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.
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-humanparticipants. 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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