Literature DB >> 20486176

Reasons for participation in optional pharmacokinetic studies in children with cancer: a Children's Oncology Group phase 1 consortium study.

Stacey L Berg1, Naomi Winick, Ashish Mark Ingle, Peter C Adamson, Susan M Blaney.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Pharmacokinetic (PK) studies provide critical information about the disposition of anticancer drugs in children. In the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Phase 1 Consortium, pharmacokinetic studies are usually optional. We surveyed the attitudes towards PK studies among subjects in phase 1 trials at COG institutions.
METHODS: Subjects were eligible if they participated in a phase 1 anticancer drug study with optional PK studies within the 4 weeks, regardless of whether they agreed to participate in the PK studies. Staff provided demographics; subjects/parents completed a questionnaire.
RESULTS: Fifty eligible subjects enrolled. Thirty-six (72%) of the 50 eligible subjects consented to participate in PK studies; 14 (25%) declined. The most common reasons for participating were "the results might help researchers learn more about the drug" and "results from the pharmacokinetic studies might help other children." The most common reasons for not participating were "having the samples drawn would mean spending extra time in the hospital," and "my child might have needed a separate IV catheter in order to participate."
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of subjects identified altruistic motives for participation in PK studies. Subjects who did not participate in PK studies identified extra time and need for an extra IV as important concerns. Simple interventions like sending staff to the subjects' home to draw PK samples or drawing samples from existing catheters could increase the number of subjects who are willing to participate in PK studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20486176      PMCID: PMC2911979          DOI: 10.1002/pbc.22529

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer        ISSN: 1545-5009            Impact factor:   3.167


  18 in total

1.  Phase I cancer trials. A collusion of misunderstanding.

Authors:  M Miller
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.683

2.  Altruistic discourse in the informed consent process for childhood cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Christian Simon; Michelle Eder; Eric Kodish; Laura Siminoff
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 11.229

3.  Altruism and pediatric oncology trials: it does not tip the decision-making scales.

Authors:  Katherine Wasson
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 11.229

4.  Phase I trials in cancer patients: participants' perceptions.

Authors:  C Hutchison
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.520

5.  The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research.

Authors:  P S Appelbaum; L H Roth; C Lidz
Journal:  Int J Law Psychiatry       Date:  1982

6.  Patients' decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research.

Authors:  Manish Agrawal; Christine Grady; Diane L Fairclough; Neal J Meropol; Kim Maynard; Ezekiel J Emanuel
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-09-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Tissue collection for correlative studies in childhood cancer clinical trials: ethical considerations and special imperatives.

Authors:  Barry D Anderson; Peter C Adamson; Susan L Weiner; Mary S McCabe; Malcolm A Smith
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from Phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Kevin P Weinfurt; Liana D Castel; Yun Li; Daniel P Sulmasy; Andrew M Balshem; Al B Benson; Caroline B Burnett; Darrell J Gaskin; John L Marshall; Elyse F Slater; Kevin A Schulman; Neal J Meropol
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Performing nondiagnostic research biopsies in irradiated tissue: a review of scientific, clinical, and ethical considerations.

Authors:  Aaron P Brown; David S Wendler; Kevin A Camphausen; Franklin G Miller; Deborah Citrin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-08-20       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Patient expectations of benefit from phase I clinical trials: linguistic considerations in diagnosing a therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  K P Weinfurt; D P Sulmasy; K A Schulman; N J Meropol
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2003
View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Provocative questions in osteosarcoma basic and translational biology: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Authors:  Ryan D Roberts; Michael M Lizardo; Damon R Reed; Pooja Hingorani; Jason Glover; Wendy Allen-Rhoades; Timothy Fan; Chand Khanna; E Alejandro Sweet-Cordero; Thomas Cash; Michael W Bishop; Meenakshi Hegde; Aparna R Sertil; Christian Koelsche; Lisa Mirabello; David Malkin; Poul H Sorensen; Paul S Meltzer; Katherine A Janeway; Richard Gorlick; Brian D Crompton
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  US Military Service Members' Reasons for Deciding to Participate in Health Research.

Authors:  Wendy A Cook; Kristal C Melvin; Ardith Z Doorenbos
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 2.228

Review 3.  The complexity of consenting to clinical research in phase I pediatric cancer studies.

Authors:  Tal Schechter; Ronald Grant
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.022

4.  Investigating the Experiences of Childhood Cancer Patients and Parents Participating in Optional Nontherapeutic Clinical Research Studies in the UK.

Authors:  Julie Errington; Ghada Malik; Julie Evans; Jenny Baston; Annie Parry; Lisa Price; Hina Johnstone; Selena Peters; Victoria Oram; Karen Howe; Emma Whiteley; Jane Tunnacliffe; Gareth J Veal
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 3.167

5.  Factors Influencing Participation Of Healthy Volunteers In Clinical Trials: Findings From A Cross-Sectional Study In Delhi, North India.

Authors:  Rajesh Ranjan; Nidhi Bharal Agarwal; Prem Kapur; Amit Marwah; Rizwana Parveen
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 6.  Motivations of children and their parents to participate in drug research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Krista Tromp; C Michel Zwaan; Suzanne van de Vathorst
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 3.183

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.