Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics of Clinical Oncology Research

  • Chapter
Oncology

  • 272 Accesses

Abstract

Ever since the earliest days of cancer research, ethical issues have been integral. In 1891, a French physician, Victor Cornil, reported that to determine whether cancer was contagious, a small section of breast tumor removed from the breast of one woman was implanted in her contralateral noncancerous breast. The surgical resection and implant were conducted when the patient was anesthetized and without the patient’s consent. When this research study was initially reported it was condemned “as criminal.“ In 1892, another cancer surgeon, William Coley, was conducting studies to determine whether “artificial erysipelas” (induced inflammation) would have antineoplastic effects. In describing one patient with a sarcoma, he noted that initially the patient was most reluctant to undergo the treatment. But “after some deliberation he consented, and on the 21st of April 1892 I began inoculations.” Since that time, there has been substantial thought about the ethical issues involved in clinical oncology research, producing both more systematic analyses and important empirical data relevant to these issues. We delineate a general framework for analyzing the ethics of clinical research studies and then examine ethical issues involved in individual topics: (1) randomization and clinical equipoise; (2) informed consent; (3) Phase I oncology research; (4) stored biologic samples; (5) genetic testing; and (6) conflict of interest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Lederer SE. Subjected to science: human experimentation in America before the Second World War. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000;283(20):2701–2711.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Killen J, Grady C. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis 2004;189(5):930–937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. In: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). Geneva: CIOMS, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Freedman B. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB 1987;9(6):7–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. The Belmont Report. In: The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research; 1979. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  7. World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (Tokyo 2004). http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm. Accessed 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  8. The Nuremberg Code. JAMA 1996;276(20):1691.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Berg JW, Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Parker LS. Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wendler D, Rackoff JE. Informed consent and respecting autonomy: what’s a signature got to do with it? IRB 2001;23(3):1–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lilienfeld AM. The Fielding H. Garrison Lecture: Ceteris paribus: the evolution of the clinical trial. Bull Hist Med 1982;56(1):1–18.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Medical Research Council: Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Br Med J 1948;2:769–782.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hellman S, Hellman DS. Of mice but not men. Problems of the randomized clinical trial. N Engl J Med 1991;324(22):1585–1589.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987;317(3):141–145.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bracken MB. Clinical trials and the acceptance of uncertainty. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;294(6580):1111–1112.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lilford RJ, Jackson J. Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med 1995;88(10):552–559.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fried C. Medical Experimentation: Personal Integrity and Social Policy. New York: American Elsevier, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000;356(9230): 635–638.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Joffe S, Harrington DP, George SL, Emanuel EJ, Budzinski LA, Weeks JC. Satisfaction of the uncertainty principle in cancer clinical trials: retrospective cohort analysis. BMJ 2004;328(7454):1463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roberts TG Jr, Lynch TJ Jr, Chabner BA. The phase III trial in the era of targeted therapy: unraveling the “go or no go” decision. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(19):3683–3695.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Verheggen FW, van Wijmen FC. Informed consent in clinical trials. Health Policy 1996;36(2):131–153.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Daugherty CK. Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: a medical oncology perspective. J Clin Oncol 1999;17(5):1601–1617.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Subject Interview Study. In: Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Albrecht TL, Blanchard C, Ruckdeschel JC, Coovert M, Strongbow R. Strategic physician communication and oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1999;17(10):3324–3332.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Taylor KM, Feldstein ML, Skeel RT, Pandya KJ, Ng P, Carbone PP. Fundamental dilemmas of the randomized clinical trial process: results of a survey of the 1,737 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group investigators. J Clin Oncol 1994;12(9):1796–1805.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Simes RJ, Tattersall MH, Coates AS, Raghavan D, Solomon HJ, Smartt H. Randomised comparison of procedures for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials of treatment for cancer. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986;293(6554):1065–1068.