronic health record system
• Patient questionnaires assessing trust, communication satisfaction, and symptom burden
• Researcher feedback forms on data utility and protocol adjustments

Procedure:

• Recruit cancer patients from both active treatment and survivorship clinics
• Implement ePROM assessments covering core domains: pain, fatigue, nutrition, physical function, social function, psychological distress
• Collect baseline data on symptom burden, patient-clinician communication, and trust in healthcare system
• Train clinicians and research staff on interpreting and responding to ePROM data
• Conduct longitudinal follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months
• Analyze correlations between ePROM implementation and research retention rates

Outcome Measures:

• Primary: Change in patient-reported communication satisfaction
• Secondary: Research participation retention, symptom detection accuracy, trust metrics
• Exploratory: Correlation between social needs screening and research engagement

Unmet Needs from Research Sites and Ethics Committees Perspective

Research sites and ethics committees face their own challenges in balancing participant protection with efficient review processes. Evidence suggests several systemic issues that affect their ability to support streamlined yet thorough ethics oversight.

A significant challenge identified in recent literature is the "dominance of quantitative research tradition" in ethics review processes [20]. Ethics committees often demonstrate disproportionate preoccupation with participants' perceived vulnerability in qualitative research contexts, potentially reflecting colonial notions and Western examinations of sensitive topics like suicidality [20]. This can create particular barriers for patient-centered cancer research that employs qualitative methodologies to understand lived experiences.

Additionally, ethics committees frequently lack standardised decision-making processes and evidence-based approaches to risk assessment in cancer research [20]. The perception that discussing sensitive topics like suicide may induce suicidality persists among REC members, despite growing evidence that such discussions do not increase risk and may instead generate benefits through decreased distress and improved wellbeing [20]. This evidence-practice gap in risk assessment can unnecessarily restrict important research in psycho-oncology and palliative care.

Research sites also face significant operational challenges related to data liquidity—defined as the rapid, seamless, secure exchange of useful, standards-based information among authorized individual and institutional senders and recipients [24]. The current cancer informatics ecosystem lacks systematic means for efficient data exchange, creating barriers to multi-site research collaborations and comprehensive ethics review.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Resources for Streamlining Ethics Approval in Cancer Research

Tool Category	Specific Resource	Application in Ethics Optimization
Protocol Guidelines	SPIRIT 2025 Checklist [19]	Ensures protocol completeness; addresses open science, harms assessment, patient involvement
Patient Engagement Tools	ePROM platforms with adaptive assessment [22]	Captures patient-reported outcomes systematically; enhances patient-centered approach
Data Liquidity Framework	Interoperable data exchange standards [24]	Enables seamless data sharing across sites while maintaining security and privacy
Risk Assessment Evidence	Empirical studies on research participation risks [20]	Informs evidence-based ethics review of sensitive research topics
Stakeholder Engagement	Structured dialogue frameworks between researchers and RECs [20]	Builds mutual understanding; reduces unnecessary revisions

Integrated Strategies for Streamlining Ethics Approval

Synthesizing the unmet needs across all stakeholder groups reveals critical intervention points for streamlining ethics approval processes in cancer research. The following integrated strategies address the intersecting challenges identified through recent evidence:

First, implementing the SPIRIT 2025 guidelines addresses researcher needs for protocol standardization while simultaneously assisting ethics committees through more comprehensive submission materials. The updated SPIRIT statement provides specific guidance on protocol elements that frequently cause delays, including clearer description of interventions, comparators, and harm assessment methodologies [19]. Research sites benefit from reduced amendment cycles and more predictable review timelines when standardized protocols are utilized.

Second, adopting evidence-based risk assessment directly counters the excessive risk aversion that delays approval for important cancer research, particularly in psychosocial oncology. Evidence demonstrates that discussing sensitive topics like suicide does not increase participant risk and may instead produce therapeutic benefits [20]. Ethics committees can leverage this evidence to develop more proportionate oversight approaches that protect participants without unnecessarily impeding research progress.

Third, enhancing data liquidity infrastructure addresses cross-cutting challenges in multi-site research coordination, participant tracking, and efficient data review. As conceptualized by the National Academy of Medicine, data liquidity enables "rapid, seamless, secure exchange of useful, standards-based information" that can transform both research and care delivery [24]. This infrastructure supports researchers through improved data access, assists sites through streamlined operations, and ultimately benefits patients through more efficient research processes.

Finally, systematic stakeholder engagement creates feedback mechanisms that continuously improve ethics review processes. Relationship-building and structured dialogue between researchers and ethics committees have been identified as key strategies for reducing unnecessary delays while maintaining ethical rigor [20]. Incorporating patient perspectives through tools like ePROMs ensures that this engagement meaningfully influences research design and conduct.

Addressing the unmet needs of researchers, patients, and research sites requires a coordinated approach to ethics review processes in cancer research. The evidence presented demonstrates that current systems create significant inefficiencies through protocol incompleteness, excessive risk aversion, methodological biases, and data fragmentation. By implementing structured solutions including SPIRIT 2025 guidelines, ePROM integration, evidence-based risk assessment, and data liquidity infrastructure, the cancer research community can streamline ethics approval while enhancing participant protection and research quality. These approaches acknowledge the legitimate concerns of all stakeholders while creating more efficient pathways for delivering innovative cancer treatments to patients in need. Future work should focus on measuring the impact of these strategies on approval timelines, research quality, and ultimately, patient outcomes across the cancer care continuum.

Operational Excellence: Practical Strategies for a Smoother and Faster Ethics Review

In clinical research, particularly in the fast-paced field of oncology, accelerating the translation of scientific discoveries into patient therapies is paramount. However, study startup delays remain a persistent challenge that undermines the timely delivery of novel treatments to patients [25]. One critical, yet often overlooked, operational bottleneck occurs at the earliest stage of clinical trial preparation: the execution of Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDAs) and the assembly of pre-submission regulatory packages [25] [26]. These initial steps are foundational to the entire ethics approval process. A streamlined approach to CDAs and pre-submission packages, framed within the context of a comprehensive strategy to streamline ethics approval, can significantly reduce startup timelines from months to weeks, ensuring that promising cancer therapies reach patients more rapidly. This document provides detailed application notes and protocols for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals to master these critical components.

Streamlining Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDAs)

The Role and Importance of CDAs

A Confidential Disclosure Agreement (CDA), also known as a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), is a legal contract designed to protect proprietary information shared between parties evaluating a potential collaboration [25] [27] [28]. In clinical research, sponsors and Contract Research Organizations (CROs) typically require a signed CDA before disclosing a confidential trial protocol to clinical research sites during the feasibility assessment phase [25] [29]. This agreement ensures that scientific, commercial, and strategic details remain confidential. It is crucial to distinguish a CDA from a Clinical Trial Agreement (CTA); a CDA enables the preliminary exchange of information necessary to determine interest and feasibility, while a CTA is a comprehensive contract governing the operational, financial, and legal obligations of an actual trial [25].

Quantitative Impact of CDA Delays

The efficiency of CDA execution has a direct and measurable impact on study startup timelines. Internal reviews of sponsor and CRO metrics reveal that delays in finalizing CDAs can postpone study initiation at a site by weeks or even months [25]. Streamlining this process is therefore not a minor administrative task but a significant opportunity to accelerate research. The table below summarizes key challenges and their impacts derived from industry data.

Table 1: Common CDA Challenges and Their Impacts on Study Startup

Challenge	Frequency	Typical Timeline Impact	Primary Contributing Factors
Prolonged Negotiations	Very Common	Weeks to Months	Use of non-master CDAs; lack of predefined negotiation parameters [25]
Incorrect Party Details	Common	Days to Weeks	Use of non-editable click-through agreements; inaccurate site entity names [25]
Governing Law Disputes	Common	Weeks	State-funded institutions requiring specific state law and jurisdiction [25]
Signature Authorization Issues	Common	Days to Weeks	CDAs sent to unauthorized site personnel [25] [28] [30]

Optimized CDA Processes and Protocols

In response to these challenges, industry consortia have developed streamlined processes and agreement templates. The following protocol outlines the best practices for efficient CDA execution.

Protocol: Master Mutual CDA Execution

Objective: To establish a standardized and efficient process for executing a Master Mutual CDA between a sponsor/CRO and a research site, minimizing negotiation time and administrative burden.

Materials:

• Industry-endorsed Master Mutual CDA template (e.g., from the Site-Sponsor Consortium) [25].
• Electronic signature platform (e.g., DocuSign, Adobe Sign).
• Centralized contract management system for tracking.

Methodology:

• Template Adoption: Utilize a pre-negotiated, bilateral (mutual) Master CDA template. This agreement should be broad in coverage, eliminating the need for protocol-specific, compound-specific, or investigator-specific CDAs [25].
• Electronic Routing: Route the CDA for electronic signature. Ensure all redline edits are agreed upon beforehand and that the final version is the one being signed. All parties should agree on the electronic platform and the order of signatures [25].
• Centralized Communication: All communications related to the CDA should be directed to a dedicated departmental email address (e.g., contracts@institution.edu) to prevent delays from staff absence or turnover [25].
• Institutional Execution: The CDA must be signed by an authorized institutional official, not by the Principal Investigator (PI) or study team members. PIs may be asked to sign a "Read and Understood" line to acknowledge their obligations [28] [29] [30].

Notes on Electronic Signatures:

• Electronic signatures on CDAs are strongly recommended to reduce turnaround time.
• CDA signatures do not need to be compliant with FDA 21 CFR Part 11, as CDAs are legal contracts, not regulatory records submitted to the FDA. Their validity is governed by general e-signature laws like the U.S. E-SIGN Act [25].

The workflow for this optimized process, encompassing both sponsor/CRO and institutional site actions, is visualized below.

The Scientist's Toolkit: CDA Essentials

Table 2: Essential Resources for Efficient CDA Management

Tool / Resource	Function / Purpose	Key Considerations
Master Mutual CDA Template	Pre-negotiated legal framework for confidentiality.	Balances operational speed with mutual protection; minimizes need for re-negotiation [25].
Electronic Signature Platform	Enables rapid, legally binding execution of agreements.	Reduces turnaround time versus wet-ink signatures; confirm platform acceptance by all parties [25].
Centralized Contract Management System	Tracks the full contract lifecycle (request, review, approval).	Provides visibility into status; helps manage deadlines and follow-up actions [25].
Dedicated Contracts Email Alias (e.g., contracts@institution.edu)	Single point of contact for all CDA communications.	Prevents lost emails due to staff turnover or absence [25].

Optimizing Pre-Submission Regulatory Packages

Foundations for Successful Submissions

A well-prepared pre-submission package is the cornerstone of efficient ethics and regulatory review. For oncology products, engaging with regulatory bodies like the FDA's Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) through its Oncology Regulatory Expertise and Early Guidance (OREEG) initiative can provide critical early-stage advice [26]. The primary goal of a pre-Investigational New Drug (pre-IND) submission is to obtain agreement that the FDA has no substantive concerns with the conducted and planned studies, thereby ensuring a successful IND submission and avoiding a clinical hold [26].

Key Components of a Streamlined Pre-Submission Package

A comprehensive pre-submission package should address several critical areas. The following table synthesizes key considerations derived from regulatory guidance.

Table 3: Core Components of an Effective Pre-IND Submission Package for Oncology

Component	Description	Key Regulatory Considerations
Target Rationale & Biology	Justification for the drug target based on disease pathology.	Include a means to identify patients whose disease manifests the targeted biology and a way to measure the drug's effect on it [26].
Drug Product Characterization	Data demonstrating consistent manufacturing and measurement.	Must have a means of making the drug consistently and measuring its potency [26].
Preclinical Safety	Summary of nonclinical studies to support a safe starting dose.	Follow ICH S9 for anticancer pharmaceuticals; ICH S6 for biologics. Use relevant toxicological models [26].
Clinical Trial Design	Protocol outlining the First-in-Human (FIH) study.	Refer to FDA guidance on expansion cohorts; consider eligibility criteria for patients with organ dysfunction [26]. Use the NIH-FDA Phase 2/3 protocol template as a reasonable formatting guide [26].
Informed Consent Documentation	Patient-facing document explaining the trial.	Should be clear and understandable. Models exist that separate key information (1200-1800 words) from supportive appendices to improve readability and patient comprehension [31].

Protocol: Assembling a Pre-IND Submission Package

Objective: To compile a concise and comprehensive pre-IND submission briefing package that facilitates efficient FDA review and aligns agency feedback with sponsor development plans.

Materials:

• Relevant FDA guidance documents (e.g., ICH S9, E6(R2), Expansion Cohorts guidance) [26].
• NIH-FDA Clinical Trial Protocol Template [26].
• Data summaries (not full study reports).

Methodology:

• Develop Concise Summaries: The pre-IND should contain summaries of conducted and planned studies, not detailed data sets or full study reports. These summaries should reasonably describe the decisions and results [26].
• Address All IND Sections: While concise, the package should address all required sections for an eventual IND to allow for a comprehensive review [26].
• Frame Questions Effectively: Phrase questions to the FDA in a manner that "engenders clear, decisive feedback." Avoid open-ended questions. The goal is to confirm proposed strategies are acceptable [26].
• Utilize Streamlined Consent Forms: Develop the Informed Consent Document (ICD) using a simplified model. This involves a leading section of 1200-1800 words containing all key information for decision-making, written at an 8th-grade reading level, with a "relevant supportive information appendix" for additional details [31].

The logical flow for developing and submitting a pre-IND package is outlined in the following diagram.

Integrated Workflow for Streamlined Study Startup

Mastering CDAs and pre-submission packages in isolation is insufficient; an integrated approach is necessary for maximum efficiency. Delays in CDA execution can directly impede a site's ability to access protocol details needed for a robust feasibility assessment, which in turn delays the refinement of the clinical protocol and the assembly of the pre-submission package. By implementing the standardized protocols for CDAs and pre-submission packages outlined in this document, research teams can create a seamless, accelerated path from initial interest in a trial to regulatory submission. This holistic streamlining is essential for fulfilling the ethical imperative of delivering new cancer therapies to patients as rapidly as possible.

