Literature DB >> 2930704

Clinical trials in cancer: the role of surrogate patients in defining what constitutes an ethically acceptable clinical experiment.

W J Mackillop1, M J Palmer, B O'Sullivan, G K Ward, R Steele, G Dotsikas.   

Abstract

Doctors who treat lung cancer in Ontario were previously asked how they would wish to be managed if they developed non-small cell lung cancer and whether they would consent to participate in six clinical trials for which they might be eligible. The proportion of these expert surrogate patients who would consent to each clinical trial ranged from 11 to 64%. The results of this study were transmitted to the same group of doctors who were asked to comment on the ethical acceptability of each trial in the light of this information. The majority of physicians said that those trials to which less than 50% of expert surrogates consented should not have been opened to patients. Sixty-nine per cent of doctors thought that new trials should be evaluated in this way. We also present the results of a survey of 400 lay people in Ontario who were asked to imagine that they had lung cancer and whether they would consent to participate in two of these same clinical trials. Fifty per cent of lay people consented to a randomised trial of lobectomy versus segmentectomy in early, operable disease (LCSC-821) compared to 64% of expert surrogates, and 48% of lay people consented to a randomised trial of five different forms of chemotherapy in metastatic disease (SWOG-8241) compared to 19% of doctors. It was concluded that the lay people were unable to discern differences in the acceptability of clinical trials which were clear to experts in the field. Subsequently, respondents were told about the decisions which doctors would make in the same circumstances and asked if this information would modify their previous decisions. There is no net change in the proportion of patients consenting to the surgery trial but the proportion of people consenting to the chemotherapy trial decreased by 40%. The majority of lay people said that they would wish to have access to this type of information before consenting to participate in a clinical trial.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2930704      PMCID: PMC2247073          DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1989.78

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  13 in total

1.  Informed consent: recall by patients tested postoperatively.

Authors:  G Robinson; A Merav
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1976-09       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research.

Authors:  B Freedman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1987-07-16       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Written informed consent in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  H B Muss; D R White; R Michielutte; F Richards; M R Cooper; S Williams; J J Stuart; C L Spurr
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1979-04       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments. The influence of framing, medium, and rater variables.

Authors:  A M O'Connor; N F Boyd; D L Tritchler; Y Kriukov; H Sutherland; J E Till
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Informed (but uneducated) consent.

Authors:  F J Ingelfinger
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1972-08-31       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Obtaining informed consent. Form or substance.

Authors:  L C Epstein; L Lasagna
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1969-06

7.  On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies.

Authors:  B J McNeil; S G Pauker; H C Sox; A Tversky
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1982-05-27       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  A surrogate system for informed consent.

Authors:  H C Fost
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1975-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Cancer patients' perceptions of their disease and its treatment.

Authors:  W J Mackillop; W E Stewart; A D Ginsburg; S S Stewart
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  The use of expert surrogates to evaluate clinical trials in non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  W J Mackillop; G K Ward; B O'Sullivan
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  14 in total

1.  Tribulations for clinical trials.

Authors:  I M Macintyre
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-05-11

2.  Randomized controlled trials in health technology assessment: overkill or overdue?

Authors:  Søren M Bentzen
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 6.280

Review 3.  Is there a role for preference assessments in research on quality of life in oncology?

Authors:  J E Till; H J Sutherland; E M Meslin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Ethical challenges in conducting clinical research in lung cancer.

Authors:  Peter Allmark; Angela M Tod
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2016-06

5.  Opinion polling and decision making: a critical appraisal of quality of life assessment.

Authors:  H J Sutherland; J E Till
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: an interview study using a Grounded Theory approach.

Authors:  S M Madsen; S Holm; P Riis
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  "Hello, hello--it's English I speak!": a qualitative exploration of patients' understanding of the science of clinical trials.

Authors:  M Stead; D Eadie; D Gordon; K Angus
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Brain tumor protocols in North America.

Authors:  M Bernstein; J Rutka
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 9.  Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomised clinical trials.

Authors:  A L Avins
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  A survey of the views of palliative care healthcare professionals towards referring cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials in palliative care.

Authors:  Clare White; Kristen Gilshenan; Janet Hardy
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2008-05-01       Impact factor: 3.603

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.