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sugarman J, McCrory DC, Powell D, et al. Empirical research on informed consent. An annotated bibliography. Hastings Cent Rep 1999;29(1):S1–S42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2001;358(9295):1772–1777.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Annas GJ. The changing landscape of human experimentation: Nuremberg, Helsinki, and beyond. Health Matrix Clevel 1992;2(2):119–140.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lipsett MB. On the nature and ethics of phase I clinical trials of cancer chemotherapies. JAMA 1982;248(8):941–942.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kodish E, Stocking C, Ratain MJ, Kohrman A, Siegler M. Ethical issues in phase I oncology research: a comparison of investigators and institutional review board chairpersons. J Clin Oncol 1992;10(11):1810–1816.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93(2):139–147.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Miller CK, O’Donnell DC, Searight HR, Barbarash RA. The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy 1996;16(5): 872–878.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Riecken HW, Ravich R. Informed consent to biomedical research in Veterans Administration Hospitals. JAMA 1982;248(3):344–348.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Morrow GR. How readable are subject consent forms? JAMA 1980;244(1):56–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Grossman SA, Piantadosi S, Covahey C. Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families? J Clin Oncol 1994;12(10):2211–2215.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Williams CJ, Zwitter M. Informed consent in European multicentre randomised clinical trials—are patients really informed? Eur J Cancer 1994;30A(7):907–910.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Horng S, Emanuel EJ, Wilfond B, Rackoff J, Martz K, Grady C. Descriptions of benefits and risks in consent forms for phase I oncology trials. N Engl J Med 2002;347(26):2134–2140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tomamichel M, Sessa C, Herzig S, et al. Informed consent for phase I studies: evaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients. Ann Oncol 1995;6(4):363–369.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Rodenhuis S, van den Heuvel WJ, Annyas AA, Koops HS, Sleijfer DT, Mulder NH. Patient motivation and informed consent in a phase I study of an anticancer agent. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1984;20(4):457–462.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Itoh K, Sasaki Y, Fujii H, et al. Patients in phase I trials of anticancer agents in Japan: motivation, comprehension and expectations. Br J Cancer 1997;76(1):107–113.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Penman DT, Holland JC, Bahna GF, et al. Informed consent for investigational chemotherapy: patients’ and physicians’ perceptions. J Clin Oncol 1984;2(7):849–855.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hietanen P, Aro AR, Holli K, Absetz P. Information and communication in the context of a clinical trial. Eur J Cancer 2000;36(16):2096–2104.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoder LH, O’Rourke TJ, Etnyre A, Spears DT, Brown TD. Expectations and experiences of patients with cancer participating in phase I clinical trials. Oncol Nurs Forum 1997;24(5):891–896.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hutchison C. Phase I trials in cancer patients: participants’ perceptions. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 1998;7(1):15–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Cheng JD, Hitt J, Koczwara B, et al. Impact of quality of life on patient expectations regarding phase I clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2000;18(2):421–428.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Meropol NJ, Schulman KA, Weinfurt K, et al. Discordant perceptions of patients and their physicians regarding phase I trials. ASCO Annual Meeting, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Meropol NJ, Weinfurt KP, Burnett CB, et al. Perceptions of patients and physicians regarding phase I cancer clinical trials: implications for physician-patient communication. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(13):2589–2596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Daugherty C, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, et al. Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 1995;13(5):1062–1072.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Aaronson NK, Visser-Pol E, Leenhouts GH, et al. Telephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1996;14(3):984–996.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Verheggen FW, Jonkers R, Kok G. Patients’ perceptions on informed consent and the quality of information disclosure in clinical trials. Patient Educ Couns 1996;29(2):137–153.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Verheggen FW, Nieman FH, Reerink E, Kok GJ. Patient satisfaction with clinical trial participation. Int J Qual Health Care 1998;10(4):319–330.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ferguson PR. Patients’ perceptions of information provided in clinical trials. J Med Ethics 2002;28(1):45–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Emanuel EJ. A phase I trial on the ethics of phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 1995;13(5):1049–1051.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Miller M. Phase I cancer trials. A collusion of misunderstanding. Hastings Cent Rep 2000;30(4):34–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Agrawal M, Emanuel EJ. Ethics of phase 1 oncology studies: reexamining the arguments and data. JAMA 2003;290(8):1075–1082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Decoster G, Stein G, Holdener EE. Responses and toxic deaths in phase I clinical trials. Ann Oncol 1990;1(3):175–181.