The consistent decline in the cancer mortality rate, which has fallen by 34% since its peak in 1991, stands as a testament to decades of investment and innovation in cancer research [32]. This progress is now challenged by an increasingly complex research environment and a projected two million new cancer diagnoses in the United States in 2025 alone [32]. A growing population of cancer survivors, projected to exceed 22 million by 2035, further underscores the need for research protocols that are not only scientifically robust but also efficient and responsive to patient needs [32]. Delays in study startup, particularly during early stages such as the execution of Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDAs), can undermine the timely delivery of therapies to patients, creating unnecessary friction at the earliest stage of a clinical trial [25]. This document provides detailed Application Notes and Protocols for designing clinical trials that incorporate streamlined data collection and patient-centric endpoints, framed within the critical context of streamlining ethics approval processes for cancer research. The proposed methodologies are designed to satisfy scientific and regulatory requirements while accelerating research timelines and prioritizing the patient experience.

Application Notes: Core Principles for Modern Protocol Design

The Imperative of a Patient-Centric Approach

A patient-centric approach in clinical trials means putting patients' needs and interests first and designing trials around their experiences [33]. This philosophy guides the entire clinical trial research strategy and is crucial for enhancing patient enrollment, improving retention rates, and ensuring that the data collected is relevant and meaningful to the patient population [33]. When researchers take the time to understand the patient's perspective and design trials tailored to their needs, they are more likely to produce effective treatments for patients [33]. Furthermore, by prioritizing the patient's interests and needs, researchers are less likely to engage in exploitative practices or overlook the treatment's adverse effects, leading to more responsible and transparent research practices that are crucial for building public trust [33].

Streamlining Pre-Study Ethics and Administrative Processes

One key operational bottleneck is the execution of Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDAs), which can delay study startup by weeks or even months [25]. Optimizing how CDAs are reviewed and executed can have a material impact on overall trial timelines. The following streamlined processes are recommended:

• Master CDAs: Institutions and sponsors should utilize pre-negotiated, master mutual CDAs that cover confidentiality needs for future feasibility activities and studies, rather than protocol-specific agreements [25].
• Electronic Execution: Electronic CDA signatures are strongly recommended, as they can substantially reduce turnaround time and enable faster study startup. Their validity is governed by laws such as the U.S. E-SIGN Act and is not subject to FDA 21 CFR Part 11 for this specific purpose [25].
• Centralized Communication: Using dedicated email addresses (e.g., contracts@company.com) for CDA-related communications facilitates more effective collaboration across organizations and protects against lost or delayed communications due to staff absence or turnover [25].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Integrating Patient-Centric Endpoints

Objective: To systematically integrate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-centric endpoints into the clinical trial design to ensure the outcomes measured are meaningful to patients.

Methodology:

• Identify Target Patient Population: Conduct focus groups or interviews with patients who have the condition being studied to understand their experiences, symptoms, and how the disease affects their daily lives [33].
• Involve Patient Advocacy Groups: Seek input from patient advocacy groups and other stakeholders who possess a deep understanding of the patient's perspective. These groups can provide valuable insights and help identify key issues that must be addressed in the trial design [33].
• Select and Define Patient-Centric Endpoints:
  • Incorporate Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), which are measures of health status reported directly by patients, to capture the patient's perspective on the impact of the condition and the effectiveness of the intervention [33].
  • Select outcome measures that are meaningful and relevant to patients, such as quality of life, symptom burden, and functional status.
• Establish a Patient Advisory Board: Invite patients to participate in advisory boards or committees responsible for designing the trial. This ensures the trial is designed with the patient in mind and that the patient's perspective is incorporated into every aspect, from endpoints to visit schedules [33].
• Minimize Patient Burden: Design trial protocols that are easy to understand and follow. Consider the practical challenges patients face, such as travel, cost, and time commitments. Implement strategies like remote participation options, flexible visit schedules, and accessible trial locations to reduce this burden [33].

Protocol for Streamlining Data Collection

Objective: To implement efficient data collection strategies that reduce administrative burden and enhance data quality.

Methodology:

• Leverage Real-World Data (RWD): Utilize data from electronic health records, claims, and disease registries to supplement clinical trial data. This helps in identifying appropriate patient groups, understanding the natural history of the disease, and generating external control arms [33].
• Utilize Digital Health Technologies (DHTs): Incorporate wearable sensors, mobile health applications, and other DHTs to passively and actively collect patient-generated health data between clinic visits. This enables more continuous and objective data collection while reducing the need for some site visits.
• Centralize Data Management: Use a centralized contract management or data management system to manage the full contract and data lifecycle, including search, request, creation, review, and approval [25]. This ensures consistency and efficiency.
• Ensure Health Literacy in Materials: Prioritize health literacy when developing all patient-facing trial materials and communications. Use plain language, avoid jargon, and ensure that all materials are culturally sensitive. This ensures patients can provide fully informed consent and adhere to the protocol accurately [33].

Workflow for Patient-Centric Protocol Design and Ethics Approval

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow for designing a patient-centric protocol and navigating a streamlined ethics approval process, incorporating the principles and protocols outlined above.

Diagram 1: Integrated workflow for protocol design and ethics approval.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key materials and solutions essential for implementing the patient-centric and streamlined approaches described in these application notes.

Item/Tool	Function/Application in Protocol Design
Patient Advisory Boards	A structured forum for obtaining direct patient input on protocol feasibility, endpoint relevance, and burden assessment during the design phase [33].
Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) Systems	Digital platforms (e.g., tablets, smartphones) for patients to directly report outcomes, symptoms, and quality of life data in real-time, enhancing data quality and reducing site workload [33].
Master Confidential Disclosure Agreement (CDA)	A pre-negotiated, mutual legal agreement between an institution and sponsor/CRO that accelerates study startup by eliminating the need for per-protocol CDA negotiations [25].
Electronic Signature Platforms	Secure, legally binding software solutions (e.g., DocuSign) for the rapid execution of CDAs and other pre-study documents, significantly reducing administrative delays [25].
Real-World Data (RWD) Sources	Data from electronic health records, claims, and registries used to inform trial design, identify patient populations, and potentially create external control arms, increasing efficiency [33].
Health-Literate Informed Consent Templates	Consent documents written in plain language, avoiding technical jargon, to ensure patient comprehension and facilitate a more efficient and ethical IRB/EC review process [33].

Data Presentation and Monitoring

Quantitative Comparison of Endpoint Selection

Table 1: Comparison of traditional and patient-centric clinical trial endpoints.

Endpoint Characteristic	Traditional Endpoint	Patient-Centric Endpoint
Primary Focus	Tumor size (e.g., RECIST criteria), overall survival	Quality of life, symptom burden, functional status
Data Source	Physician assessment, imaging, lab tests	Direct patient report (PROs), performance status
Patient Burden	Often high (frequent site visits for scans)	Can be lower (remote data collection possible)
IRB/EC Review Concerns	Standard efficacy and safety	Clarity of PRO instruments, data integrity
Regulatory Acceptance	Well-established, often required for approval	Increasingly accepted as supportive or primary evidence

Key Performance Indicators for Streamlined Study Startup

Table 2: Key metrics for monitoring the efficiency of pre-study processes.

Performance Indicator	Calculation Method	Target Benchmark
CDA Negotiation Timeline	Mean days from initial CDA send to fully executed agreement	< 2 weeks
Feasibility Questionnaire Turnaround	Percentage of sites completing the feasibility questionnaire within 7 days of CDA execution	> 80%
IRB/EC Approval Timeline	Mean days from final protocol submission to approval	< 60 days
Patient Screening Efficiency	Ratio of patients screened to patients enrolled	Site-specific baseline
Patient Retention Rate	Percentage of enrolled patients who complete the trial	> 90%

The integration of patient-centric endpoints and streamlined data collection methodologies, supported by efficient pre-study administrative processes, represents a fundamental evolution in cancer clinical trial design. By systematically engaging patients, leveraging digital tools and real-world data, and simplifying ethical and contractual workflows, researchers can design protocols that are not only scientifically rigorous but also more efficient, ethical, and responsive to the needs of the patients they aim to serve. This comprehensive approach is essential for accelerating the development of life-saving therapies and ensuring that the remarkable progress against cancer continues unabated.

The escalating complexity and cost of cancer clinical trials threaten to stifle innovation, with Phase III trials alone costing approximately $55,716 daily in direct costs [34]. A significant contributor to this burden is inefficient management of regulatory and ethics submissions, often characterized by fragmented documentation, lack of interoperability between systems, and duplicative processes across multiple institutions and jurisdictions [34] [35]. This article details how modern electronic systems and centralized platforms are being leveraged to streamline submission management, directly addressing these challenges within the broader context of accelerating ethics approval for cancer research. We present application notes and experimental protocols demonstrating the practical implementation of these technologies, supported by quantitative data and validated workflows designed for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

Application Notes: The Centralized Platform Landscape

Centralized platforms function as the operational nucleus for clinical trial management, integrating disparate submission-related activities into a cohesive, audit-ready system. The following applications are critical for modern research.

Core Centralization Functions in a Modern CTMS

A Clinical Trial Management System (CTMS) must evolve beyond simple scheduling to become the central nervous system for trial operations [34]. The table below summarizes essential centralization functions and their impact.

Table 1: Core Centralization Functions of a Modern CTMS

Function	Key Features	Impact on Submission Management
Regulatory & Documentation Workflows	Seamless eTMF integration; submission tracking; amendment management across jurisdictions; 21 CFR Part 11-compliant audit trails [34].	Ensures inspection readiness, automates approval cycle tracking, and systematically documents risk-based strategies for ICH E6(R3) compliance [34].
Site & Investigator Management	Single repository for credentials, certifications, training records, and performance metrics [34].	Accelerates site activation timelines by providing instant access to essential documents for ethics committee submissions.
Trial Planning & Resource Management	AI-driven site selection; resource allocation; budget forecasting [34].	Improves the quality and feasibility of initial submissions by identifying sites with strong performance history and adequate capacity.
Integration with Decentralized Trial Tools	Connects ePRO, wearables, telehealth, and home health services to orchestrate hybrid workflows [34].	Manages ethical approvals for novel data collection methods and remote participation models, which are increasingly common.

Specialized Platforms for Ethics and Data Integration

Beyond the comprehensive CTMS, specialized platforms address specific bottlenecks in the submission ecosystem.

• Ethics Committee Submission Portals: Platforms like e-EC in India demonstrate the move towards online submission and review of ethics applications [36]. These systems are designed in accordance with national ethical guidelines and clinical trial rules, and often feature a minimal dataset for each project with an integrated online document management system. Their use standardizes the submission format, thereby accelerating the review process.
• Centralized Data Utility Platforms: Initiatives like the Population Sciences Data Commons, scheduled for public release in late 2025, aim to serve as a centralized repository for NCI-supported population studies [37]. By creating a unified, cloud-based data ecosystem that conforms to common data governing principles, this platform will streamline the data sharing and management plans that are a crucial component of research submissions.
• Virtual Pooled Registry Systems: The Virtual Pooled Registry-Cancer Linkage System (VPR-CLS) addresses the immense burden of accessing state cancer registries for post-market surveillance [38]. It establishes a centralized, web-based application and review process, allowing researchers to apply for linkages with multiple state registries simultaneously through a single portal, rather than navigating up to 50 unique application processes [38].

Experimental Protocols for Streamlined Submissions

Implementing technological solutions requires structured methodologies. The following protocols provide a roadmap for adopting streamlined practices.

Protocol 1: Implementation of a Centralized Ethics Submission Portal

Objective: To transition from a paper-based, decentralized ethics submission process to a centralized electronic system, reducing approval timelines and improving document control.

Materials and Reagents: Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Digital Submission Management

Item	Function/Application
e-EC or equivalent software	Online platform for submitting and reviewing ethics applications [36].
ICMR Common Forms (or local equivalent)	Standardized digital forms for ethics committee review, ensuring data is stored in a searchable database [36].
Electronic Signature System	Provides 21 CFR Part 11-compliant digital signatures for protocol and form approvals [34].
Cloud-based Document Management System	Securely stores and versions all submission-related documents (e.g., protocols, investigator brochures, informed consent forms) [34].

Methodology:

• Platform Configuration: Customize the submission portal to align with institutional and national regulatory requirements. Integrate Common Forms to ensure data structure and future reusability [36].
• User Onboarding and Training: Train researchers and ethics committee members on the use of the platform, focusing on document upload, form completion, and the review workflow.
• Pilot Implementation: Launch the portal with a select group of studies (e.g., 5-10 low-risk protocols) to identify and resolve technical and process issues.
• Full-Scale Deployment: Roll out the portal for all new submissions. Establish a standard operating procedure (SOP) for tracking submission status, responding to queries, and managing amendments electronically.
• Performance Metrics Tracking: Monitor key performance indicators (KPIs) including time from submission to first response, overall approval time, and user satisfaction scores.

Workflow Diagram: The following diagram contrasts the traditional fragmented submission process with the modern centralized approach.

Protocol 2: Adopting Streamlined Data Collection Practices

Objective: To reduce operational burden and cost in late-phase cancer clinical trials by implementing streamlined data collection practices, focusing only on data elements essential for primary and secondary objectives.

Background: Data collection is a major contributor to trial cost and complexity. The NCI's Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee (CTAC) has developed new standard practices for data collection effective January 1, 2025, for a subset of late-phase trials [39].

Methodology:

• Protocol Development: During the study design phase, restrict data collection to elements explicitly required for the pre-specified primary and secondary endpoints.
• Adverse Event (AE) Reporting: Submit only AEs of grade 3 or higher to the trial database, unless collection of lower-grade AEs is a stated study objective. Do not submit AE attribution or start/stop dates; submit only the CTCAE term and grade [39].
• Other Data Categories: For medical history, concomitant medications, physical exams, laboratory tests, imaging, and patient-reported outcomes, submit only data needed for pre-specified analyses, to document patient characteristics for publication, or to determine eligibility/treatment assignment [39].
• Frequency and Duration: Align the frequency and duration of all data collection with what is strictly required to meet the pre-specified trial objectives, minimizing patient and site burden.
• Implementation and Monitoring: Apply these standards during protocol development and case report form design. Educate site personnel on the new standards to ensure compliance.

Data Presentation and Analysis

The quantitative benefits of centralization and streamlining are evident in both operational efficiency and user experience.

Quantitative Impact of Centralization

Table 3: Quantitative Benefits and Challenges of Technological Integration

Metric	Findings	Source
Cost of Trial Delays	Phase III trials cost $55,716 per day in direct costs. Centralization can cut costs by 30% and reduce timelines by 6 months. [34]	Zelthy Blog
AI in Site Selection	AI-driven models for site selection can improve enrollment rates by 10-20%. [34]	Zelthy Blog
EHR Usability Survey	92% of UK gynecological oncology professionals routinely accessed multiple EHR systems; 17% spent >50% of clinical time searching for information. [35]	JMIR Cancer
EHR Interoperability	24.8% of reported challenges were due to a lack of interoperability between systems. [35]	JMIR Cancer
Data Retrieval Difficulty	67% of professionals reported difficulty locating critical data like genetic results in EHRs. [35]	JMIR Cancer

Integrated Informatics Platform: A Co-Design Solution

To directly address the interoperability and fragmentation challenges quantified above, a co-design approach has been used to develop integrated informatics platforms. One such initiative for ovarian cancer involved:

• Method: A national cross-sectional survey of multidisciplinary professionals informed the co-design of a digital platform by healthcare professionals, data engineers, and informatics experts. The platform uses natural language processing (NLP) to extract key information (e.g., genomic, surgical) from free-text records and integrates structured and unstructured data from multiple clinical systems [35].
• Outcome: The platform consolidates disparate patient data into a single visual summary, directly addressing the reported challenges of spending excessive time searching for information and difficulty locating critical data [35]. This approach demonstrates a practical, user-centered solution to improve data visibility for clinical decision-making and audit, which is directly transferable to the context of preparing comprehensive ethics and regulatory submissions.

The integration of electronic systems and centralized platforms is no longer a luxury but a necessity for the efficient management of submissions in cancer research. The documented potential of these technologies to reduce costs by 30%, shorten timelines by six months, and significantly alleviate the administrative burden on researchers and clinicians is too substantial to ignore [34]. By adopting the application notes and experimental protocols outlined herein—from implementing centralized CTMS and ethics portals to adhering to streamlined data collection standards—the cancer research community can overcome the critical challenge of fragmented processes. This technological leverage is fundamental to achieving a streamlined ethics approval ecosystem, ultimately accelerating the delivery of new therapies to patients.

Within the complex landscape of cancer research, accelerating the translation of scientific discoveries into patient therapies requires a fundamental shift in how researchers approach regulatory and ethical oversight. Streamlining the ethics approval process is not merely an administrative goal but a strategic imperative for enhancing clinical trial efficiency and success. Evidence consistently demonstrates that prolonged study startup timelines, particularly during the ethics and scientific review phases, directly compromise patient accrual and ultimate trial viability [40]. This application note establishes a framework for building strategic, collaborative partnerships with ethics committees and regulatory experts through early engagement. By adopting the detailed protocols and leveraging the quantitative data presented herein, researchers and drug development professionals can systematically reduce activation timelines, improve protocol quality, and ultimately accelerate the delivery of new cancer treatments.

Quantitative Impact of Approval Timelines on Trial Success

Data from a recent five-year analysis at an NCI-designated cancer center provides compelling evidence of the direct correlation between streamlined approval processes and clinical trial success. The study defined "Activation Days" as the number of business days from initial Disease Working Group (DWG) approval to the date a study is ready to enroll participants, excluding periods of sponsor hold [40].

Table 1: Association Between Activation Time and Accrual Success in Cancer Clinical Trials [40]

Accrual Success Threshold	Median Activation Time for Successful Studies (Days)	Median Activation Time for Unsuccessful Studies (Days)	Statistical Significance
70% Accrual	140.5	187	W = 13,607, p = 0.001
50% Accrual	Consistent with 70% threshold findings	Consistent with 70% threshold findings	Findings remained consistent
90% Accrual	Consistent with 70% threshold findings	Consistent with 70% threshold findings	Findings remained consistent

Furthermore, the analysis revealed that early-phase studies had significantly longer activation times than late-phase studies [40]. This underscores the particular importance of strategic regulatory planning for Phase I and II trials, where scientific and ethical scrutiny is often most intense. The inverse relationship between activation time and enrollment success provides a powerful, data-driven rationale for investing in early engagement with oversight bodies.

Protocol for Early and Strategic Engagement with Ethics Committees

A proactive, structured approach to engaging with Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) is critical to navigating the approval process efficiently. The following protocol outlines a step-by-step methodology for building effective partnerships.

Experimental Workflow for Streamlined Ethics Approval

The following diagram illustrates a strategic workflow designed to minimize delays by integrating early feedback and continuous collaboration.

Detailed Methodology

• Pre-Submission Meeting with Regulatory Experts (Months -3):

  • Objective: To align on regulatory strategy, identify potential pitfalls in study design, and understand agency expectations before protocol finalization.
  • Procedure: Convene a meeting involving the principal investigator, biostatistician, clinical operations lead, and independent regulatory affairs specialists. The agenda should include a critical review of the proposed eligibility criteria, endpoint selection, and risk-benefit assessment. This step directly addresses the common industry complaint of a "disconnect between compliance professionals and business leaders" [41].

• Develop Target Product Profile (TPP) and Preliminary Protocol (Months -3 to -2):

  • Objective: To create a comprehensive and feasible study protocol that incorporates initial regulatory guidance.
  • Procedure: Draft the TPP to define the intended claims, dosage, and target population. Using this profile, develop the full study protocol, paying particular attention to streamlining the schedule of assessments to reduce participant burden and operational complexity, a key goal of initiatives like LUNGevity's TCTI [42].

• Ethics Committee Pre-Review Consultation (Month -2):

  • Objective: To obtain informal, preliminary feedback from the IRB and SRC chairs on the protocol's ethical and scientific merits.
  • Procedure: Submit a brief concept proposal and draft synopsis of the protocol to the IRB/SRC administrative office for a pre-submission consultation. This non-binding review identifies major ethical concerns (e.g., informed consent process, risk mitigation) and scientific weaknesses (e.g., statistical power, study rationale) early in the process. This mimics the function of centralized Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) that serve as an initial filter for study merit [40].

• Formal Protocol Submission and Iterative Review (Month -1 to Approval):

  • Objective: To navigate the formal review process efficiently.
  • Procedure: Submit the finalized protocol for full committee review. Upon receiving feedback, a dedicated regulatory liaison should coordinate the response, ensuring revisions are addressed comprehensively and promptly. The use of a centralized tracking platform, such as the TRAX system implemented at KUCC, enhances transparency and streamlines handoffs between committees [40].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful navigation of the regulatory landscape requires both strategic processes and specific, actionable tools. The following table details key resources for implementing the early engagement strategy.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Strategic Regulatory Engagement

Item	Function & Application in Regulatory Strategy
Centralized Tracking Platform (e.g., TRAX)	A web-based system to track key milestones, dates, and activities throughout the ethics and regulatory approval pathway, providing actionable metrics to reduce startup timelines [40].
Master Confidential Disclosure Agreement (CDA)	A pre-negotiated, mutual agreement between institutions and sponsors/CROs to cover confidentiality needs for future studies, eliminating a common bottleneck in study startup [25].
Streamlined CDA Process	Operational guidance for sponsors, CROs, and sites to expedite the execution of CDAs, often through electronic signature platforms, enabling faster access to feasibility materials [25].
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)	A meta-theoretical framework used to identify factors that explain site- and provider-level variation in the implementation of new clinical interventions, useful for planning rollout of novel trial designs [43].
Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP) Model	A computational modeling approach that integrates multilevel mechanisms and multimodal data to quantitatively predict drug efficacy, which can strengthen the scientific rationale presented to review committees [44].

Application Notes from Real-World Case Studies

Case Study: University of Kansas Cancer Center (KUCC)

KUCC implemented the Trial Review and Approval for Execution (TRAX) platform, a web-based system that systematically tracks every cancer-related protocol through its sequential review pathway [40]. The platform logs time stamps at each step, from the Disease Working Group (DWG) through the Executive Resourcing Committee (ERC) and the Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC), and finally to IRB approval and activation. This comprehensive tracking enhances transparency, streamlines handoffs, and provides actionable metrics. As a result, KUCC has demonstrated the ability to keep many protocols within internal goals of 90 and 120 days, a significant improvement over the median 167-day startup interval identified in a survey of North American centers [40].

Case Study: Site-Sponsor Consortium on Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDAs)

A consortium of sponsors, CROs, and sites identified the execution of Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDAs) as a critical, yet often overlooked, bottleneck delaying study startup by weeks or even months [25]. In response, the consortium developed two key deliverables:

• Streamlined CDA Processes: Practical guidance for all parties to expedite initial confidentiality agreements.
• A Master Mutual CDA Template: A pre-negotiated template designed to meet the needs of both parties and minimize negotiation. The most efficient solution identified was the use of Master CDAs, which cover confidentiality needs for future feasibility activities and studies, thereby eliminating repetitive legal negotiations for each new trial [25].

Visualizing the Signaling Pathway from Engagement to Approval

The strategic value of early engagement can be conceptualized as a critical signaling pathway that activates a cascade of efficiency gains. The following diagram maps this logical relationship.

Building strategic partnerships with ethics committees and regulatory experts is no longer a soft recommendation but a quantitative imperative for successful cancer research. Data unequivocally shows that shorter activation timelines are a reliable predictor of higher accrual rates [40]. The protocols, tools, and case studies outlined in this document provide a actionable roadmap for researchers to transform their approach from one of reactive compliance to one of proactive collaboration. By institutionalizing early engagement, leveraging streamlined agreement templates [25], and employing transparent tracking metrics [40], the research community can significantly reduce the administrative burden of ethics approval and direct more energy and resources toward its ultimate goal: delivering new cancer therapies to patients more rapidly and efficiently.

Navigating Complexities: Solutions for Common Ethical and Operational Hurdles

Application Note

The ethical and scientific imperative for diverse clinical trial populations is increasingly recognized as critical to advancing equitable cancer care. Current data reveal a significant participation gap, with only 7% of patients with cancer participating in clinical trials, and these participants tend to be younger, healthier, and less racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse than the overall population receiving cancer care in the United States [45]. This skewed representation produces findings that may fail to apply to all patients and can hinder progress toward developing effective cancer therapies for broader populations [45]. Streamlining ethics approval processes must therefore explicitly address these recruitment challenges to ensure that approved research is both ethically conducted and scientifically generalizable.

Quantitative Analysis of Recruitment Barriers and Drivers

Understanding the specific barriers and drivers for diverse populations is the first step in designing effective recruitment strategies. The following tables summarize key quantitative findings from recent global research.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Participation Barriers by Racial and Ethnic Group [46]

Barrier Category	Specific Concern	White Respondents	Black/African American Respondents	Asian Respondents	Hispanic/Latino Respondents
Logistical & Financial	Concern about time off work	7%	Information Not Provided	22%	15%
Logistical & Financial	Concern about time required	7%	Information Not Provided	19%	Information Not Provided
Trial Design	Concern about receiving a placebo	5% (Non-Hispanic)	Information Not Provided	Information Not Provided	10%
Trust & Representation	Importance of diversity in staff	12%	32%	Information Not Provided	22%
Technical Access	Disruption due to technology use	13%	31%	29%	30%
Technical Access	Disruption in completing requirements at home	15%	32%	26%	30%

Table 2: Perceptions of Clinical Trial Safety Over Time (%) [46]

Respondent Group	Perceiving Trials as "Very Safe" in 2015	Perceiving Trials as "Very Safe" in 2023
White	26%	37%
Black or African American	27%	41%

Experimental Protocols for Enhancing Diversity

Protocol 1: Community-Engaged Site Assessment and Preparation

This protocol aims to prepare research sites for diverse recruitment by building community trust and ensuring cultural competency.

• Objective: To assess and enhance the readiness of a clinical trial site to recruit and retain a diverse participant population.
• Background: Historical injustices and a lack of cultural congruence foster mistrust in the medical system among underrepresented groups [47] [46]. A proactive, community-oriented approach is necessary to overcome this.
• Detailed Methodology:
  • Form a Community Advisory Board (CAB): Establish a CAB comprising 10-15 members, including patient advocates, community leaders from local churches and advocacy groups, and trusted healthcare providers from the intended recruitment areas [47].
  • Conduct Implicit Bias and Cultural Competency Training: Mandate a minimum of 4 hours of structured training for all research investigators and staff. Training should focus on communication skills, sensitivity, and recognizing implicit biases. Effectiveness should be assessed via pre- and post-training surveys [47].
  • Audit and Revise Recruitment Materials: In collaboration with the CAB, review all patient-facing materials (e.g., informed consent forms, brochures) for health literacy, cultural appropriateness, and language accessibility. Materials should be translated into relevant languages and validated for clarity [47].
• Ethical Considerations: This protocol requires ongoing engagement and transparent communication with the CAB, respecting community input as a core component of the research process. Ethics committees should review the CAB charter and training curriculum.

Protocol 2: Implementing a Decentralized and Pragmatic Trial Framework

This protocol outlines the integration of decentralized clinical trial (DCT) elements to reduce logistical burdens on participants.

• Objective: To increase participant access and retention by moving trial activities closer to a participant's home.
• Background: Traditional trials centered at academic medical centers create disproportionate burdens related to travel, childcare, and time off work for many patients, particularly those from rural or lower-income backgrounds [45] [48].
• Detailed Methodology:
  • Map and Enable Local Care Pathways: Identify and establish agreements with local oncology practices, diagnostic labs, and pharmacies to perform routine trial activities (e.g., lab draws, physical exams, imaging) as per a centralized protocol [45] [39].
  • Integrate Telehealth and Digital Tools: Implement a secure platform for virtual study visits. Provide participants with necessary technology support (e.g., loaned devices, Wi-Fi hotspots) and training to ensure equitable access [45] [46].
  • Streamline Data Collection: Adopt the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) streamlined standard practices for data collection for late-phase trials. This includes limiting adverse event reporting to only grade 3 or higher events (unless lower grades are a stated study objective) and collecting only data elements essential for primary and secondary objectives [39]. This reduces burden on both sites and participants.
• Ethical Considerations: Ethics applications must detail data security measures for digital tools and DCT platforms. The informed consent process should clearly explain how local providers are integrated into the trial and the procedures for managing incidental findings.

Visualization of Strategic Workflows

Strategic Framework for Diverse Trial Recruitment

This diagram visualizes the multi-level strategy for overcoming recruitment barriers, from institutional design to participant retention.

Decentralized Clinical Trial (DCT) Workflow

This diagram contrasts the traditional trial pathway with a decentralized model, highlighting reduced participant burden.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key resources and materials essential for implementing the described diversity strategies.

