CTSC:multicenter042110 - Revision history

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

2010-10-05T03:15:59Z

Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

2010-05-18T04:44:18Z

Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

2010-05-18T04:42:55Z

Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

2010-05-18T04:41:38Z

Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

2010-05-18T04:35:15Z

Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

2010-05-18T04:28:03Z

Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

2010-05-18T04:27:50Z

Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

2010-05-18T04:01:32Z

Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

2010-05-18T03:59:42Z

Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010

Valerie.humblet: Created page with 'Back to Collaboration:Harvard_CTSC
'''Agenda''' # Definition of goals for this new subgroup # Learn from existing multicenter trials == Mul…'

2010-05-18T03:59:30Z

Created page with 'Back to Collaboration:Harvard_CTSC <br> '''Agenda''' # Definition of goals for this new subgroup # Learn from existing multicenter trials == Mul…'

New page

Back to [[Collaboration:Harvard_CTSC|Collaboration:Harvard_CTSC]]
<br>

'''Agenda'''

# Definition of goals for this new subgroup
# Learn from existing multicenter trials

== Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 ==

In attendance:

* Valerie Humblet
* Bob Lenkinski
* Clare Tempany
* Charles Guttmann
* Simon Warfield
* Jeff Yap
* Neil Rofsky

'''1. Goals''' <br>

* The main goal of this group is to set up a imaging trial across Harvard. It could be a virtual trial (no need for funding) or a real trial. Several modalities must be considered.
* The goal is to start with a simple example and then go for more complicated examples.
* Being able to do a successful cross-Harvard imaging trial is be very good with the perspective of the CTSA grant renewal.

'''2. Discussion''' <br>

* Validation is key, consistency of results is crucial. Reproducibility across sites and across vendors must be achieved.
* Jeff suggested to look at some of the existing, already funded multicenter trial and see if we could help them wirk on a better reproducibility across site. He cited the example of neuro-oncology trials with DCE-MRI. So far the acquisitions are not standardized across institutions. At DFCI they are now testing the sequences used by Greg Sorensen at MGH.
* Simon

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 * Jeff suggested to look at some of the existing, already funded multicenter trial and see if we could help them wirk on a better reproducibility across site. He cited the example of neuro-oncology trials with DCE-MRI. So far the acquisitions are not standardized across institutions. At DFCI they are now testing the sequences used by Greg Sorensen at MGH.
 * Simon agreed, the same problems exist in pediatric neuro-oncology. He suggested to do a simulation to be able to show that by using protocols that are not standardized one gets different results. Bob confirmed that validation would be doable in this case between CHB and MGH.
-* Charles has data of longitudinal studies (people are scanned on the same scanner). In clinical trial for MS, people were scanned monthly (MRI) with injection of contrast agent. The new approach is to do subtraction in a longitudinal study. The result: 80% less scan with the new method and very good measures  to see if the treatment works. References: [[media:Duanajrn2009.pdf]], [[media:MoraalAnnalsNeurol2010.pdf]], [[media:MoraalRadiology2009.pdf]]
+* Charles has data of longitudinal studies (people are scanned on the same scanner). In clinical trial for MS, people were scanned monthly (MRI) with injection of contrast agent. The new approach is to do subtraction in a longitudinal study. The result: 80% less scan with the new method and very good measures  to see if the treatment works. References: [[media:Duanajrn2009.pdf|Duanajrn2009.pdf ]], [[media:MoraalAnnalsNeurol2010.pdf|MoraalAnnalsNeurol2010.pdf]], [[media:MoraalRadiology2009.pdf|MoraalRadiology2009.pdf]]
 * Analysis is also a key component, most of the time, the analysis arm is the part that fails.
 * Bob is in touch with Cecil Charles from Duke University who has extensive experience in conducting longitudinal clinical trials with MRI and MRS used as biomarkers.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 * Jeff suggested to look at some of the existing, already funded multicenter trial and see if we could help them wirk on a better reproducibility across site. He cited the example of neuro-oncology trials with DCE-MRI. So far the acquisitions are not standardized across institutions. At DFCI they are now testing the sequences used by Greg Sorensen at MGH.
 * Simon agreed, the same problems exist in pediatric neuro-oncology. He suggested to do a simulation to be able to show that by using protocols that are not standardized one gets different results. Bob confirmed that validation would be doable in this case between CHB and MGH.
-* Charles has data of longitudinal studies (people are scanned on the same scanner). In clinical trial for MS, people were scanned monthly (MRI) with injection of contrast agent. The new approach is to do subtraction in a longitudinal study. The result: 80% less scan with the new method and very good measures  to see if the treatment works. References: [[media: Duanajrn2009.pdf]], [[media: MoraalAnnalsNeurol2010.pdf]], [[media: MoraalRadiology2009.pdf]]
+* Charles has data of longitudinal studies (people are scanned on the same scanner). In clinical trial for MS, people were scanned monthly (MRI) with injection of contrast agent. The new approach is to do subtraction in a longitudinal study. The result: 80% less scan with the new method and very good measures  to see if the treatment works. References: [[media:Duanajrn2009.pdf]], [[media:MoraalAnnalsNeurol2010.pdf]], [[media:MoraalRadiology2009.pdf]]
 * Analysis is also a key component, most of the time, the analysis arm is the part that fails.
 * Bob is in touch with Cecil Charles from Duke University who has extensive experience in conducting longitudinal clinical trials with MRI and MRS used as biomarkers.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 * Jeff suggested to look at some of the existing, already funded multicenter trial and see if we could help them wirk on a better reproducibility across site. He cited the example of neuro-oncology trials with DCE-MRI. So far the acquisitions are not standardized across institutions. At DFCI they are now testing the sequences used by Greg Sorensen at MGH.
 * Simon agreed, the same problems exist in pediatric neuro-oncology. He suggested to do a simulation to be able to show that by using protocols that are not standardized one gets different results. Bob confirmed that validation would be doable in this case between CHB and MGH.
-* Charles has data of longitudinal studies (people are scanned on the same scanner). In clinical trial for MS, people were scanned monthly (MRI) with injection of contrast agent. The new approach is to do subtraction in a longitudinal study. The result: 80% less scan with the new method and very good measures  to see if the treatment works. References: [
+* Charles has data of longitudinal studies (people are scanned on the same scanner). In clinical trial for MS, people were scanned monthly (MRI) with injection of contrast agent. The new approach is to do subtraction in a longitudinal study. The result: 80% less scan with the new method and very good measures  to see if the treatment works. References: [[media: Duanajrn2009.pdf]], [[media: MoraalAnnalsNeurol2010.pdf]], [[media: MoraalRadiology2009.pdf]]
 * Analysis is also a key component, most of the time, the analysis arm is the part that fails.
 * Bob is in touch with Cecil Charles from Duke University who has extensive experience in conducting longitudinal clinical trials with MRI and MRS used as biomarkers.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 * Jeff suggested to look at some of the existing, already funded multicenter trial and see if we could help them wirk on a better reproducibility across site. He cited the example of neuro-oncology trials with DCE-MRI. So far the acquisitions are not standardized across institutions. At DFCI they are now testing the sequences used by Greg Sorensen at MGH.
 * Simon agreed, the same problems exist in pediatric neuro-oncology. He suggested to do a simulation to be able to show that by using protocols that are not standardized one gets different results. Bob confirmed that validation would be doable in this case between CHB and MGH.
-* Charles has data of longitudinal studies (people are scanned on the same scanner). In clinical trial for MS, people were scanned monthly (MRI) with injection of contrast agent. The new approach is to do subtraction in a longitudinal study. The result: 80% less scan with the new method and very good measures  to see if the treatment works.
+* Charles has data of longitudinal studies (people are scanned on the same scanner). In clinical trial for MS, people were scanned monthly (MRI) with injection of contrast agent. The new approach is to do subtraction in a longitudinal study. The result: 80% less scan with the new method and very good measures  to see if the treatment works. References: [
 * Analysis is also a key component, most of the time, the analysis arm is the part that fails.
 * Bob is in touch with Cecil Charles from Duke University who has extensive experience in conducting longitudinal clinical trials with MRI and MRS used as biomarkers.