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Estey E, Hoth D, Simon R, Marsoni S, Leyland-Jones B, Wittes R. Therapeutic response in phase I trials of antineoplastic agents. Cancer Treat Rep 1986;70(9):1105–1115.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Smith TL, Lee JJ, Kantariian HM, et al. Design and result of phase I cancer clinical trials: three-year experience at MD Anderson Cancer Center. J Clin Oncol 1996;14(1):287–295.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Von Hoff DD, Turner J. Response rates, duration of response, and dose response effects in phase I studies of antineoplastics. Invest New Drugs 1991;9(1):115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Itoh K, Sasaki Y, Miyata Y, et al. Therapeutic response and potential pitfalls in phase I clinical trials of anticancer agents conducted in Japan. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1994;34(6): 451–454.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Han C, Braybrooke JP, Deplanque G, et al. Comparison of prognostic factors in patients in phase I trials of cytotoxic drugs vs new noncytotoxic agents. Br J Cancer 2003;89(7):1166–1171.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Bachelot T, Ray-Coquard I, Catimel G, et al. Multivariable analysis of prognostic factors for toxicity and survival for patients enrolled in phase I clinical trials. Ann Oncol 2000;11(2):151–156.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Sekine I, Yamamoto N, Kunitoh H, et al. Relationship between objective responses in phase I trials and potential efficacy of nonspecific cytotoxic investigational new drugs. Ann Oncol 2002;13(8):1300–1306.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Horstmann E, McCabe MS, Grochow L, et al. Risks and bene-fits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med 2005;352(9):895–904.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Agrawal M, Grady C, Fairclough D, Emanauel E. Patients? Decision-making process of participating in phase I oncology studies. ASCO Annual Meeting, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Higby DJ, Wallace HJ Jr, Albert DJ, Holland JF. Diaminodichloroplatinum: a phase I study showing responses in testicular and other tumors. Cancer (Phila) 1974;33(5):1219–1215.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Druker BJ, Talpaz M, Resta DJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2001;344(14):1031–1037.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Druker BJ. Inhibition of the Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase as a therapeutic strategy for CML. Oncogene 2002;21(56):8541–8546.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Berdel WE, Knopf H, Fromm M, et al. Influence of phase I early clinical trials on the quality of life of cancer patients. A pilot study. Anticancer Res 1988;8(3):313–321.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Melink TJ, Clark GM, Von Hoff DD. The impact of phase I clinical trials on the quality of life of patients with cancer. Anticancer Drugs 1992;3(6):571–576.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Cohen L, de Moor C, Parker PA, Amato RJ. Quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma participating in a phase I trial of an autologous tumor-derived vaccine. Urol Oncol 2002;7(3):119–124.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Cox K. Enhancing cancer clinical trial management: recommendations from a qualitative study of trial participants’ experiences. Psychooncology 2000;9(4):314–322.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Campbell S, Whyte F. The quality of life of cancer patients participating in phase I clinical trials using SEIQoL-DW. J Adv Nurs 1999;30(2):335–343.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Hope-Stone LD, Napier MP, Begent RH, Cushen N, O’Malley D. The importance of measuring quality of life in phase I/II trials of cancer therapy: the effects of antibody targeted therapy: Part I. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 1997;6(4):267–272.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Moore S. A need to try everything: patient participation in phase I trials. J Adv Nurs 2001;33(6):738–747.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Schutta KM, Burnett CB. Factors that influence a patient’s decision to participate in a phase I cancer clinical trial. Oncol Nurs Forum 2000;27(9):1435–1438.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Daugherty CK, Siegler M, Ratain MJ, Zimmer G. Learning from our patients: one participant’s impact on clinical trial research and informed consent. Ann Intern Med 1997;126(11):892–897.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Weijer C. The ethical analysis of risk. J Law Med Ethics 2000;28(4):344–361.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. King NM. Defining and describing benefit appropriately in clinical trials. J Law Med Ethics 2000;28(4):332–343.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Meslin EM. Protecting human subjects from harm through improved risk judgments. IRB 1990;12(1):7–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Fyfe G, Fisher RI, Rosenberg SA, Sznol M, Parkinson DR, Louie AC. Results of treatment of 255 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received high-dose recombinant interleukin-2 therapy. J Clin Oncol 1995;13(3):688–696.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Burris HA III, Moore MJ, Andersen J, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1997;15(6):2403–2413.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Clayton EW, Steinberg KK, Khoury MJ, et al. Informed consent for genetic research on stored tissue samples. JAMA 1995;274(22):1786–1792.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. ASHG report. Statement on informed consent for genetic research. The American Society of Human Genetics. Am J Hum Genet 1996;59(2):471–474.

