Literature DB >> 28050141

Stakeholder views on participant selection for first-in-human trials in cancer nanomedicine.

P Satalkar1, B S Elger1, D M Shaw1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Participant selection for first-in-human (fih) trials involves complex decisions. The trial design makes it unlikely that participants will receive clinically relevant therapeutic benefit, but they are likely to experience risks of various magnitudes and types. The aim of the present paper was to describe and discuss the views of investigators and ethics committee members about the choice of trial participants for fih trials in cancer nanomedicine.
METHODS: We drew insights from an exploratory qualitative study involving thematic analysis of 46 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in Europe and North America involved in fih nanomedicine trials. The present work draws on subset of 21 interviews with investigators and ethics committee members who have either conducted or reviewed a fih cancer nanomedicine trial or are planning one.
RESULTS: Investigators and ethics committee members are aware of the ethics standards for recruiting patients with end-stage cancer into fih trials, but they nonetheless question the practice and provide reasons against it.
CONCLUSIONS: Although it is a standard and ethically accepted practice to enrol patients with end-stage cancer and no treatment options into fih trials of investigational chemotherapeutic molecules, doing so can threaten the validity and generalizability of the trials, thereby weakening translational research. Another possibility is to stratify and include patients with less advanced disease who demonstrate certain biomarkers or cancer genotypes and who have a disease profile similar to that tested in preclinical studies. The latter approach could be a step toward personalized medical research and targeted drug development. Such a patient selection approach requires multi-stakeholder discussion to reach scientific and ethics consensus.

Entities:  

Keywords:  First-in-human trials; empirical ethics; nanomedicine; qualitative research; trial participant selection

Year:  2016        PMID: 28050141      PMCID: PMC5176378          DOI: 10.3747/co.23.3214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.677


  32 in total

Review 1.  Nanomedicine applied to translational oncology: A future perspective on cancer treatment.

Authors:  Lisa Bregoli; Dania Movia; James D Gavigan-Imedio; Joanne Lysaght; John Reynolds; Adriele Prina-Mello
Journal:  Nanomedicine       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 5.307

2.  Rethinking risk assessment for emerging technology first-in-human trials.

Authors:  Anna Genske; Sabrina Engel-Glatter
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2016-03

3.  Elements of style: consent form language and the therapeutic misconception in phase 1 gene transfer trials.

Authors:  Jonathan Kimmelman; Aaron Levenstadt
Journal:  Hum Gene Ther       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.695

4.  The structure of clinical translation: efficiency, information, and ethics.

Authors:  Jonathan Kimmelman; Alex John London
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 2.683

5.  Attitudes to participation in a lung cancer screening trial: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Deesha Patel; Ajiri Akporobaro; Nyasha Chinyanganya; Allan Hackshaw; Clive Seale; Stephen G Spiro; Chris Griffiths
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 9.139

6.  Feeding and Bleeding: The Institutional Banalization of Risk to Healthy Volunteers in Phase I Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Jill A Fisher
Journal:  Sci Technol Human Values       Date:  2015-03-01

7.  Recommendations for nanomedicine human subjects research oversight: an evolutionary approach for an emerging field.

Authors:  Leili Fatehi; Susan M Wolf; Jeffrey McCullough; Ralph Hall; Frances Lawrenz; Jeffrey P Kahn; Cortney Jones; Stephen A Campbell; Rebecca S Dresser; Arthur G Erdman; Christy L Haynes; Robert A Hoerr; Linda F Hogle; Moira A Keane; George Khushf; Nancy M P King; Efrosini Kokkoli; Gary Marchant; Andrew D Maynard; Martin Philbert; Gurumurthy Ramachandran; Ronald A Siegel; Samuel Wickline
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 8.  Phase 0 clinical trials: conceptions and misconceptions.

Authors:  Shivaani Kummar; Larry Rubinstein; Robert Kinders; Ralph E Parchment; Martin E Gutierrez; Anthony J Murgo; Jay Ji; Barbara Mroczkowski; Oxana K Pickeral; Mel Simpson; Melinda Hollingshead; Sherry X Yang; Lee Helman; Robert Wiltrout; Jerry Collins; Joseph E Tomaszewski; James H Doroshow
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.360

9.  First-in-human trial participants: not a vulnerable population, but vulnerable nonetheless.

Authors:  Rebecca Dresser
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.718

10.  Drivers and barriers to patient participation in RCTs.

Authors:  V Jenkins; V Farewell; D Farewell; J Darmanin; J Wagstaff; C Langridge; L Fallowfield
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  1 in total

1.  Important ethical issues for nanomedicine.

Authors:  Sora Yasri; Viroj Wiwanitkit
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2017-12-26       Impact factor: 1.852

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.