Table 3: Essential Materials and Resources for Diverse Trial Recruitment

Item/Resource	Function & Application in Protocol
Community Advisory Board (CAB)	A structured group of community stakeholders that provides essential input on trial design, recruitment materials, and ethical conduct to build trust and ensure cultural relevance [47].
Cultural Competency Training Modules	Standardized curricula for educating research staff on implicit bias, cross-cultural communication, and the historical context of medical mistrust, crucial for Protocol 1 [47].
FDA Guidance on Diversity Plans	Regulatory documents outlining expectations for enrolling adequate numbers of participants from underrepresented racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials, used to guide overall strategy [46].
NCI Streamlined Data Collection Practices	A defined set of standard practices that limit data collection to essential elements (e.g., streamlined adverse event reporting), reducing operational burden and facilitating DCTs in Protocol 2 [39].
Patient Navigation Services	Dedicated personnel who guide participants through the trial process, helping to overcome logistical, financial, and communication barriers, directly supporting Participant Support strategies [47].
Decentralized Clinical Trial (DCT) Platform	Integrated technology solutions supporting telehealth visits, electronic consent, and remote data capture, enabling the execution of Protocol 2 [45] [48].

Application Notes: Understanding and Identifying the Therapeutic Misconception

Conceptual Framework and Definition

The Therapeutic Misconception (TM) occurs when research participants consent to join a study based on the belief that their participation will necessarily result in direct personal therapeutic benefit, conflating the goals of clinical research (generating generalizable knowledge) with those of clinical care (optimal personal treatment) [49]. This fundamental misunderstanding undermines the validity of informed consent, as participants fail to appreciate how research design elements may limit individualized care [50]. In oncology research, where experimental therapies are often investigated, TM is particularly prevalent and problematic [49].

Quantitative Evidence of TM Prevalence and Impact

Table 1: Evidence of Therapeutic Misconception in Clinical Research

Study Population	Key Finding	Metric	Reference/Context
French Oncologists (2023 Survey)	Initial knowledge of TM concept	16% were familiar with TM	THEMIS Survey (n=288) [49]
French Oncologists (2023 Survey)	Encounter TM in practice	84% reported encountering TM	After definition was provided [49]
French Oncologists (2023 Survey)	Actively investigate for TM	46% actively investigate its presence	THEMIS Survey [49]
French Oncologists (2023 Survey)	Sometimes encourage TM	22% admitted to encouraging it	"At least occasionally" [49]
Clinical Trial Subjects (2004 Study)	Unable to report research-specific risks	73.5% could not report risks from research design	Interviews with 155 subjects [50]
Clinical Trial Subjects (2004 Study)	Reported no risks/disadvantages	23.9% reported no risks	Despite explicit questioning [50]

Ethical and Practical Consequences

TM poses significant ethical challenges by compromising the foundational principle of respect for participant autonomy. Practically, it can lead to:

• Invalid Consent: Participants base decisions on inaccurate perceptions of benefit and risk [50].
• Undermined Trust: Discovery of the misconception can damage trust in researchers and the institution [49].
• Protocol Non-Adherence: Participants may struggle to adhere to protocols when expectations of personalized care are not met [50].

Experimental Protocols for Assessing and Mitigating TM

Protocol 1: Systematic Assessment of Participant Understanding

Objective

To quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the presence and degree of Therapeutic Misconception among participants during the informed consent process for a cancer clinical trial.

Materials and Reagents

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for TM Assessment

Item	Function/Description	Application in Protocol
Structured Interview Guide	A semi-structured questionnaire with open and closed-ended questions.	Elicits participant beliefs about purpose, benefits, and risks of the trial.
Validated TM Scale	A psychometric tool (e.g., based on Appelbaum et al. work).	Quantifies the extent of misunderstanding regarding research procedures.
Audio Recording Equipment	Digital recorder with secure storage.	Captures verbatim participant responses for accurate qualitative analysis.
Qualitative Data Analysis Software	e.g., NVivo, MAXQDA.	Aids in thematic analysis of interview transcripts.
Informed Consent Document (ICD)	The study-specific participant information sheet.	Serves as the reference point for assessing understanding of disclosed information.

Methodology

• Participant Recruitment: Recruit participants who have provided initial consent for a cancer clinical trial.
• Interview Conduct: A trained research coordinator, not the treating physician-investigator, will conduct a one-on-one interview within 72 hours of consent.
• Core Assessment Questions:
  • "In your own words, what is the main purpose of this study?"
  • "What do you believe is the primary reason your doctor invited you to be in this study?"
  • "How do you think the treatment you will receive in this study was chosen for you?"
  • "What do you believe are the potential drawbacks or risks for you personally from being in this study?"
  • "Do you believe that every procedure in this study is designed to directly help you, or could some be purely for research purposes?"
• Data Analysis:
  • Coding: Transcribe interviews and code responses for indicators of TM (e.g., belief in personalized treatment choice, underestimation of research-related risks).
  • Quantification: Use the TM scale to generate a numerical score for each participant.
  • Correlation: Analyze correlations between TM scores and participant demographics, disease stage, and protocol complexity.

Protocol 2: An Enhanced, Multi-Stage Informed Consent Process

Objective

To implement a rigorous, multi-stage consent process designed to proactively prevent and correct Therapeutic Misconception.

Materials and Reagents

Table 3: Reagent Solutions for Enhanced Consent

Item	Function/Description	Application in Protocol
Dual-Role Clarification Script	A standardized explanation for the physician-investigator.	Explicitly states the difference between clinical care and research roles.
Visual Aid Infographic	A simple diagram illustrating key trial concepts (e.g., randomization, placebo).	Aids in explaining complex research designs in an accessible manner.
"Teach-Back" Assessment Form	A checklist for evaluating participant comprehension.	Used by the coordinator to verify understanding after the physician's explanation.
Decision Support Tool	A non-directive booklet outlining options (standard care vs. trial).	Helps participants weigh alternatives based on their personal values.

Methodology

• Pre-Consultation Preparation: Provide the participant with a simplified, one-page summary of the study's purpose and key differences from standard care.
• Initial Consent Discussion (Investigator):
  • The physician-investigator conducts the primary discussion using the ICD.
  • Mandatory Script Elements:
    • "I am speaking to you both as your doctor and as a researcher in this study. These roles are not always the same."
    • "The main goal of this study is to learn something that may help future patients, not necessarily to provide the best possible treatment for you today."
    • "Let me be clear about what will not be personalized for you: [Explain randomization, fixed dosage, blinded procedures, restricted adjunctive therapies]."
• Cooling-Off Period: A mandatory period of at least 24 hours before final consent is signed.
• Comprehension Verification (Coordinator):
  • A research coordinator meets with the participant separately.
  • Uses the "Teach-Back" method: "To make sure I explained everything clearly, could you tell me in your own words what you understand about...?"
  • Addresses any remaining misconceptions identified.
• Final Consent and Ongoing Dialogue: Re-affirm consent at key stages of the trial (e.g., before each new cycle, upon disease progression), reiterating the research context.

Integration into Streamlined Ethics Approval Processes

For ethics committees reviewing cancer research protocols, the integration of these specific application notes and experimental protocols can serve as a benchmark for evaluating the adequacy of plans to address TM. Approvals can be streamlined for protocols that demonstrably incorporate:

• A structured TM assessment plan (as per Protocol 1) as part of their participant screening or monitoring.
• An enhanced consent process (as per Protocol 2) that includes role clarification, a cooling-off period, and independent comprehension verification.
• Investigator Education: Evidence of specific training for the research team on identifying and mitigating TM, which has been shown to improve practices [49].

By standardizing these rigorous approaches to participant understanding, ethics committees can more efficiently approve protocols that are ethically robust, while researchers benefit from more meaningful participant engagement and higher-quality consent.

Navigating the complex landscape of ethics committee submissions remains a significant bottleneck in multinational cancer research. This application note provides evidence-based protocols and quantitative analysis to streamline ethics approval processes across multiple jurisdictions. By synthesizing recent research on factors influencing approval timelines and emerging regulatory harmonization initiatives, we present structured frameworks for researchers and drug development professionals to optimize their ethics submission strategies. Within the context of a broader thesis on streamlining ethics approval for cancer research, we highlight specific interventions—including scope guidelines, risk-based triage, and mutual acceptance protocols—that demonstrably reduce activation times for oncology clinical trials, accelerating the development of novel cancer therapeutics.

Ethics and governance approvals represent critical pathway steps in multinational clinical trial activation, with median approval times of 48 days for ethics and 34 days for governance, contributing to an overall median site activation time of 234 days [51]. The current ethics review infrastructure struggles with the numbers and complexity of modern clinical trials, particularly large-scale, multi-centre international studies with pragmatic designs that must operate using highly localised ethics and governance requirements with variable approval processes, fees, and timelines [51]. In cancer research, these delays directly impact patient access to innovative therapies and the efficiency of oncology drug development programs.

Recent regulatory evolution, including the European Union's Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) and the updated ICH E6(R3) Good Clinical Practice guideline effective July 2025, aims to standardize implementation processes across member states while maintaining high ethical and scientific standards [52] [53]. However, the simultaneous application of multiple EU regulations (CTR, MDR, IVDR, GDPR, AIA) to clinical trials creates significant compliance complexities for sponsors, as these regulations often overlap in scope but differ in requirements [52]. For oncology trials specifically, which frequently involve complex designs, biomarker data, and genetic information, these challenges are particularly pronounced.

Quantitative Analysis of Ethics Approval Timelines

Analysis of 150 site activations across 91 sites, 16 trials, and 5 countries from November 2013 to November 2021 provides robust data on factors influencing ethics and governance approval times [51]. The table below summarizes key findings from this comprehensive dataset.

Table 1: Factors Influencing Ethics and Governance Approval Timelines [51]

Factor	Impact on Ethics Approval Time	Impact on Governance Approval Time	Statistical Significance
Disease Area (Oncology)	Shorter median time	Shorter median time	p=0.044 (multivariable analysis for governance)
Use of Scope Guidelines	Shorter median time	Shorter median time	p<0.001 (univariable for both)
Use of Triage Process	Shorter median time	Shorter median time	p<0.001 (univariable for both)
Early Trial Phase	Shorter median time	Not significant	p<0.001 (univariable for ethics)
Mutual Acceptance of Ethics Approvals	Not significant	Not significant	Associated with reduced overall site activation time (p=0.030)

Table 2: Overall Site Activation Timeline Breakdown [51]

Process Step	Median Time (Days)	Range (Days)
Ethics Approval	48	0-369
Governance Approval	34	0-489
Total Site Activation	234	74-657

The quantitative evidence demonstrates that ethics and governance approvals constitute approximately one-third of total trial start-up time, emphasizing the critical importance of optimizing these processes [51]. For oncology trials specifically, the disease area itself was associated with reduced approval times, potentially reflecting specialized regulatory pathways for cancer research.

Emerging Regulatory Frameworks and Harmonization Initiatives

ICH E6(R3) Good Clinical Practice Updates

The ICH E6(R3) guideline, with its overarching principles and objectives document coming into effect in July 2025, introduces innovative provisions designed to apply across various types and settings of clinical trials [53]. This revision provides a new language to facilitate innovations in clinical trial design, technology, and operational approaches. Key advancements include:

• Risk-Based Approach: Promotes a proportionate, risk-based methodology for conducting clinical trials, encouraging fit-for-purpose solutions rather than one-size-fits-all requirements [53].
• Structured Framework: Comprises overarching principles, Annex 1 (interventional clinical trials), and Annex 2 (additional considerations for non-traditional interventional trials) [53].
• Technological Adaptation: Formalizes the use of decentralized trial protocols, remote patient monitoring, and digital health tools as integral components of modern clinical trials [54].

European Regulatory Landscape

The European regulatory environment for clinical trials is undergoing significant transformation, with multiple overlapping regulations creating both challenges and opportunities for sponsors:

• Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR): Aims to standardize implementation processes across EU member states [52].
• Interplay with Other Regulations: The simultaneous application of CTR, Medical Device Regulation (MDR), In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) creates compliance complexities despite their overlapping scopes [52].
• Harmonization Initiatives: Programs like COMBINE (analyzing root causes of sponsor challenges) and ACT EU (transforming clinical trial initiation, design, and execution) represent coordinated efforts to improve the clinical research ecosystem [52].

Global Harmonization Models

Various countries have implemented centralized or harmonized ethics review systems that offer valuable models for multinational trial optimization:

Table 3: Global Ethics Review Harmonization Models [55]

Country/Region	Model Type	Key Features	Applicability to Multinational Trials
United Kingdom	Centralized Coordination	National Research Ethics Service (NRES) oversees accreditation; standardized operating procedures	High - single national system
Australia	Single Ethical Review	Harmonization of Multicenter Ethical Review (HoMER) initiative; one certified HREC for multicenter trials	High - model for regional harmonization
Canada	Delegated/ Joint Review	REBs may accept external reviews; joint REBs across institutions	Medium - flexible delegation options
Italy	Single Document System	"Single document" reduces variability; e-submission project	Medium - reduces center-specific documentation
United States	Registered IRBs	IRB registration with OHRP; central IRBs permitted	Medium - registration creates standardization

Experimental Protocols for Streamlined Ethics Submissions

Protocol 1: Implementation of Scope Guidelines and Risk-Based Triage

Background: Scope guidelines limit ambiguities in the ethics review process and fix timelines, while risk-based triage categorizes submissions by risk level to streamline review [51].

Materials:

• Ethics committee terms of reference and standard operating procedures
• Risk categorization matrix (low, medium, high risk)
• Timeline benchmarks for each risk category
• Template for scope guidelines documentation

Methodology:

• Define Scope Boundaries: Clearly delineate which protocol amendments require full committee review versus expedited review based on risk assessment.
• Develop Risk Categorization Matrix:
  • Low Risk: Minimal risk interventions, non-invasive procedures, use of leftover samples
  • Medium Risk: Phase III trials with established safety profiles, minimal additional invasive procedures
  • High Risk: First-in-human trials, gene therapies, significant novel procedures
• Establish Timeline Benchmarks:
  • Low risk: Target 14-day review cycle
  • Medium risk: Target 30-day review cycle
  • High risk: Standard 60-day review with possible pre-submission consultation
• Implement Triage Protocol: Designate experienced ethics committee members to conduct initial triage within 3 business days of submission.

Validation Metrics:

• Time from submission to approval pre- and post-implementation
• Number of review cycles required for approval
• Researcher satisfaction with process transparency

Protocol 2: Mutual Acceptance Framework for Multicenter Trials

Background: Mutual acceptance allows ethics committees to acknowledge prior reviews from other certified committees, reducing duplication of effort [51].