    Google Scholar 

  86. National Action Plan on Breast Cancer. Executive summary: model consent form for biological tissue banking: focus group report. Available at: http://www.4woman.gov/napbc/catalog.wci/napbc/model_consent.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Research involving human biological materials: ethical issues and policy guidance. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 1999. Rockville, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Wendler D, Emanuel E. The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? Arch Intern Med 2002;162(13):1457–1462.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Stegmayr B, Asplund K. Informed consent for genetic research on blood stored for more than a decade: a population based study. BMJ 2002;325(7365):634–635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Malone T, Catalano PJ, O’Dwyer PJ, Giantonio B. High rate of consent to bank biologic samples for future research: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group experience. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(10):769–771.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Chen DT, Rosenstein DL, Muthappan PG, et al. Research with stored biological samples: what do research participants want? Arch Intern Med 2005;165(6):652–655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Kataki A, Konstadoulakis MM. Reflections of the European Conference “Molecular Screening of Individuals at High Risk for Developing Cancer: Medical, Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues.” Genet Test 2000;4(1):79–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Calzone KA, Biesecker BB. Genetic testing for cancer predisposition. Cancer Nurs 2002;25(1):15–25; quiz 6–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Hadley DW, Jenkins J, Dimond E, et al. Genetic counseling and testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med 2003;163(5):573–582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Armstrong K, Calzone K, Stopfer J, Fitzgerald G, Coyne J, Weber B. Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9(11):1251–1254.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Biesecker BB, Ishibe N, Hadley DW, et al. Psychosocial factors predicting BRCA1/BRCA2 testing decisions in members of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families. Am J Med Genet 2000;93(4):257–263.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Lerman C, Hughes C, Trock BJ, et al. Genetic testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. JAMA 1999;281(17):1618–1622.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Nelson D, Weiss R. Penn researchers sued in gene therapy death: teen’s parents also name ethicist as defendant. Washington Post 2000;A3.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Wilson DHD. Uninformed consent. The Seattle Times 2001;March 11–15:Sect. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 1993;329(8):573–576.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Blumenthal D. Academic-industrial relationships in the life sciences. N Engl J Med 2003;349(25):2452–2459.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Kelch RP. Maintaining the public trust in clinical research. N Engl J Med 2002;346(4):285–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Moses H III, Martin JB. Academic relationships with industry: a new model for biomedical research. JAMA 2001;285(7):933–935.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289(4):454–465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Is the university-industrial complex out of control? Nature (Lond) 2001;409(6817):119.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Causino N, Louis KS. Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. N Engl J Med 1996;335(23):1734–1739.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Blumenthal D, Gluck M, Louis KS, Stoto MA, Wise D. University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science 1986;232(4756):1361–1366.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Boyd EA, Bero LA. Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry: a case study. JAMA 2000;284(17):2209–2214.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Marshall E. Hutchinson’s mixed win. Science 2004;304:371.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Stromberg I. Clinical trials beat the rap. Wall Street Journal 2004:A18.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Kjaergard LL, Nikolova D, Gluud C. Randomized clinical trials in hepatology: predictors of quality. Hepatology 1999;30(5): 1134–1138.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Cho MK, Bero LA. The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 1996;124(5):485–489.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Anderson JJ, Felson DT, Meenan RF. Secular changes in published clinical trials of second-line agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1991;34(10):1304–1309.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung CM, Hayes JA, Chalmers TC. Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. JAMA 1994;272(2):108–113.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Massie BM, Rothenberg D. Publication of sponsored symposiums in medical journals. N Engl J Med 1993;328(16):1196–1197; author reply 7–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Davidson RA. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1986;1(3):155–158.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Liebeskind DS, Kidwell CS, Saver JL. Empiric evidence of publication bias affecting acute stroke clinical trials. Stroke 1999;30(1):268.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326(7400):1167–1170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003;290(7): 921–928.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999;282(15):1453–1457.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 1998;338(2):101–106.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B. Evidence b(i)ased medicine: selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003;326(7400):1171–1173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS. Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA 1997;277(15): 1224–1228.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Bonetta L. Inquiry into clinical trial scandal at Canadian research hospital. Nat Med 1998;4(10):1095.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. A duty to publish. Nat Med 1998;4(10):1089.

