Literature DB >> 28837373

Informed Consent and Decision Making Among Participants in Novel-Design Phase I Oncology Trials.

Katherine E Reeder-Hayes1, Megan C Roberts1, Gail E Henderson1, Elizabeth C Dees1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although phase I clinical trials are the gateway to progress in cancer therapies, this setting poses ethical challenges to ensure that patients provide consent free from misunderstandings of therapeutic intent or unrealistic expectations of benefit. The design of phase I oncology trials has evolved rapidly over time and today includes more targeted agents and combinations of experimental drugs with standard drugs, which may further complicate how patients understand phase I research participation.
METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews regarding motivations, decision making, and understanding of trial purpose nested within a phase I clinical trial of a novel PI3kinase inhibitor combined with a standard oral chemotherapy in 18 participants.
RESULTS: Fewer than half of patients correctly identified the safety and dosing objectives. The inclusion of a targeted agent was attractive to participants and was perceived as an indicator of less toxic or more efficacious therapy, with less appreciation for added risks. The significance of a cellular drug target, without a known predictive biomarker of response, was unclear to patients. The inclusion of a standard drug in the regimen attracted patients with more treatment options than traditional first-in-human participants. Patients frequently expressed a realistic understanding of prognosis and uncertainty of benefit, but simultaneous hopes for extraordinary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Novel phase I oncology trial designs may attract patients with less constrained treatment options, but the inclusion of targeted drugs and combinations including standard chemotherapies is likely to complicate understanding of safety and dosing objectives and likelihood of personal benefit for purposes of informed consent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28837373      PMCID: PMC5640413          DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2017.021303

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oncol Pract        ISSN: 1554-7477            Impact factor:   3.840


  30 in total

1.  Impact of quality of life on patient expectations regarding phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  J D Cheng; J Hitt; B Koczwara; K A Schulman; C B Burnett; D J Gaskin; J H Rowland; N J Meropol
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  P S Appelbaum; L H Roth; C W Lidz; P Benson; W Winslade
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.683

3.  Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model.

Authors:  I M Rosenstock; V J Strecher; M H Becker
Journal:  Health Educ Q       Date:  1988

4.  Multicenter, Phase II study of capecitabine in taxane-pretreated metastatic breast carcinoma patients.

Authors:  J L Blum; V Dieras; P M Lo Russo; J Horton; O Rutman; A Buzdar; B Osterwalder
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Unrealistic optimism in early-phase oncology trials.

Authors:  Lynn A Jansen; Paul S Appelbaum; William M P Klein; Neil D Weinstein; William Cook; Jessica S Fogel; Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb

Review 6.  Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors.

Authors:  Edward J Mills; Dugald Seely; Beth Rachlis; Lauren Griffith; Ping Wu; Kumanan Wilson; Peter Ellis; James R Wright
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002.

Authors:  Elizabeth Horstmann; Mary S McCabe; Louise Grochow; Seiichiro Yamamoto; Larry Rubinstein; Troy Budd; Dale Shoemaker; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Christine Grady
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Ethics of phase 1 oncology studies: reexamining the arguments and data.

Authors:  Manish Agrawal; Ezekiel J Emanuel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-08-27       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities.

Authors:  Vivek H Murthy; Harlan M Krumholz; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-06-09       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  A study of motivations and expectations of patients seen in phase 1 oncology clinics.

Authors:  Saoirse O Dolly; Eleftheria Kalaitzaki; Martina Puglisi; Sarah Stimpson; Janet Hanwell; Sonia Serrano Fandos; Sarah Stapleton; Thushara Ansari; Clare Peckitt; Stan Kaye; Juanita Lopez; Timothy A Yap; Winette van der Graaf; Johann de Bono; Udai Banerji
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  9 in total

1.  Before Consent: Qualitative Analysis of Deliberations of Patients With Advanced Cancer About Early-Phase Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Sarah B Garrett; Thea M Matthews; Corey M Abramson; Christopher J Koenig; Fay J Hlubocky; Christopher K Daugherty; Pamela N Munster; Daniel Dohan
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2019-10-11

2.  Early drug development in solid tumours: analysis of National Cancer Institute-sponsored phase 1 trials.

Authors:  Dai Chihara; Ruitao Lin; Christopher R Flowers; Shanda R Finnigan; Lisa M Cordes; Yoko Fukuda; Erich P Huang; Larry V Rubinstein; Loretta J Nastoupil; S Percy Ivy; James H Doroshow; Naoko Takebe
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2022-08-13       Impact factor: 202.731

Review 3.  Practical guidance for telemedicine use in neuro-oncology.

Authors:  Roy E Strowd; Erin M Dunbar; Hui K Gan; Sylvia Kurz; Justin T Jordan; Jacob J Mandel; Nimish A Mohile; Kathryn S Nevel; Jennie W Taylor; Nicole J Ullrich; Mary R Welch; Andrea Wasilewski; Maciej M Mrugala
Journal:  Neurooncol Pract       Date:  2022-01-17

Review 4.  Hope and meaning-making in phase 1 oncology trials: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence on patient-participant experiences.

Authors:  Kate Escritt; Mala Mann; Annmarie Nelson; Emily Harrop
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 2.728

5.  COMplot, A Graphical Presentation of Complication Profiles and Adverse Effects for the Curative Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Tom van den Ende; Frank A Abe Nijenhuis; Héctor G van den Boorn; Emil Ter Veer; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Martijn G H van Oijen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2019-07-25       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  The Essentials of Multiomics.

Authors:  John L Marshall; Beth N Peshkin; Takayuki Yoshino; Jakob Vowinckel; Håvard E Danielsen; Gerry Melino; Ioannis Tsamardinos; Christian Haudenschild; David J Kerr; Carlos Sampaio; Sun Young Rha; Kevin T FitzGerald; Eric C Holland; David Gallagher; Jesus Garcia-Foncillas; Hartmut Juhl
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2022-04-05

7.  Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent.

Authors:  Mary Murphy; Eilís McCaughan; Matthew A Carson; Monica Donovan; Richard H Wilson; Donna Fitzsimons
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 3.234

Review 8.  Shared Decision-Making and Medicolegal Aspects: Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care in India.

Authors:  Dinesh C Doval; Prabhash Kumar; Vineet Talwar; Ashok K Vaid; Chirag Desai; Vikas Ostwal; Palanki S Dattatreya; Vijay Agarwal; Vaibhav Saxena
Journal:  Indian J Palliat Care       Date:  2020-11-19

Review 9.  Tele-neuro-oncology: Current Practices and Future Directions.

Authors:  Andrea Wasilewski; Nimish Mohile
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 5.945

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.