Skip to main content
. 2012 Dec 26;9(2):e55–e61. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2012.000695

Table 3.

Comparison of High- Versus Low-Accruing Sites

Site Characteristic High-Accruing Sites (n = 14)
Low-Accruing Sites (n = 13)
P
Median Range Median Range
Annual new analytic case 1,647 526-3,585 2,400 1,277-3,354 .47
Collaborations
    NCI CCOP membership
        Primary only 43% 15% .21
        Primary or affiliate 57% 38% .45
    No. of Cooperative Groups of which site is member 5 1-8 3 0-6 .15
    NCI CTSU participation 79% 62% .42
Funding source (distribution)*
    Cancer center 0% 0%-20% 10% 0%-50% .11
    Federal 46% 0%-82% 40% 0%-75% .51
    Hospital 0% 0%-99% 0% 0%-75% .82
    Industry 23% 0%-65% 31% 10%-50% .49
    Philanthropy 0% 0%-80% 0% 0%-5% .85
Institutional review board turnaround time, days 32 7-71 52 10-60 .18
No. of EP trials open (all sources) 39 6-66 13 0-53 .04

Abbreviations: CCOP, Community Clinical Oncology Program; CTSU, Cancer Trials Support Unit; EP, early-phase; NCCCP, National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program; NCI, National Cancer Institute.

*

Data from 20 sites.

Over the course of July 2010-June 2011. Number of open EP trials at a site may also reflect EP trials open at a lead site (eg, a lead CCOP site) with which that NCCCP site is affiliated.