    Google Scholar 

  126. General Accounting Office. Biomedical Research: HHS Direction Needed to Address Financial Conflicts of Interest. Report No. GAO-02-89. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Boyd EA, Cho MK, Bero LA. Financial conflict-of-interest policies in clinical research: issues for clinical investigators. Acad Med 2003;78(8):769–774.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Bero LA. Disclosure policies for gifts from industry to academic faculty. JAMA 1998;279(13):1031–1032.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Lo B, Wolf LE, Berkeley A. Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2000;343(22):1616–1620.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. McCrary SV, Anderson CB, Jakovljevic J, et al. A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med 2000;343(22):1621–1626.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. Kim SY, Millard RW, Nisbet P, et al. Potential research participants views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interest. J Med Ethics 2004;30(1):73–79.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Foster RS. Conflicts of interest: recognition, disclosure, and management. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196(4):505–517.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. American Society of Clinical Oncology: revised conflict of interest policy. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(12):2394–2396.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Bioethics, Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center and Medical Oncology Research Unit, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Manish Agrawal MD (Staff Scientist)

  2. Department of Clinical Bioethics, Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Lindsay A. Hampson BS (Fellow) & Ezekiel J. Emanuel MD, PhD (Chair)

Authors
  1. Manish Agrawal MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lindsay A. Hampson BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ezekiel J. Emanuel MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgery Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Alfred E. Chang MD (Hugh Cabot Professor of Surgery and Chief) (Hugh Cabot Professor of Surgery and Chief)

  2. Breast Oncology Program, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Daniel F. Hayes MD (Clinical Director) (Clinical Director)

  3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Harvey I. Pass MD (Professor and Chief of Thoracic Surgery and Head) (Professor and Chief of Thoracic Surgery and Head)

  4. Thoracic Oncology, New York University School of Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Harvey I. Pass MD (Professor and Chief of Thoracic Surgery and Head) (Professor and Chief of Thoracic Surgery and Head)

  5. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA

    Richard M. Stone MD (Associate Professor and Clinical Director) (Associate Professor and Clinical Director)

  6. Adult Leukemia Program, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

    Richard M. Stone MD (Associate Professor and Clinical Director) (Associate Professor and Clinical Director)

  7. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCLA, USA

    Patricia A. Ganz MD (American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor, Director and Professor) (American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor, Director and Professor)

  8. Schools of Public Health and Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Patricia A. Ganz MD (American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor, Director and Professor) (American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor, Director and Professor)

  9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Timothy J. Kinsella MD (Vincent K. Smith Professor and Chairman) (Vincent K. Smith Professor and Chairman)

  10. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA

    Joan H. Schiller MD (Melanie Heald Professor of Medical Oncology) (Melanie Heald Professor of Medical Oncology)

  11. Health Media Research Laboratory, Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, USA

    Victor J. Strecher PhD, MPH (Professor and Director and Associate Director) (Professor and Director and Associate Director)

  12. Cancer Prevention and Control, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Victor J. Strecher PhD, MPH (Professor and Director and Associate Director) (Professor and Director and Associate Director)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Agrawal, M., Hampson, L.A., Emanuel, E.J. (2006). Ethics of Clinical Oncology Research. In: Chang, A.E., et al. Oncology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-31056-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-31056-8_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-24291-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-31056-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation