Early Impact of COVID-19 on the Conduct of Oncology Clinical Trials and Long-Term Opportunities for Transformation: Findings From an American Society of Clinical Oncology Survey
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted all aspects of clinical care, including cancer clinical trials. In March 2020, ASCO launched a survey of clinical programs represented on its Cancer Research Committee and Research Community Forum Steering Group and taskforces to learn about the types of changes and challenges that clinical trial programs were experiencing early in the pandemic. There were 32 survey respondents; 14 represented academic programs, and 18 represented community-based programs. Respondents indicated that COVID-19 is leading programs to halt or prioritize screening and/or enrollment for certain clinical trials and cease research-only visits. Most reported conducting remote patient care where possible and remote visits and monitoring with sponsors and/or contract research organizations (CROs); respondents viewed this shift positively. Numerous challenges with conducting clinical trials were reported, including enrollment and protocol adherence difficulties with decreased patient visits, staffing constraints, and limited availability of ancillary services. Interactions with sponsors and CROs about modifying trial procedures were also challenging. The changes in clinical trial procedures identified by the survey could serve as strategies for other programs attempting to maintain their clinical trial portfolios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, many of the adaptations to trials made during the pandemic provide a long-term opportunity to improve and transform the clinical trial system. Specific improvements could be expanded use of more pragmatic or streamlined trial designs, fewer clinical trial-related patient visits, and minimized sponsor and CRO visits to trial programs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
By supporting transparency, CONSERVE may also promote public trust in science when studies encounter unanticipated circumstances.
“By supporting transparency, CONSERVE may also promote public trust in science when studies encounter unanticipated circumstances.”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 7 · Cited by 199
- Authors
- Waterhouse, D. M., Harvey, R. D., Hurley, P., Levit, L. A., Kim, E. S., Klepin, H. D., Mileham, K. F., Nowakowski, G., Schenkel, C., Davis, C., Bruinooge, S. S., & Schilsky, R. L.
- Affiliations
- Oncology Hematology Care (US)
- Emory University (US)
- American Society of Clinical Oncology (US)
- Levine Cancer Institute (US)
- Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- JCO Oncology Practice
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 417-421
- ISSN
- 2688-1527 (ISSN-L)
- 2688-1535
- OpenAlex
- W3024354748
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 43
- FWCI
- 15.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- JCO Oncology Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- American Society of Clinical Oncology
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
- Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, cancer clinical trials, clinical trial conduct, remote patient care, clinical trial recruitment, protocol adherence, staffing constraints, ancillary services, contract research organizations, pragmatic trial design
- MeSH terms
- Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Pneumonia, Viral, United States, Coronavirus Infections, Pandemics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review