Materials:

• Master ethics approval from reference committee
• Local context assessment checklist
• Service level agreements between institutions
• Common submission template

Methodology:

• Establish Reference Committee: Designate a lead ethics committee with appropriate expertise for initial comprehensive review.
• Develop Local Context Assessment: Create standardized checklist for local committees to assess:
  • Site-specific facilities and resources
  • Local cultural considerations
  • Investigator qualifications
  • Community engagement provisions
• Implement Acceptance Protocol:
  • Local committees accept scientific and ethical review from reference committee
  • Focus local review exclusively on context-specific factors
  • Set 14-day maximum for local acceptance decision
• Create Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Establish clear process for addressing disagreements between reference and local committees.

Validation Metrics:

• Reduction in time from master approval to local activation
• Percentage of sites requiring full re-review versus acceptance
• Consistency of ethical oversight across sites

Diagram 1: Risk-Based Ethics Review Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Regulatory Reagents for Streamlined Ethics Submissions

Tool/Resource	Function	Application in Multinational Submissions
Common Protocol Template	Standardized format for trial protocol documentation	Ensures consistency across multiple submissions; facilitates mutual recognition
Informed Consent Form (ICF) Template with GDPR Appendix	Comprehensive consent documentation integrating regulatory requirements	Addresses both ethical and data protection requirements; includes all GDPR-mandated information [56]
Risk Categorization Matrix	Tool for assigning review pathway based on study risk	Enables appropriate triage; matches review intensity to risk level
Site-Specific Context Assessment Checklist	Standardized evaluation of local factors	Facilitates mutual acceptance by separating universal ethical concerns from local contextual issues
Regulatory Intelligence Database	Current regulatory requirements across jurisdictions	Maintains up-to-date knowledge of national requirements; tracks regulatory changes
Electronic Submission Platform	Digital system for submission and tracking	Reduces administrative burden; enables real-time tracking of review status [57]

Implementation Framework and Operational Considerations

Digital Integration Strategy

The implementation of national digital research ethics review platforms represents a transformative solution for building effective, transparent, and resilient ethics systems [57]. These platforms offer significant advantages:

• Reduced Administrative Burden: Online submission and review systems keep external and internal communication in one place, facilitating real-time tracking and archiving of documents [57].
• Harmonization of Processes: When used by all research ethics committees in a country, digital systems mandate use of common protocol templates, submission checklists, and review standards [57].
• Integration with Clinical Trial Registries: Automatic generation of clinical trial registries as transactional outputs of the ethics review system ensures 100% registration compliance [57].
• Performance Tracking: Real-time computation of metrics such as average time-to-approval provides insight into REC functioning and identifies causes of delay [57].

Data Governance and Protection Compliance

For oncology trials processing substantial genetic, biomarker, and health information, GDPR compliance adds layers of complexity that must be integrated into ethics submission strategies:

• Lawfulness, Fairness, and Transparency: Ensure participants are fully informed about data processing through comprehensive ICFs with data protection appendices containing all GDPR-required information [56].
• Purpose Limitation: Clearly define study objectives in protocols and ICFs; conduct compatibility assessments for new data uses [56].
• Data Minimization: Collect only data strictly necessary for study objectives; implement privacy by design at the study design stage [56].

Diagram 2: Mutual Acceptance Workflow for Multicenter Trials

Streamlining ethics submissions for multinational cancer trials requires a multifaceted approach combining regulatory harmonization, process standardization, and digital transformation. The evidence-based strategies presented in this application note—including implementation of scope guidelines, risk-based triage systems, mutual acceptance protocols, and digital submission platforms—demonstrably reduce approval timelines without compromising ethical oversight.

For oncology research specifically, emerging frameworks like the FDA's 2024 draft guidance on multiregional clinical development programs for oncology provide additional specificity for cancer trial planning, particularly regarding representativeness of enrolled participants and evaluation of differences in standard of care [5]. The ongoing implementation of ICH E6(R3) and European initiatives like ACT EU and COMBINE will further shape the ethics review landscape, offering opportunities for greater harmonization.

Future success in managing multinational ethics submissions will depend on the research community's ability to leverage digital infrastructure, adopt risk-proportionate approaches, and maintain participant-centricity throughout the ethics review process. By implementing the protocols and frameworks outlined in this application note, cancer researchers and drug development professionals can accelerate the ethical review process while maintaining the highest standards of participant protection, ultimately bringing innovative cancer therapies to patients more efficiently.

Streamlining the ethics and study startup processes is a critical challenge in cancer research, particularly for institutions operating with limited administrative resources. Delays in study activation directly impact patient accrual and the timely delivery of potentially life-saving therapies. Quantitative evidence reveals that studies achieving ≥70% accrual have a median activation time of 140.5 days, while those falling short have significantly longer median activation times of 187 days [40]. This application note synthesizes current evidence and provides detailed protocols to optimize resources, reduce administrative bottlenecks, and accelerate ethics approval processes within cancer research.

Quantitative Evidence: The Impact of Streamlined Processes

Data from recent studies provides compelling evidence for optimizing study startup processes. The following tables summarize key quantitative findings on activation timelines and their impact on trial success.

Table 1: Association Between Study Activation Time and Accrual Success [40]

Accrual Success Threshold	Median Activation Days for Successful Studies	Median Activation Days for Unsuccessful Studies	Statistical Significance
≥ 70%	140.5 days	187 days	W = 13,607, p = 0.001
≥ 50%	(Consistent with 70% threshold findings)	(Consistent with 70% threshold findings)	Findings remained consistent
≥ 90%	(Consistent with 70% threshold findings)	(Consistent with 70% threshold findings)	Findings remained consistent

Table 2: Patient Preferences in Route of Administration [58]

Preference Metric	Subcutaneous (SC) Delivery	Intravenous (IV) Delivery
Overall Patient Preference	89.6%	5.5%
Satisfaction (Satisfied-to-Very Satisfied)	78.6%	33.3%
Satisfaction with Travel Time	53.7%	30.3%
Satisfaction with Total Time at Facility	67.7%	30.3%

Experimental Protocols for Streamlining Ethics and Study Startup

Protocol: Implementation of a Centralized Tracking System

Objective: To reduce study activation timelines by implementing a web-based platform for tracking key milestones and deadlines [40].

Background: Academic medical centers often face prolonged activation timelines due to sequential reviews by multiple committees. The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KUCC) developed the Trial Review and Approval for Execution (TRAX) system to systematically track protocols from initial review through activation [40].

Methodology:

• Platform Setup: Implement a web-based tracking platform (e.g., CTMS with eCompliance module) to log all cancer-related protocols [40].
• Milestone Definition: Define and track sequential workflow steps. The KUCC pathway is:
  • Disease Working Group (DWG): Assesses clinical need and strategic fit.
  • Executive Resourcing Committee (ERC): Evaluates operational feasibility and resource requirements.
  • Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC): Assesses scientific merit, statistical rigor, and ethics.
  • Institutional Review Board (IRB): Provides ethical review and protection of human subjects [40].
• Data Capture: Record timestamps at each step and calculate "Activation Days" as business days from DWG approval to study activation, excluding external "sponsor hold" periods [40].
• Performance Monitoring: Use dashboard tracking to monitor progress against internal goals (e.g., 90- and 120-day targets) and identify bottlenecks [40].

Evaluation: Compare activation times and accrual success rates before and after implementation. At KUCC, this rigorous tracking helped keep many protocols within internal goals [40].

Protocol: Streamlining Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDAs)

Objective: To accelerate the earliest stage of clinical trial startup by simplifying the execution of Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDAs) [25].

Background: CDAs are legal contracts that protect proprietary information shared during feasibility assessments. Delays in their execution can delay study startup by weeks or months. Streamlining CDA processes serves as a foundational step for accelerating timelines across the industry [25].

Methodology:

• Adopt Master CDAs: Replace protocol-specific or compound-specific CDAs with broad master mutual CDAs between companies and institutions to cover future feasibility activities and studies [25].
• Use Consortium-Endorsed Templates: Utilize standardized, bilateral (mutual) CDA templates endorsed by industry consortia (e.g., the Site-Sponsor Consortium) which are designed to minimize negotiation by balancing operational speed with mutual protection [25].
• Implement Electronic Signatures: Route CDAs for electronic execution using platforms agreed upon by all parties. This substantially reduces turnaround time. Note that FDA 21 CFR Part 11 compliance is not required for CDAs, as they are legal contracts, not regulatory records; their validity is governed by general e-signature laws like the E-SIGN Act [25].
• Centralize Communication: Use dedicated email addresses (e.g., contracts@company.com) for all CDA-related communications to protect against delays due to staff absence or turnover [25].

Evaluation: Monitor the time from CDA initiation to full execution pre- and post-implementation of these streamlined processes.

Workflow Visualization: Streamlined Ethics Approval Pathway

The following diagram illustrates a streamlined ethics and study startup workflow that integrates centralized tracking and optimized agreement processes.

Streamlined Study Startup and Ethics Review Workflow

Electronic CDA Execution Process

For the CDA process step in the overarching workflow, the following detailed procedure ensures efficiency.

Electronic CDA Execution and Negotiation Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Resources for Optimizing Research Administration

Tool / Solution	Function	Implementation Consideration
Clinical Trial Management System (CTMS)	Tracks study milestones, deadlines, and workflow steps from submission to activation [40].	Look for systems with eCompliance modules that can automate sequential review pathways and provide dashboard metrics.
Master Mutual CDA Template	Pre-negotiated, bilateral agreement that protects both sponsor and site information, eliminating per-protocol negotiations [25].	Adopt industry consortium-endorsed templates to ensure balance and mutual protection, minimizing legal review.
Electronic Signature Platform	Enables rapid execution of legal agreements like CDAs and CTAs without in-person signing [25].	Platform does not require FDA 21 CFR Part 11 compliance for CDAs; governed by E-SIGN Act and UETA [25].
Centralized Communication Hub	A dedicated email alias (e.g., contracts@institution.org) for all agreement communications [25].	Mitigates risk of lost communications due to staff turnover or absence; improves tracking and response times.
Web-Based Tracking Platform (e.g., TRAX)	Provides real-time transparency on protocol status as it moves through scientific review committees and IRB [40].	Allows for identification of bottlenecks (e.g., at DWG, ERC, or PRMC stages) enabling proactive management.

Measuring Success: Benchmarking, New Standards, and the Impact of Innovation

Streamlining the ethics approval process is a critical accelerator for cancer research. Inefficient and heterogeneous ethical reviews can significantly delay the initiation of studies, particularly in international collaborations where disparities in process interpretation create substantial barriers [59]. The growing complexity of cancer research, involving advanced methodologies from artificial intelligence (AI) to multi-regional clinical trials, further underscores the need for a more efficient, transparent, and standardized ethical oversight system [6] [7]. This document provides a structured framework of quantitative and qualitative metrics, alongside detailed protocols, to benchmark and ultimately enhance the performance of ethics review processes within the specific context of cancer research.

Quantitative Metrics for Ethics Process Benchmarking

Quantitative data offers an objective basis for evaluating the efficiency and output of Research Ethics Committees (RECs), also known as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). The following metrics should be systematically collected and tracked over time.

Table 1: Key Quantitative Metrics for Ethics Review Efficiency

Metric Category	Specific Metric	Definition/Target	Data Source
Timeliness	Median Approval Time	Time from complete application submission to approval decision.	REC/IRB records [59]
	Time to First Response	Time from submission to initial feedback or clarification request.	REC/IRB records
Workflow Efficiency	Submission Completeness Rate	Percentage of applications deemed complete upon first submission.	REC/IRB records
	Single IRB Reliance Adoption	Use for multicenter studies to streamline ethical review [6]	Institutional Policy
Output and Impact	Application Volume & Type	Number of applications processed, categorized (e.g., clinical trial, biorepository).	REC/IRB records
	Post-Approval Monitoring	Number and outcome of post-approval audits conducted.	REC/IRB records
Participant Centricity	Diversity in Enrolled Cohorts	Enrollment data against Diversity Action Plan targets [6]	Study Sponsors

Data from an international survey reveals significant global heterogeneity in approval timelines. For instance, while some countries complete reviews for audits and observational studies in under three months, others, like Belgium and the UK, can take over six months for interventional studies [59]. Establishing internal benchmarks against these baselines is a crucial first step.

Qualitative Metrics for a Comprehensive Review

Qualitative assessment captures the nuanced quality, consistency, and perceived value of the ethics review process from multiple stakeholder perspectives.

Table 2: Key Qualitative Metrics for Ethics Review Quality

Stakeholder Group	Assessment Method	Key Metrics
Researchers	Anonymous Surveys	Clarity of submission guidelines, quality and constructiveness of feedback, perceived fairness, and consistency of reviews.
REC/IRB Members	Focus Groups & Debriefs	Workload, training adequacy, clarity of standard operating procedures (SOPs), and satisfaction with meeting logistics.
Patients/Community Advocates	Structured Interviews	Understandability of consent materials, respect for participant burden, and inclusivity of research design [7].

Qualitative insights can reveal systemic barriers, such as the "ambiguity in defining and classifying studies" noted in international collaborations, which can be addressed through tools like the UK's HRA decision-making tool to enhance clarity [59]. Furthermore, frameworks for reviewing emerging areas, such as AI in clinical research, help capture nuanced ethical challenges like algorithmic bias and adaptive learning [7].

Experimental Protocols for Ethics Process Evaluation

Protocol 1: Pre- and Post-Intervention Assessment of a Single IRB Workflow

Objective: To quantitatively evaluate the impact of implementing a single IRB review model for multicenter cancer trials on approval timelines and administrative burden.

Background: The FDA is promoting the use of a single IRB for multicenter studies to reduce duplication and standardize requirements [6].

Methods:

• Study Design: A quasi-experimental, pre-post intervention study.
• Intervention: Implementation of a centralized, single IRB of record for all participating sites in a defined set of multicenter cancer clinical trials.
• Data Collection:
  • Pre-Intervention Cohort: Retrospectively collect data from cancer trials initiated in the 24 months prior to implementation. Extract metrics from Table 1, focusing on median approval time per site and total person-hours spent on IRB correspondence per trial.
  • Post-Intervention Cohort: Prospectively collect the same metrics for cancer trials initiated in the 24 months following implementation.
• Statistical Analysis: Compare median approval times and person-hours between the pre- and post-intervention cohorts using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., Mann-Whitney U test). Calculate the percentage reduction in time-to-approval.

Protocol 2: Mixed-Methods Evaluation of an Ethics Review Framework for AI in Cancer Research

Objective: To assess the usability, effectiveness, and adoption of a novel framework for the ethical review of cancer research protocols involving AI.

Background: The MRCT Center's "Framework for Review of Clinical Research Involving Artificial Intelligence" provides a structured approach for oversight entities [7].