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 * Analysis is also a key component, most of the time, the analysis arm is the part that fails.
 * Bob is in touch with Cecil Charles from Duke University who has extensive experience in conducting longitudinal clinical trials with MRI and MRS used as biomarkers.
 '''3. Actions items''' <br>

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 # Learn from existing multicenter trials
-== Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 ==
+== Multicenter Clinical Trial Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 ==
 In attendance:

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 * The goal is to start with a simple example and then go for more complicated examples.
 * Being able to do a successful cross-Harvard imaging trial is be very good with the perspective of the CTSA grant renewal.
 '''2. Discussion''' <br>
@@ Line 30: / Line 32: @@
 * Validation is key, consistency of results is crucial. Reproducibility across sites and across vendors must be achieved.
 * Jeff suggested to look at some of the existing, already funded multicenter trial and see if we could help them wirk on a better reproducibility across site. He cited the example of neuro-oncology trials with DCE-MRI. So far the acquisitions are not standardized across institutions. At DFCI they are now testing the sequences used by Greg Sorensen at MGH.
-* Simon agreed, the same problems exist in pediatric neuro-oncology. He suggested to do a simulation to be able to show that by using protocols that are not standardized one gets different results.
+* Simon agreed, the same problems exist in pediatric neuro-oncology. He suggested to do a simulation to be able to show that by using protocols that are not standardized one gets different results. Bob confirmed that validation would be doable in this case between CHB and MGH.
+* Charles has data of longitudinal studies (people are scanned on the same scanner). In clinical trial for MS, people were scanned monthly (MRI) with injection of contrast agent. The new approach is to do subtraction in a longitudinal study. The result: 80% less scan with the new method and very good measures  to see if the treatment works.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 * Jeff Yap
 * Neil Rofsky
 '''1. Goals''' <br>

CTSC:multicenter042110 - Revision history

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

Valerie.humblet: /* Multicenter Clinical Trail Working group Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 */

Valerie.humblet: Created page with 'Back to Collaboration:Harvard_CTSC '''Agenda''' # Definition of goals for this new subgroup # Learn from existing multicenter trials == Mul…'

Valerie.humblet: Created page with 'Back to Collaboration:Harvard_CTSC
'''Agenda''' # Definition of goals for this new subgroup # Learn from existing multicenter trials == Mul…'