| Literature DB >> 24045770 |
Mark Sheehan1, Claire Timlin2, Ken Peach2, Ariella Binik3, Wilson Puthenparampil4, Mark Lodge5, Sean Kehoe6, Michael Brada7, Neil Burnet8, Steve Clarke9, Adrian Crellin10, Michael Dunn1, Piero Fossati11, Steve Harris2, Michael Hocken12, Tony Hope1, Jonathan Ives13, Tadashi Kamada14, Alex John London15, Robert Miller16, Michael Parker1, Madelon Pijls-Johannesma17, Julian Savulescu18, Susan Short19, Loane Skene20, Hirohiko Tsujii14, Jeffrey Tuan11, Charles Weijer3.
Abstract
The use of charged-particle radiation therapy (CPRT) is an increasingly important development in the treatment of cancer. One of the most pressing controversies about the use of this technology is whether randomised controlled trials are required before this form of treatment can be considered to be the treatment of choice for a wide range of indications. Equipoise is the key ethical concept in determining which research studies are justified. However, there is a good deal of disagreement about how this concept is best understood and applied in the specific case of CPRT. This report is a position statement on these controversies that arises out of a workshop held at Wolfson College, Oxford in August 2011. The workshop brought together international leaders in the relevant fields (radiation oncology, medical physics, radiobiology, research ethics and methodology), including proponents on both sides of the debate, in order to make significant progress on the ethical issues associated with CPRT research. This position statement provides an ethical platform for future research and should enable further work to be done in developing international coordinated programmes of research. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical Trials; Position Statements (of organizations/groups); Radiology; Research Ethics
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24045770 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2012-101290
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Ethics ISSN: 0306-6800 Impact factor: 2.903