Methods:

• Study Design: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design [60].
• Intervention: Implement the AI review framework for all cancer research protocols involving AI components submitted over a 12-month period.
• Quantitative Data Collection: Track the number of protocols flagged for specific AI-related issues (e.g., data identifiability, algorithmic bias) and the time to resolution for these protocols.
• Qualitative Data Collection: Conduct semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of REC/IRB members and researchers who interacted with the new framework. Explore themes of usability, perceived gaps, and training needs.
• Integration: Merge quantitative and qualitative data to interpret how the framework's use correlates with reviewer confidence and protocol quality. For example, if quantitative data shows a decrease in time-to-resolution for AI protocols, qualitative data can explain whether this was due to clearer guidance or other factors.

Visualizing the Streamlined Ethics Process

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual framework and logical flow for integrating quantitative and qualitative metrics to create a streamlined, learning ethics system.

Ethics Process Optimization Framework

This workflow demonstrates how a streamlined process, supported by digital tools and centralized review, generates performance data. This data feeds into a continuous improvement cycle, ensuring the system evolves to meet new challenges.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Process Improvement

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Ethics Process Optimization

Item	Function in Protocol
eConsent Platforms	Digital tools to facilitate informed consent across study sites, streamline enrollment with remote options, automate routing, and ensure version control [6].
Digital Submission & Management Systems	Centralized electronic systems for ethics application submission, review, and archiving, replacing manual and outdated processes to reduce delays [7].
Structured Feedback Forms	Standardized templates for REC/IRB feedback to ensure clarity, consistency, and constructiveness, reducing iterative clarification cycles.
Diversity Action Plan Templates	Pre-defined frameworks to help sponsors create clear goals for enrolling participants from diverse backgrounds, supporting equitable research [6].
AI Review Framework	A structured, practical tool to guide the ethical evaluation of clinical research protocols involving artificial intelligence, addressing emerging challenges like algorithmic bias [7].
International Ethics Approval Guide	A country-specific overview of ethical and regulatory requirements to effectively coordinate and accelerate international collaborative studies [59].

A dual-metric approach, combining rigorous quantitative benchmarking with insightful qualitative assessment, provides a comprehensive pathway to a more efficient and robust ethics review system for cancer research. The implementation of structured protocols, as outlined, enables a transition from a reactive, bureaucratic process to a proactive, learning system. By adopting these metrics and frameworks, research institutions and oversight bodies can significantly reduce administrative burdens, accelerate the initiation of critical cancer studies, and ultimately foster an environment where ethical, cutting-edge research can thrive to the benefit of patients worldwide.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has initiated a transformative shift in clinical trial conduct by establishing new standard data collection practices for its National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) late-phase studies, effective January 1, 2025 [1]. This paradigm change responds to the dramatic increase in trial complexity, cost, and operational burden observed over recent decades, where extensive and frequent data collection has been a major contributing factor [1] [61]. The NCI's Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee (CTAC) has recommended that data collection in late-phase NCTN trials be limited strictly to data elements essential to address primary and secondary objectives [1]. This strategic move toward simplification is foundational to a broader thesis on streamlining ethics approval processes, as reduced data collection volume directly correlates with more efficient protocol reviews, accelerated startup timelines, and decreased administrative burden on institutional review boards (IRBs).

Background and Rationale for Streamlining

The Burden of Excessive Data Collection

Cancer clinical trials have become increasingly complex, with a corresponding escalation in costs and operational challenges [1] [61]. The extent and frequency of data collection, particularly in late-phase trials that enroll large numbers of participants, have been identified as major stressors on the clinical trial ecosystem [1]. This burden extends beyond the NCTN to the global clinical research community, with a European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) survey of 940 investigators confirming that administrative procedures could be significantly reduced without compromising patient safety, rights, or data quality [62].

Strategic Vision for Modernization

The NCI's modernization efforts originate from the 2019 CTAC Strategic Planning Working Group (SPWG), which articulated a bold vision for "flexible, faster, simpler, less expensive, and more high-impact trials that seamlessly integrate with clinical practice" [61]. This was followed by the 2022 CTAC Streamlining Clinical Trials Working Group (SCTWG), which specifically addressed implementing recommendations related to data collection [61]. The resulting framework establishes a "new normal" for data collection that is "less burdensome, more efficient, and more sustainable" [63].

Table: Evolution of NCI Clinical Trial Modernization Initiatives

Timeline	Initiative	Key Outcome	Primary Focus
2019	CTAC Strategic Planning Working Group (SPWG)	Vision for faster, simpler, less expensive trials	Broad modernization strategy
2020	SPWG Report Publication	Foundation for streamlined approaches	Integrating trials with clinical practice
2022	Streamlining Clinical Trials Working Group (SCTWG)	Specific recommendations for data collection	Limiting data to essential elements
2025	New Standard Practices Implementation	Mandatory streamlined data collection	Late-phase NCTN trials

Core Principles of the 2025 Standard Practices

Essential Data Collection Framework

The cornerstone of the new standard practices is the principle that data collection should be limited to elements directly essential for addressing primary and secondary trial objectives [1] [63]. This represents a significant departure from traditional comprehensive data collection approaches. The guidelines specifically focus on adult, late-phase, Investigational New Drug (IND)-exempt trials initially, with potential future extension to IND studies and pediatric trials [63]. As stated in the interim report, these practices are "not intended to be applied rigidly at the cost of compromising key study objectives," but require justification for any proposed departure from the standards [63].

Specific Data Element Reductions

The working groups identified several categories of data that could be streamlined based on inconsistent collection patterns across trials and limited analytical utility [63]. Key reductions include:

• Elimination of non-essential data points that are collected inconsistently across trials and rarely analyzed [63]
• Streamlined adverse event attribution collection, with one Alliance trial implementing an approach that collects only what study teams report rather than comprehensive attribution [63]
• Reduction in redundant laboratory and diagnostic data that can be extracted from electronic health records [61]

Implementation Framework and Protocol

Data Collection Assessment Methodology

Implementing the 2025 standards requires a systematic approach to evaluating existing and proposed data elements. The following protocol provides a step-by-step methodology for researchers:

Phase 1: Element Mapping

• Create a comprehensive inventory of all data elements collected in the current or proposed trial
• Categorize each element according to its relationship to primary and secondary endpoints
• Identify regulatory requirements for each data element

Phase 2: Essentiality Evaluation

• Classify elements as "critical," "important," or "supplemental" based on their necessity for endpoint analysis
• Apply the "analytical utility" test—will this data be systematically analyzed?
• Assess collection frequency against minimal necessary intervals

Phase 3: Streamlining Implementation

• Eliminate non-essential elements with appropriate documentation
• Optimize collection schedules based on clinical relevance
• Implement EHR integration where feasible

Phase 4: Continuous Monitoring

• Track protocol deviations related to data collection
• Monitor data quality metrics post-streamlining
• Assess impact on site burden and patient enrollment

Table: Data Element Classification Framework for Streamlined Trials

Category	Definition	Implementation Guidance	Examples
Critical	Directly required for primary/secondary endpoint assessment	Retain with optimized schedule	Overall survival, progression-free survival
Important	Supports safety monitoring or key subgroup analyses	Retain with reduced frequency	Grade 3+ adverse events, dose modifications
Contextual	Provides clinical context but not essential for endpoints	Consider for elimination with justification	Mild lab abnormalities, patient-reported symptoms without primary endpoint status
Non-Essential	No direct relationship to trial objectives	Eliminate	Redundant assessments, non-validated exploratory measures

Electronic Health Record Integration Protocol

A critical enabler of streamlined data collection is the effective integration with Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems [61] [63]. The NCI is pursuing standardization and improvement of EHR implementation in clinical trials through dedicated initiatives [61].

EHR Integration Workflow:

• System Assessment: Evaluate EHR capabilities for structured data export and interoperability
• Data Element Mapping: Identify clinically captured data elements that can replace dedicated case report form entries
• Standardization: Implement CONSORT-compliant data formats for automated extraction
• Quality Assurance: Establish validation checks for EHR-derived data quality

Impact Assessment and Validation Metrics

Quantitative Evaluation Framework

The successful implementation of streamlined data collection requires rigorous assessment of its impact on trial efficiency and data quality. The following metrics should be tracked:

Table: Streamlined Trial Performance Metrics

Metric Category	Specific Measures	Baseline (Pre-2025)	Target (Post-Implementation)
Operational Efficiency	Protocol activation timeline	6-9 months	3-4 months
	Case report form pages per patient	100-200+ pages	50-75 pages
	Site data entry time per patient	10-15 hours	4-8 hours
Data Quality	Query rate per patient	15-25%	<10%
	Missing critical data elements	5-10%	<2%
Participant Impact	Screen failure rate	15-30%	<15%
	Patient enrollment rate	Varies by trial	20% increase

Ethical Review Optimization

Streamlined data collection directly enhances ethics approval processes by reducing IRB review burden and addressing participant concerns about data privacy. The implementation should track:

• IRB Approval Timeline: Measure reduction in time from submission to approval
• Protocol Amendment Frequency: Monitor decrease in amendments related to data collection
• Informed Consent Complexity: Assess simplification of consent documents through reduced data description

Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Table: Essential Resources for Implementing Streamlined Data Collection

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Solution	Function in Implementation
Regulatory Frameworks	NCI Standard Practices Document [1]	Defines mandatory and recommended data elements for late-phase trials
EHR Integration Tools	NCI Centralized EHR Pilot Templates [61]	Standardized formats for extracting clinical data from electronic health records
Trial Management Systems	NCI Virtual Clinical Trials Office (VCTO) Platform [61]	Supports decentralized trial conduct and remote data capture
Data Collection Instruments	Streamlined Case Report Forms (CRFs)	Study-specific forms reflecting only essential data elements
Quality Assurance Tools	Risk-Based Monitoring Guidelines	Focused monitoring approaches aligned with reduced data collection

Case Example: The Pragmatica-Lung Model

The Pragmatica-Lung phase 3 trial for non-small cell lung cancer serves as a pioneering model for streamlined cancer clinical trials [61]. This trial demonstrated that simplified protocols could maintain scientific rigor while substantially reducing burden on patients and investigators. Key streamlining features included:

• Focused Endpoints: Limitation to overall survival and rate of serious adverse events
• Simplified Data Collection: Radical reduction in collected data elements
• Efficient Enrollment: Successfully enrolled over 800 patients in just 21 months
• Integrated Care: Seamless incorporation of trial procedures into routine clinical practice

Future Directions and Expansion

While the initial focus of the standard practices is on IND-exempt late-phase trials, the NCI anticipates extending many principles to studies conducted under INDs and early-phase trials [1] [63]. The Clinical Trials Innovation Unit (CTIU), launched in February 2023, will advance innovative science, trial designs, and operational efficiencies for high-priority clinical research needs [61]. Future developments should include:

• Adaptive Streamlining: Refinement of data collection standards based on accumulated experience
• Technology Integration: Enhanced use of digital health technologies for passive data collection
• Cross-Agency Alignment: Coordination with FDA on streamlined approaches for regulatory trials
• Global Harmonization: Alignment with international efforts such as ESMO's streamlining initiatives [62]

The implementation of the NCI's 2025 Standard Practices for Streamlined Data Collection represents a fundamental shift in clinical trial methodology that directly supports more efficient ethics approval processes. By focusing on essential data elements, reducing administrative burden, and leveraging EHR integration, these practices address critical inefficiencies in the cancer clinical trial ecosystem. The successful adoption of this framework requires commitment from all stakeholders—sponsors, investigators, IRBs, and research sites—to embrace a culture of efficiency while maintaining scientific rigor and patient safety. As the field evolves, these streamlined approaches promise to enhance trial accessibility, diversify participant populations, and accelerate the generation of evidence to improve cancer care.

Decentralized Clinical Trials (DCTs) represent a transformative operational model in clinical research, moving some or all trial-related activities away from traditional clinical trial sites to locations closer to participants, often their own homes [64]. This model, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, leverages digital health technologies (DHTs), telemedicine, and remote coordination to execute various trial components [65] [66]. The growing adoption of DCTs by pharmaceutical sponsors and contract research organizations is driven by their potential to enhance participant access, diversity, and engagement while potentially reducing costs and improving efficiency [65] [67]. However, this shift from traditional site-centric models introduces distinct ethical challenges that necessitate adaptations in ethics review processes [65] [68]. This analysis examines the comparative ethics review requirements between traditional and decentralized clinical trial models, focusing specifically on implications for streamlining ethics approval in cancer research.

Comparative Ethical Frameworks

Foundational Ethical Principles

Both traditional and decentralized clinical trials operate within established ethical frameworks grounded in principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, as articulated in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report [69]. These foundational principles translate into core requirements for ethical research: social value, scientific validity, favorable risk-benefit ratio, fair participant selection, independent review, informed consent, and respect for participants [70]. However, the operationalization of these principles differs significantly between traditional and decentralized models, particularly in how participant safety, privacy, and autonomy are maintained [65].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Ethical Frameworks in Traditional vs. Decentralized Trials

Ethical Principle	Traditional Trial Implementation	Decentralized Trial Implementation	Ethics Review Implications
Respect for Persons	In-person consent process with direct researcher-participant interaction [65]	Electronic consent with identity verification; remote ensuring of voluntariness [65] [66]	REC must review e-consent platform security, usability, and legal compliance [68]
Beneficence	Physical safety monitored by onsite clinical staff; adverse events managed at trial sites [65]	Remote safety monitoring; digital platforms for adverse event reporting; self-administration of interventions [65]	Protocol must specify safe handling of investigational products at home; robust remote monitoring systems [65]
Justice	Participant access limited to those near trial sites; potential geographic barriers [64]	Potential for greater inclusivity and diversity; digital divide may create new barriers [64] [67]	REC should assess participant digital literacy, technology access, and inclusion plans [68]
Privacy & Confidentiality	Data collected at clinical sites with institutional security protocols [65]	Increased cybersecurity risks with wearables, apps, and distributed networks [65] [64]	Enhanced scrutiny of data encryption, privacy-by-design approaches, and data minimization [65] [68]

Regulatory Governance Frameworks

The regulatory landscape for DCTs is rapidly evolving, with significant regional variations that impact ethics review processes. Major regulatory agencies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and others have issued guidance on implementing decentralized elements, though with distinct emphases [65] [64]. The FDA emphasizes efficiency and technological integration, while the EU prioritizes equity and patient engagement, and China maintains a more cautious approach focused on reducing regional disparities, particularly for rare diseases [64]. These regional differences present challenges for multi-center trials spanning different jurisdictions, requiring ethics committees to navigate varying requirements for remote consent processes, data protection standards, and oversight mechanisms [66] [64].

