Benjamin Farnia1, Mary A Majumder2, Arnold C Paulino3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: apaulino@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The treatment of orbital rhabdomyosarcoma is a topic of debate between North American and European clinicians, with the utility of radiation therapy as part of initial management in question. Despite differences in philosophy, the dominant North American approach of upfront radiation and the dominant European approach of radiation only in the event of recurrence yield a similar rate of overall survival. We sought to identify the ethical arguments for each approach. METHODS: Established moral principles and appeals in contemporary medical ethics were utilized to identify the ethical arguments supporting each treatment approach. The potential for technologic advances to alter the analysis was considered. RESULTS: Emphasizing the principle of beneficence, the North American approach seeks to reduce recurrence rates. In contrast, the European approach seeks to avoid radiation-induced sequelae, emphasizing the principle of nonmaleficence. Both approaches are based on well-established ethical principles, evidence, and clinical experience. Thus, both approaches currently appear to have legitimacy and should be included in the informed consent process. However, if treatment-related toxicity is reduced through improvements in radiation delivery, the North American approach could emerge as ethically superior. CONCLUSIONS: Ethical analysis can aid in addressing challenges that arise when professional practices and perspectives differ in the management of cancer patients.
PURPOSE: The treatment of orbital rhabdomyosarcoma is a topic of debate between North American and European clinicians, with the utility of radiation therapy as part of initial management in question. Despite differences in philosophy, the dominant North American approach of upfront radiation and the dominant European approach of radiation only in the event of recurrence yield a similar rate of overall survival. We sought to identify the ethical arguments for each approach. METHODS: Established moral principles and appeals in contemporary medical ethics were utilized to identify the ethical arguments supporting each treatment approach. The potential for technologic advances to alter the analysis was considered. RESULTS: Emphasizing the principle of beneficence, the North American approach seeks to reduce recurrence rates. In contrast, the European approach seeks to avoid radiation-induced sequelae, emphasizing the principle of nonmaleficence. Both approaches are based on well-established ethical principles, evidence, and clinical experience. Thus, both approaches currently appear to have legitimacy and should be included in the informed consent process. However, if treatment-related toxicity is reduced through improvements in radiation delivery, the North American approach could emerge as ethically superior. CONCLUSIONS: Ethical analysis can aid in addressing challenges that arise when professional practices and perspectives differ in the management of cancerpatients.