Literature DB >> 32765894

Capacity to consent to research participation in adults with metastatic cancer: comparisons of brain metastasis, non-CNS metastasis, and healthy controls.

Kyler Mulhauser1,2, Dario A Marotta1,2,3, Adam Gerstenecker1, Gabrielle Wilhelm1,2, Terina Myers1,2, Meredith Gammon1,2, David E Vance1,2, Burt Nabors1,2, John Fiveash2,4, Kristen Triebel1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the ability of individuals with metastatic cancer to provide informed consent to research participation, we used a structured vignette-based interview to measure 4 consenting standards across 3 participant groups.
METHODS: Participants included 61 individuals diagnosed with brain metastasis, 41 individuals diagnosed with non-CNS metastasis, and 17 cognitively intact healthy controls. All groups were evaluated using the Capacity to Consent to Research Instrument (CCRI), a performance-based measure of research consent capacity. The ability to provide informed consent to participate in research was evaluated across 4 consent standards: expressing choice, appreciation, reasoning, and understanding. Capacity performance ratings (intact, mild/moderate impairment, severe impairment) were identified based on control group performance.
RESULTS: Results revealed that the brain metastasis group performed significantly lower than healthy controls on the consent standard of understanding, while both metastatic cancer groups performed below controls on the consent standard of reasoning. Both metastatic cancer groups performed similar to controls on the standards of appreciation and expressing choice. Approximately 60% of the brain metastasis group, 54% of the non-CNS metastasis group, and 18% of healthy controls showed impaired research consent capacity.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings, using a performance-based assessment, are consistent with other research indicating that the research consent process may be overly cumbersome and confusing. This, in turn, may lead to research consent impairment not only in patient groups but also in some healthy adults with intact cognitive ability.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer; consent capacity; informed consent; metastasis; research participation

Year:  2020        PMID: 32765894      PMCID: PMC7393275          DOI: 10.1093/nop/npaa008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurooncol Pract        ISSN: 2054-2577


  30 in total

1.  A new brief instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clinical research.

Authors:  Dilip V Jeste; Barton W Palmer; Paul S Appelbaum; Shahrokh Golshan; Danielle Glorioso; Laura B Dunn; Kathleen Kim; Thomas Meeks; Helena C Kraemer
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2007-08

2.  The therapeutic misconception and our models of competency and informed consent.

Authors:  Charles W Lidz
Journal:  Behav Sci Law       Date:  2006

3.  Guidelines for assessing the decision-making capacities of potential research subjects with cognitive impairment. American Psychiatric Association.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 18.112

4.  Comprehension and recall from the informed consent process by phase I healthy volunteers before dose administration.

Authors:  Rami Tadros; Gillian E Caughey; Sally Johns; Sepehr Shakib
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Medical decision-making in neurodegenerative disease: mild AD and PD with cognitive impairment.

Authors:  H R Griffith; M P Dymek; P Atchison; L Harrell; D C Marson
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2005-08-09       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 6.  Informed consent for medical treatment and research: a review.

Authors:  Marcela G del Carmen; Steven Joffe
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2005-09

7.  Medical decision-making capacity in patients with malignant glioma.

Authors:  Kristen L Triebel; Roy C Martin; Louis B Nabors; Daniel C Marson
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  Cognition in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastasis: profiles and implications.

Authors:  Adam Gerstenecker; Louis B Nabors; Karen Meneses; John B Fiveash; Daniel C Marson; Gary Cutter; Roy C Martin; Christina A Meyers; Kristen L Triebel
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2014-07-18       Impact factor: 4.130

9.  Neurocognitive function and progression in patients with brain metastases treated with whole-brain radiation and motexafin gadolinium: results of a randomized phase III trial.

Authors:  Christina A Meyers; Jennifer A Smith; Andrea Bezjak; Minesh P Mehta; James Liebmann; Tim Illidge; Ian Kunkler; Jean-Michel Caudrelier; Peter D Eisenberg; Jacobus Meerwaldt; Ross Siemers; Christian Carrie; Laurie E Gaspar; Walter Curran; See-Chun Phan; Richard A Miller; Markus F Renschler
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  The cognitive sequelae of standard-dose adjuvant chemotherapy in women with breast carcinoma: results of a prospective, randomized, longitudinal trial.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Wefel; Renato Lenzi; Richard L Theriault; Robert N Davis; Christina A Meyers
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  1 in total

1.  Palliative Care Consultation for Hospitalized Patients with Primary and Secondary Brain Tumors at a Single Academic Center.

Authors:  Rita C Crooms; Hung-Mo Lin; Sean Neifert; Stacie G Deiner; Jess W Brallier; Nathan E Goldstein; Jonathan S Gal; Laura P Gelfman
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.947

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.