The European Commission's "Recommendation paper on decentralized elements in clinical trials" provides guidance on implementing procedures outside traditional clinical trial centers, though many European countries have yet to implement specific DCT regulations beyond temporary pandemic measures [66]. This regulatory heterogeneity necessitates that Research Ethics Committees (RECs) develop specialized expertise in evaluating protocols that may combine conventional and decentralized elements across different regulatory environments [65] [66].

Ethics Review Processes: Comparative Analysis

Protocol Composition and Reporting Standards

Clinical trial protocols serve as the foundational document for ethics review, planning, conduct, and reporting. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2025 statement provides evidence-based guidance for protocol content, with recent updates reflecting methodological advances and the evolving trial environment [71]. The updated SPIRIT 2025 checklist includes 34 minimum items, with enhanced emphasis on open science practices, harm assessment, intervention description, and patient involvement in trial design [71].

Table 2: Key Protocol Elements Requiring Specialized Ethics Review for DCTs

Protocol Section	Traditional Trial Considerations	DCT-Specific Considerations	REC Review Guidance
Participant Safety	Monitoring by onsite clinical staff; institutional protocols for adverse event management [65]	Remote safety monitoring; digital platforms for adverse events; self-administered interventions [65]	Verify comprehensive instructions for product handling, storage, use, and disposal; confirm real-time medical advice availability [65]
Informed Consent	In-person process with physical documentation [65] [72]	Electronic consent with identity verification; potential for e-signature legal issues across jurisdictions [65] [66]	Assess consent process clarity, voluntariness assurance, and accessibility for diverse participants [68]
Data Management	Centralized data collection with institutional security [65]	Cybersecurity risks with wearables, apps, and web interactions; distributed network vulnerabilities [65] [64]	Review privacy impact assessments, data anonymization methods, and privacy-by-design approaches [65] [68]
Recruitment Methods	Clinic-based recruitment, physician referrals, traditional advertising [72]	Social media recruitment, digital advertisements, targeted online outreach [68]	Evaluate privacy protections in digital recruitment, compliance with platform terms, and avoidance of deceptive practices [68]

Research Ethics Committee Review Considerations

RECs (also known as Institutional Review Boards or IRBs) face distinct challenges when reviewing DCT protocols compared to traditional trials. The MRCT Center provides specific guidance for IRB/EC review of DCTs, highlighting three primary domains of concern: protecting participants' rights and welfare (people), ensuring integrity and security of remote data collection (data collection), and maintaining adequate trial and data oversight (remote data oversight) [68]. Cross-cutting themes of quality, privacy, and security require particular attention throughout DCT review regardless of which decentralized approaches are utilized [68].

For cancer research specifically, RECs must consider additional dimensions related to the vulnerable nature of participants, complex therapeutic interventions, and potential for severe adverse events. The National Cancer Institute provides specialized resources addressing ethical implications of biobanking in cancer research, including consent models for secondary research use of biospecimens and associated genetic data [73]. These considerations become more complex in DCTs where biological specimens may be collected remotely and shipped to central laboratories, requiring additional safeguards for sample integrity, chain of custody, and donor confidentiality [73].

Experimental Protocols for DCT Implementation

Protocol for Electronic Informed Consent Implementation

Objective: To implement a ethically sound electronic informed consent (eConsent) process that ensures participant comprehension, autonomy, and legal compliance while accommodating the remote nature of DCTs.

Materials:

• eConsent platform with identity verification capabilities
• Multilingual content with simplified language and visual aids
• Digital signature system compliant with relevant jurisdictions
• Helpdesk support for technical assistance
• Recording capabilities for consent sessions (where required)

Methodology:

• Platform Validation: Verify that the eConsent platform incorporates identity authentication measures and creates an auditable trail of the consent process [66].
• Content Development: Design consent information using simplified language, visual aids, infographics, and multimedia elements to enhance comprehension without research staff presence [65] [66]. Adapt content for cultural appropriateness and health literacy levels.
• Interactive Assessment: Implement interactive checkpoints and knowledge assessments to verify understanding before proceeding to signature [66].
• Identity Verification: Incorporate secure identity verification methods compliant with regional regulations, recognizing that some jurisdictions may not yet accept electronic signatures for clinical trial consent [65].
• Accessibility Assurance: Ensure the eConsent process is accessible to participants with disabilities, limited digital literacy, or technology access challenges through alternative formats or assisted completion options.

Ethics Review Considerations: RECs should assess the adequacy of information presentation, voluntariness measures, identity verification methods, and legal compliance across relevant jurisdictions [65] [68]. The review should confirm that the electronic process fulfills the ethical aims of informed consent despite the lack of physical interaction between research staff and participants [65].

Protocol for Remote Safety Monitoring in DCTs

Objective: To establish comprehensive safety monitoring procedures for DCT participants administering interventions remotely and reporting adverse events outside traditional clinical settings.

Materials:

• Digital platform for adverse event reporting
• Connected sensors or wearables for physiological monitoring
• Telemedicine capabilities for virtual consultations
• 24/7 emergency contact system
• Local healthcare provider network for urgent assessments

Methodology:

• Safety Planning: Develop explicit protocol specifications for safety and risk mitigation conditions for delivery, storage, use, disposal, and return of investigational products [65].
• Participant Training: Provide comprehensive instructions for proper product administration and safety monitoring using user-friendly communication tools (visual aids, infographics, videos) through dedicated apps or websites [65].
• Monitoring Systems: Implement digital platforms for participants to register adverse reactions, receive real-time medical advice, and automatically trigger requests for in-person visits at local clinical centers in case of severe adverse reactions [65].
• Local Network Integration: Establish procedures for involving local healthcare providers in urgent assessment while maintaining data collection standards and reporting relationships with the central research team.
• Continuous Analysis: Utilize remote monitoring capabilities to analyze safety issues more continuously than in conventional trials, potentially enabling more effective participant protection [65].

Ethics Review Considerations: RECs must evaluate the robustness of remote safety monitoring systems, emergency response procedures, and the adequacy of instructions provided to participants for self-administration of interventions [65]. The review should ensure that restricted physical contact in DCTs does not compromise safety monitoring effectiveness compared to conventional trials [65] [68].

Visualization of Ethics Review Workflows

Comparative REC Review Process

DCT Participant Privacy Protection Framework

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Digital Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Digital Solutions for DCT Implementation

Tool Category	Specific Solutions	Function in DCT Implementation	Ethics Review Considerations
Digital Health Technologies	Wearable sensors, Mobile health apps, Connected medical devices	Collect clinical endpoints remotely; enable real-time safety monitoring; facilitate patient-reported outcomes [64]	Validation against traditional endpoints; data security; privacy impact assessment [65] [68]
Electronic Consent Platforms	Interactive eConsent systems, Digital signature solutions, Identity verification tools	Facilitate remote informed consent; enhance participant understanding through multimedia; ensure legal compliance [65] [66]	Usability for diverse populations; accessibility features; legal validity across jurisdictions [65] [68]
Data Management Systems	Cloud-based data capture, Electronic data capture (EDC) systems, Blockchain for audit trails	Ensure data integrity; maintain audit trails; facilitate secure data transfer and storage [66] [64]	Cybersecurity measures; data encryption; compliance with GDPR/HIPAA [65] [66]
Telemedicine Solutions	Virtual visit platforms, Remote consultation tools, Digital communication systems	Enable investigator-participant interactions; facilitate remote protocol adherence assessment [64]	Privacy protections during virtual interactions; emergency contact procedures [65] [68]
Investigational Product Supply Chain	Direct-to-patient shipping, Temperature monitoring devices, Safe disposal kits	Ensure proper handling of interventional products; maintain product stability and integrity [65]	Safety protocols for home administration; disposal procedures; emergency instructions [65]

Discussion and Future Directions

The comparative analysis reveals that while DCTs offer significant opportunities for enhancing participant diversity, reducing burden, and improving cancer research accessibility, they simultaneously introduce complex ethical challenges that require adapted review processes [65] [64] [67]. The ethics review of DCTs demands additional expertise in digital technology validation, cybersecurity, multi-jurisdictional regulations, and remote participant protections [68] [64]. For cancer research specifically, where participant vulnerability, complex interventions, and severe adverse event risks are prominent considerations, the ethical implementation of DCTs requires particularly careful scrutiny [73].

Future developments in DCT methodologies will likely focus on standardizing review processes across jurisdictions, validating digital endpoints against traditional clinical measures, and addressing the digital divide to ensure equitable access to trial participation [64] [67]. The evolving regulatory landscape, including the FDA's recent emphasis on diversity in clinical trials and the European Commission's recommendations on decentralized elements, indicates growing recognition of the need for specialized oversight frameworks for DCTs [66] [64]. As these frameworks mature, ethics review processes for DCTs will likely become more standardized, potentially streamlining approval while maintaining rigorous participant protections.

For cancer researchers and drug development professionals, successfully navigating ethics review for DCTs requires proactive engagement with RECs during protocol development, comprehensive documentation of technology validation and data protection measures, and thoughtful addressing of digital access barriers [68] [64]. By anticipating the distinct ethical considerations of decentralized models and implementing robust participant protections, researchers can harness the potential of DCTs to accelerate cancer research while maintaining the highest ethical standards.

The convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and real-world evidence (RWE) is fundamentally reshaping the regulatory landscape for oncology research. These technologies offer a paradigm shift from traditional, often protracted, methods toward smarter, faster, and more precise development pathways [74]. This transition is critical for streamlining ethics and regulatory approvals, as AI and RWE can optimize trial design, enhance patient safety monitoring, and provide robust supplementary data for regulatory submissions [75]. Regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are actively creating frameworks to harness these innovations, evidenced by initiatives like the FDA's Advancing RWE Program and the establishment of the CDER AI Council in 2024 [74]. The Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) further underscores this commitment with its dedicated Oncology AI Program, launched to advance the understanding and application of AI in oncology drug development [76]. For researchers and drug development professionals, mastering the integration of these tools is no longer futuristic but a present-day necessity to accelerate the delivery of life-changing therapies to patients.

Application Notes: Key Use Cases and Validated Performance

The application of AI and RWE spans the entire oncology development lifecycle. The following table summarizes key domains, specific applications, and documented performance metrics that are relevant to regulatory and ethics approval processes.

Table 1: Key Applications and Performance of AI and RWE in Oncology Research and Regulation

Application Domain	Specific Use Case	Quantitative Performance / Evidence	Regulatory Impact & Context of Use
Screening & Diagnosis	AI for colorectal cancer detection via colonoscopy (CRCNet) [77]	Sensitivity: 91.3% (AI) vs. 83.8% (Human endoscopists); p<0.001 [77]	Supports earlier, more accurate diagnosis; potential for regulatory qualification as a Drug Development Tool (DDT).
Screening & Diagnosis	AI for breast cancer screening on mammography (Deep Learning Ensemble) [77]	Absolute Increase in Sensitivity: +2.7% (UK dataset) and +9.4% (US dataset) compared to radiologists [77]	Improves reliability of screening programs; data can be used to support claims in pre-market approvals for AI-based devices.
Trial Optimization	AI-driven patient recruitment (e.g., Tempus TIME Trial Network) [74]	Demonstrated improved referral and enrollment rates, particularly for patients with rare mutations [74]	Streamlines study startup; addresses ethical concerns regarding patient access and representativeness.
Novel Trial Designs	Synthetic Control Arms (SCAs) from RWD [74]	Accepted by FDA as supportive evidence in dozens of oncology submissions, with some approvals included in product labeling [74]	Provides ethical alternative when RCTs are infeasible; can accelerate timelines and reduce patient burden.
Biomarker & Drug Discovery	AI for target identification, virtual screening, and de novo drug design [78]	Accelerates analysis of vast datasets for target identification and compound optimization [78]	Potentially shortens the preclinical phase; requires early regulatory engagement on validation strategies.

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Tools for AI-RWE Integration

Successfully implementing AI in RWE studies requires a suite of methodological and technical "reagents." The following table details key components and their functions in building a robust research workflow.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for AI-Driven RWE Studies

Item / Solution	Function in the AI-RWE Workflow
Natural Language Processing (NLP) & Large Language Models (LLMs)	Extracts structured data from unstructured clinical notes and pathology reports in Electronic Health Records (EHRs), enabling the creation of high-quality, analyzable RWD datasets [75].
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)	Analyzes medical imaging data (e.g., histopathology slides, radiology scans) for tasks like tumor detection, segmentation, and grading, which can be used as endpoints in RWE studies [77].
Real-World Data (RWD) Repositories	Provides the raw, longitudinal patient data from routine clinical practice (EHRs, claims, registries) that serves as the foundational source for generating RWE [74].
Predictive ML Models (e.g., Logistic Regression, Ensemble Methods)	Analyzes structured RWD (e.g., genomic biomarkers, lab values) to predict therapy response, survival, or identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit from a treatment [77].
Data Standardization Frameworks (e.g., OMOP CDM)	Transforms heterogeneous RWD from multiple sources into a common format, ensuring data consistency and improving the reliability and regulatory acceptability of subsequent analyses [74].

Experimental Protocols for AI-RWE Validation

Protocol 1: Validating an NLP Pipeline for Structured Data Extraction from EHRs

Objective: To establish and validate a reliable methodology for using Natural Language Processing (NLP) to extract specific clinical concepts (e.g., cancer stage, recurrence status, treatment-related adverse events) from unstructured oncologist notes in Electronic Health Records, thereby creating structured RWD for analysis [75].

Materials:

• Data Source: De-identified corpus of oncology clinical notes from participating sites.
• Annotation Guideline: A detailed document defining the target concepts and their criteria for labeling.
• Annotation Tool: Software platform for manual chart review and labeling (e.g., brat, Prodigy).
• Computing Environment: Server with GPU acceleration capable of running large language models.
• NLP Model: Pre-trained transformer-based model (e.g., BERT, RoBERTa) or a Large Language Model (LLM) adapted for clinical text.

Methodology:

• Data Curation & Gold Standard Creation:
  • Randomly sample a subset of clinical notes from the corpus.
  • Two or more trained human annotators (e.g., clinical research coordinators or oncologists) will independently review and label the notes according to the annotation guideline.
  • Resolve discrepancies through adjudication by a senior clinician to create a "gold standard" test set.
  • Calculate inter-annotator agreement (e.g., Cohen's Kappa) to ensure guideline clarity.

