Abstract
Purpose
To implement adjusted performance imaging metrics on imaging clinical trials of a pharmaceutical company (Roche) in a business relationship with preferred imaging providers and to report on findings and lessons learned.
Methods
In 2009 the Metrics Champion Consortium provided the first imaging metrics for use in clinical trials as industry consensus. Roche reviewed, adjusted, excluded, and extended these metrics and defined target values per metric in order to implement them in all clinical trials with 7 preferred providers.
Results
Roche preferred providers were able to report on all 19 metrics (8 unchanged Metrics Champion Consortium, 7 adjusted, and 4 Roche defined). Seventy-three Roche studies over 27 months form the basis for reporting; data are provided as mean and standard deviation per disease area with number of studies and for all studies reported for the specific metric for all providers. Disease areas are oncology, central nervous system, and inflammation. Seventeen metrics have proven to be useful; 2 metrics did not provide sufficient information; and 4 metrics need adjustments of target values.
Limitations
Imaging trial-related metrics are a new concept, and Roche and providers had to develop the same consistent understanding of content and how to report a specific metric. The 73 studies covered all phases and disease areas, which made it difficult at times to compare results.
Conclusions
Imaging metrics in clinical trials are a useful tool in improving timeliness and quality of imaging data, enhancing trial processes, and governing sponsor/provider relationships. It increases the transparency in the business relationship and in the different clinical trial-related process steps. The use of metrics highlights critical topics, such as reading and adjudication, and enables parties to take actions to improve performance. Disease area-related reporting needs more data for specific improvements.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Booz & Co Inc. 2012 healthcare pharmaceutical industry perspective. http://www.booz.com/global/home/what-we-think/reports-white-papers/article-display/2012-healthcare-pharmaceuticals-industry-perspective. Published December 7, 2011. Accessed January 24, 2014.
About.com. Key performance indicators: how an organization defines and measures progress toward its goals. http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/keyperfindic.htm. Accessed January 24, 2014.
Metrics Champion Consortium. Building partnerships around standardized performance metrics. http://www.metricschampion.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/MCC_Imaging_PM_Handout_JUNE2013.pdf. Published June 2013. Accessed March 4, 2014.
Sullivan LB. Peak performance. http://www.samedanltd.com/magazine/13/issue/153/article/2943. Accessed January 24, 2014.
Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. http://qibawiki.rsna.org/index.php?title=Main_Page. Accessed January 24, 2014.
Granger CB, Vogel V, Cummings SR, et al. Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events? Clin Trials. 2008;5:56–60.
Walovitch R, Memisoglu A, Walsh D. Adjudication in oncology trials. http://www.wcclinical.com/docs/whitepapers/200912-adjudication-in-oncology-trials.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McDonald, A., Zahlmann, G. Implementing Adjusted Imaging Metrics Within Roche With the Metrics Champion Consortium: Experiences and Outcome. Ther Innov Regul Sci 48, 749–761 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479014527747
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479014527747