• Model Training & Fine-Tuning:

  • Split the remaining data into training and validation sets.
  • Fine-tune the selected NLP model on the training set, framing the task as a named entity recognition (NER) or text classification problem.
  • Use the validation set for hyperparameter tuning and to prevent overfitting.

• Performance Validation & Benchmarking:

  • Apply the final trained model to the held-out gold standard test set.
  • Calculate standard performance metrics against the human-adjudicated labels: Precision, Recall, and F1-score for each concept.
  • Benchmark the model's performance against a baseline (e.g., a rule-based system or a simpler model).

• Output & Integration:

  • The validated model is deployed to process the full corpus, outputting structured data (e.g., CSV, JSON) for each patient record.
  • This structured output is then integrated with other RWD sources (e.g., genomic data, structured EHR fields) for subsequent RWE analysis.

The workflow for this protocol is systematic and can be visualized as follows:

Protocol 2: Developing and Validating a Synthetic Control Arm Using RWD

Objective: To create and establish the credibility of a synthetic control arm (SCA) derived from real-world data, which can serve as an external control for a single-arm oncology clinical trial, supporting regulatory claims for efficacy [74].

Materials:

• RWD Source: Curated, de-identified data from cancer registries, EHRs, or previous trials with comprehensive patient-level data (e.g., demographics, treatment history, lab values, genomics, outcomes).
• Target Trial Protocol: The protocol for the single-arm interventional trial, specifying eligibility criteria, treatment, and primary endpoint(s).
• Statistical Software: Environment with capabilities for advanced causal inference methods (e.g., R, Python with libraries for propensity score matching).

Methodology:

• RWD Cohort Definition:
  • Apply the inclusion and exclusion criteria from the target trial protocol to the RWD source to identify a pool of potential control patients.

• Covariate Selection & Balance Planning:

  • Pre-specify a set of prognostic covariates known to influence the outcome (e.g., overall survival, progression-free survival). These may include age, stage, line of therapy, performance status, and key biomarker status.

• SCA Construction via Causal Inference Methods:

  • Use statistical techniques to create a balanced control group from the RWD pool.
  • Primary Method: Propensity Score Matching (PSM). Estimate a propensity score for each patient (probability of being in the interventional trial based on covariates) and match each trial patient to one or more RWD patients with a similar score.
  • Alternative Method: Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW). Weight the RWD patients by the inverse of their propensity score to create a pseudo-population that is balanced on all included covariates.

• Credibility Assessment & Sensitivity Analysis:

  • Evaluate the success of the balancing method by comparing the distribution of covariates between the interventional arm and the SCA after matching/weighting. Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) of <0.1 for key covariates indicate good balance.
  • Perform sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of potential unmeasured confounding on the study results.

• Outcome Comparison:

  • Compare the primary endpoint (e.g., median overall survival, objective response rate) between the interventional arm and the validated SCA using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., Cox proportional hazards model, logistic regression).

The logical flow for constructing and validating an SCA is outlined below:

Regulatory Pathway and Best Practices for Submission

Engaging with regulatory agencies early and consistently is a critical success factor for projects integrating AI and RWE. The FDA encourages sponsors to discuss plans during pre-IND or IND stages to align on credibility assessment frameworks and the proposed context of use for AI models and RWE [74]. Furthermore, the FDA's Center for Clinical Trial Innovation and Complex Innovative Trial Design (CID) Program provides a structured venue for discussing AI-enabled trial methodologies like synthetic control arms [74]. For broader, non-product-specific AI questions, the OCE can be contacted directly [76].

Key best practices for regulatory submissions include:

• Transparency and Documentation: Maintain comprehensive documentation of the AI model's development lifecycle, including training data, model architecture, and all validation steps. Be prepared to address the "black box" nature of some complex models by providing explanations for their outputs [74].
• Robust Validation: Go beyond standard performance metrics. For RWE-based analyses, this includes demonstrating the quality and relevance of the RWD, the robustness of the study design to confounding, and the reliability of the statistical methods used [75].
• Risk-Based Approach: Implement a risk-based strategy for model validation, where the extent of validation is commensurate with the model's impact on regulatory decisions. Higher-risk contexts of use demand more rigorous evidence [74].

Conclusion

Streamlining ethics approval is not about lowering standards but about enhancing efficiency through smarter processes, strategic design, and technological adoption. By embracing streamlined data collection practices, optimizing pre-trial agreements like CDAs, and engaging proactively with ethics committees, the cancer research community can significantly reduce administrative delays. The future points toward more adaptive, patient-centric trials supported by AI and real-world evidence. Continued collaboration among sponsors, sites, and regulators is crucial to build a more responsive and less burdensome ethics ecosystem, ultimately accelerating the development of life-saving cancer therapies without compromising on ethical rigor or participant safety.

References

• 1. Streamlining the conduct of cancer clinical trials: new standard ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39325869/]
• 2. Challenges Conveying Clinical Equipoise and Exploring ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7160418/]
• 3. Pragmatic Clinical Research, Informed Consent, and ... [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/pragmatic-clinical-research-informed-consent-and-clinical-equipoise/80B19E78F54F808C9981902CF9D5E6C9]
• 4. Top challenges with clinical trial ethics in 2025 [https://clinicaltrialrisk.org/clinical-trial-design/top-challenges-with-clinical-trial-ethics/]
• 5. FDA Draft Guidance on Multiregional Clinical Development ... [https://www.wcgclinical.com/insights/fda-draft-guidance-on-multiregional-clinical-development-programs-for-oncology/]
• 6. Regulatory Updates in Clinical Trials: What's New [https://realtime-eclinical.com/2025/01/14/regulatory-updates-in-clinical-trials-whats-new/]
• 7. June 2025 Newsletter - The Multi-Regional Clinical Trials ... [https://mrctcenter.org/news/june-2025-newsletter/]
• 8. Research ethics in practice: An analysis of ethical issues ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10725844/]
• 9. Streamlining Ethical Review - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4714763/]
• 10. Cancer Policy Monitor: August 12, 2025 | AACR [https://www.aacr.org/professionals/policy-and-advocacy/aacr-cancer-policy-monitor/cancer-policy-monitor-august-12-2025/]
• 11. Shattered Science: The Research Lost as Trump Targets NIH ... [https://projects.propublica.org/nih-cuts-research-lost-trump/]
• 12. Protocol Templates | Emory University | Atlanta GA [https://irb.emory.edu/forms/protocol-templates.html]
• 13. Is ethical review required? (flowchart) - Research Integrity [https://www.research-integrity.admin.cam.ac.uk/ethics-interim-flowchart]
• 14. Three key factors affecting clinical trials in 2025 and beyond [https://innovativetrials.com/three-key-factors-affecting-clinical-trials-in-2025-and-beyond/]
• 15. Overall Survival in Oncology Clinical Trials [https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/approaches-assessment-overall-survival-oncology-clinical-trials]
• 16. Q4 2025 Newsletter – What’s New in Clinical ... - S-cubed Global [https://www.s-cubed-global.com/industry-insights/q4-2025-newsletter-whats-new-in-clinical-development-practices-regulations]
• 17. Evaluation of anticancer medicinal products - Scientific ... [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/evaluation-anticancer-medicinal-products-scientific-guideline]
• 18. The New Era of Innovation, Regulation , and Global Collab [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clinical-trials-2025-new-era-innovation-regulation-global-hywmc]
• 19. SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12035670/]
• 20. Navigating Ethics Approval in Suicide Research [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12480609/]
• 21. Exploring Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41289561/?utm_source=SimplePie&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pubmed-2&utm_content=1bAXfGTh08tVk-e1kpwuqxoVfiUn_5olMN9ewCML2bdAMGPEOD&fc=20220524054416&ff=20251125194603&v=2.18.0.post22+67771e2]
• 22. Exploring Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on ... [https://cancer.jmir.org/2025/1/e79144]
• 23. New ACS Study Finds Unmet Social Needs Linked to Low ... [https://pressroom.cancer.org/releases?item=1441]
• 24. Achieving Data Liquidity in the Cancer Community [https://nam.edu/perspectives/achieving-data-liquidity-in-the-cancer-community-proposal-for-coalition-of-all-stakeholders/]
• 25. Accelerating Clinical Trials through Streamlined ... [https://www.advarra.com/industry-report/accelerating-clinical-trials-through-streamlined-confidential-disclosure-agreements-and-processes/]
• 26. Oncology Regulatory Expertise and Early Guidance ... [https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/oncology-center-excellence/oncology-regulatory-expertise-and-early-guidance-oreeg]
• 27. Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDA) [https://sponsoredresearch.northwestern.edu/agreements/cda.html]
• 28. Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDAs) - Research Support [https://research-support.yale.edu/sponsored-projects/office-of-sponsored-projects/contracts-at-yale/confidential-disclosure]
• 29. Confidential Disclosure Agreement (CDA) [https://clinicalresearch.unc.edu/playbooks/my-study-lifecycle/study-feasibility-and-design/confidentiality-disclosure-agreement-cda/]
• 30. Confidentiality Disclosure Agreements (CDA) [https://www.uab.edu/research/home/osp-industry-projects/ind-other/confidentiality-disclosure-agreements]
• 31. A need to simplify informed consent documents in cancer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5406755/]
• 32. Advancing Cancer Research Through Science Policy [https://cancerprogressreport.aacr.org/progress/cpr25-contents/cpr25-advancing-cancer-science-and-medical-research-through-evidence-based-policies/]
• 33. How to Design a Patient-Centric Clinical Trial Protocol? [https://www.mahalo.health/insights/how-to-design-a-patient-centric-clinical-trial-protocol]
• 34. What a CTMS Should Centralize in 2025 [https://www.zelthy.com/blog/what-a-ctms-should-centralize-in-2025]
• 35. Understanding and Addressing Challenges ... - JMIR Cancer [https://cancer.jmir.org/2025/1/e58657]
• 36. e-EC [http://iecmanager.org/]
• 37. Maximize Data Utility | 2024 Overview and Highlights [https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/overview-highlights/2024/maximize_data_utility.html]
• 38. Centralized access to cancer registries - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7469795/]
• 39. Streamlining the conduct of cancer clinical trials: new standard ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11884842/]
• 40. Evaluating the impact of delayed study startup on accrual in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12595353/]
• 41. 2025 Compliance Leadership Redefined Survey Key ... [https://ethico.com/ethicsverse-episodes/2025-compliance-leadership-redefined-survey-key-takeaways/]
• 42. Regulatory Policy: The Transforming Clinical Trials Initiative [https://www.lungevity.org/learn-about-lungevity/public-policy/regulatory-policy-transforming-clinical-trials]
• 43. A hybrid type III effectiveness–implementation study designed to test... [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-025-25730-5]
• 44. Frontiers | Combining mechanistic quantitative systems pharmacology... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1685468/full]
• 45. Making Clinical Trials More Accessible: New Report ... [https://www.asco.org/about-asco/press-center/news-releases/making-clinical-trials-more-accessible-new-report-highlights-barriers-solutions]
• 46. Promoting Diversity through an Understanding of Barriers and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12018620/]
• 47. Addressing Barriers to Clinical Trial Diversity in Oncology [https://oncpracticemanagement.com/issues/2025/july-2025-vol-15-no-7/addressing-barriers-to-clinical-trial-diversity-in-oncology]
• 48. ASCO Issues Statement Calling for Streamlined Clinical ... [https://www.onclive.com/view/asco-issues-statement-calling-for-streamlined-clinical-trial-requirements]
• 49. Oncologists' knowledge, practices and ethical opinions ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12247256/]
• 50. Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953603003381]
• 51. Factors influencing the time to ethics and governance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10693024/]
• 52. Navigating EU Clinical Trials: Adapting To A New Era Of ... [https://www.eortc.org/blog/2025/03/18/navigating-eu-clinical-trials/]
• 53. ICH E6 Good clinical practice - Scientific guideline [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-e6-good-clinical-practice-scientific-guideline]
• 54. ICH Guidelines Simplified: Everything Researchers Need ... [https://ccrps.org/clinical-research-blog/ich-guidelines-simplified-everything-researchers-need-to-know]
• 55. Research ethics committees: Need for harmonization at the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3980546/]
• 56. The global impact of the General Data Protection Regulation [https://cco.amegroups.org/article/view/144671/html]
• 57. A transformative solution to build effective, transparent, and ... [https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-024-01219-2]
• 58. Real-World Quantitative Insights into the Treatment ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12379195/]
• 59. Global comparison of research ethical review protocols [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11975204/]
• 60. Fostering interdisciplinary cancer research education [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1671424/full]
• 61. Clinical Trials Modernization - NCI [https://dctd.cancer.gov/research/research-areas/clinical-trials/modernization]
• 62. Streamlining clinical research: an ESMO awareness call to ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923753422041850]
• 63. A brief report sets forth a “new normal,” lets NCI start to ... [https://cancerletter.com/clinical/20221111_1/]
• 64. The status quo of the development of decentralized clinical ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1664648/full]
• 65. Decentralised clinical trials: ethical opportunities and challenges [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10129131/]
• 66. Decentralized Clinical Trials: Governance, Ethics and Medico ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12551035/]
• 67. Decentralized clinical trials-balancing promise and pitfalls ... [https://www.ijclinicaltrials.com/index.php/ijct/article/view/884]
• 68. IRB/EC Considerations for DCT Review - MRCT Center [https://mrctcenter.org/resource/irb-ec-considerations-for-dct-review/]
• 69. Research Ethics | Nature Cancer [https://www.nature.com/natcancer/editorial-policies/ethics-and-biosecurity]
• 70. Resources to aid ethical review of clinical studies - Trials [https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-025-08782-1]
• 71. SPIRIT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for protocols of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12037212/]
• 72. How clinical trials are approved [https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/how-clinical-trials-are-planned-and-organised/how-clinical-trials-are-approved]
• 73. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Biobanking in Cancer ... [https://dctd.cancer.gov/research/research-areas/biobanking-biospecimen-science/elsi]
• 74. AI and RWE: Powering the Future of Oncology [https://premier-research.com/perspectives/ai-and-rwe-powering-the-future-of-oncology/]
• 75. Limited impact of real-world evidence in medical oncology [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804925004976]
• 76. OCE Oncology Artificial Intelligence Program [https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/oncology-center-excellence/oce-oncology-artificial-intelligence-program]
• 77. Artificial intelligence in cancer: applications, challenges, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12574039/]
• 78. Role of artificial intelligence in cancer drug discovery and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40414522/]