Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pediatric Oncology Surgery: Research Methodology

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Pediatric Surgical Oncology

  • 22 Accesses

Abstract

Improvements in outcome of children with cancer have resulted from sequential clinical research studies to answer therapeutic questions and implement results. Clinical trials methodology is broadly divided into observational and interventional studies, where the observational methodology utilized natural differences between study groups or their management to answer research questions, while interventional trials study outcomes of actively instituted therapeutic change. Both types of clinical research have stringent methodological requirements and objective limitations, necessitating their understanding before initiation. Additionally, since clinical research is conducted on human subjects, strict regulations are enacted to ensure their safety and ethical treatment. These regulations mandate voluntary participation and espouse the three basic principles of respect for persons (acknowledgment and protection of autonomy), beneficence (obligation to not harm; maximize benefits and reduce risks), and justice (equal treatment and just distribution of burdens and benefits). While international and local regulations exist, research conduct oversight is firstly relegated to Institutional Review Boards (IRB), also referred to as a “research ethics committee,” that review and monitor biomedical and psychosocial research with the main objective of protecting the rights and welfare of subjects. Quality improvement research involves systematic data-driven activities to bring about immediate and positive changes in healthcare delivery to optimize clinical practice in the local setting. The objectives and ethical underpinnings here are different from traditional human subject research, as are the methodologies used. All research is based on data, and the quality of the data collected impacts study outcomes. Data quality depends on the stringency of the data variables (data definitions) and their collection (case report forms) and storage (database) methodology.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Willetts IE. Jessop and the Wilms’ tumor. J Pediatr Surg. 2003;38(10):1496–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ledlie EM, Mynors LS, Draper GJ, Gorbach PD. Natural history and treatment of Wilms’s tumour: an analysis of 335 cases occurring in England and Wales 1962–6. Br Med J. 1970;4(5729):195–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ng E, Low-beer BV. The treatment of Wilms’ tumor. J Pediatr. 1956;48(6):763–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Scott LS. Wilms tumor: its treatment and prognosis. Br Med J. 1956;1:200–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Koop CE. Current management of nephroblastoma and neuroblastoma. Am J Surg. 1964;107:497–501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sutow WW, Thurman WG, Windmiller J. Vincristine (leurocristine) sulfate in the treatment of children with metastatic Wilms’ tumor. Pediatrics. 1963;32:880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sutow WW, Gehan EA, Heyn RM, et al. Comparison of survival curves, 1956 versus 1962, in children with Wilms’ tumor and neuroblastoma. Report of the Subcommittee on Childhood Solid Tumors, Solid Tumor Task Force, National Cancer Institute. Pediatrics. 1970;45(5):800–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Howard R. Actinomycin D in Wilms’ tumour: treatment of lung metastasis. Arch Dis Child. 1965;40:200–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wolff JA, Newton WA, Krivit W, D’Angio GJ. Single versus multiple dose dactinomycin therapy of Wilms’s tumor. A controlled co-operative study conducted by the Children’s Cancer Study Group A (formerly Acute Leukemia Co-operative Chemotherapy Group A). N Engl J Med. 1968;279(6):290–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lemerle J, Voute PA, Tournade MF, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy, single versus multiple courses of actinomycin D, in the treatment of Wilms’ tumor. Preliminary results of a controlled clinical trial conducted by the International Society of Paediatric Oncology (S.I.O.P.). Cancer. 1976;38(2):647–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Woodruff M. The challenge of osteosarcoma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1969;44(6):299–307.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sweetnam R. Osteosarcoma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1969;44(1):38–58.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Jaffe N. Recent advances in the chemotherapy of metastatic osteogenic sarcoma. Cancer. 1972;30(6):1627–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cores EP, Holland JF, Wang JJ, Sinks LF. Doxorubicin in disseminated osteosarcoma. JAMA. 1972;221(10):1132–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Frei E III, Jaffe N, Tattersall MH, Pitman S, Parker L. New approaches to cancer chemotherapy with methotrexate. N Engl J Med. 1975;292(16):846–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jaffe N, Frei E III, Traggis D, Bishop Y. Adjuvant methotrexate and citrovorum-factor treatment of osteogenic sarcoma. N Engl J Med. 1974;291(19):994–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosen G, Suwansirikul S, Kwon C, et al. High-dose methotrexate with citrovorum factor rescue and adriamycin in childhood osteogenic sarcoma. Cancer. 1974;33(4):1151–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pratt C, Shanks E, Hustu O, Rivera G, Smith J, Kumar AP. Adjuvant multiple drug chemotherapy for osteosarcoma of the extremity. Cancer. 1977;39(1):51–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Link MP, Goorin AM, Miser AW, et al. The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with osteosarcoma of the extremity. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(25):1600–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosen G, Caparros B, Huvos AG, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy for osteogenic sarcoma: selection of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy based on the response of the primary tumor to preoperative chemotherapy. Cancer. 1982;49(6):1221–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Holmes K, Pötschger U, Pearson ADJ, et al. Influence of surgical excision on the survival of patients with stage 4 high-risk neuroblastoma: a report from the HR-NBL1/SIOPEN study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(25):2902–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shamberger RC, Guthrie KA, Ritchey ML, et al. Surgery-related factors and local recurrence of Wilms tumor in National Wilms Tumor Study 4. Ann Surg. 1999;229(2):292–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Green DM, Breslow NE, Beckwith JB, et al. Comparison between single-dose and divided-dose administration of dactinomycin and doxorubicin for patients with Wilms’ tumor: a report from the National Wilms’ Tumor Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):237–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bui NQ, Kummar S. Evolution of early phase clinical trials in oncology. J Mol Med. 2018;96(1):31–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Link MP. Osteosarcoma in adolescents and young adults: new developments and controversies. Commentary on the use of presurgical chemotherapy. Cancer Treat Res. 1993;62:383–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2018-07-19/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46. Accessed August 20 2022.

  28. United States National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda/Washington, DC: The Commission; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Steneck NH. ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research, updated edn. Washington, DC: Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Research Integrity; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  30. WMA. Declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. World Medical Association. 2013. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. Accessed 12 Aug 2022.

  31. CIOMS. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. 4th ed. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS); 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Berg SL. Ethical challenges in cancer research in children. Oncologist. 2007;12(11):1336–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Truong TH, Weeks JC, Cook EF, Joffe S. Outcomes of informed consent among parents of children in cancer clinical trials. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011;57(6):998–1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. de Vries MC, Houtlosser M, Wit JM, et al. Ethical issues at the interface of clinical care and research practice in pediatric oncology: a narrative review of parents’ and physicians’ experiences. BMC Med Ethics. 2011;12:18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Varma S, Jenkins T, Wendler D. How do children and parents make decisions about pediatric clinical research? J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2008;30(11):823–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Unguru Y, Sill AM, Kamani N. The experiences of children enrolled in pediatric oncology research: implications for assent. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):e876–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Joffe S, Fernandez CV, Pentz RD, et al. Involving children with cancer in decision-making about research participation. J Pediatr. 2006;149(6):862–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chappuy H, Doz F, Blanche S, Gentet JC, Treluyer JM. Children’s views on their involvement in clinical research. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008;50(5):1043–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Baker JN, Leek AC, Salas HS, et al. Suggestions from adolescents, young adults, and parents for improving informed consent in phase 1 pediatric oncology trials. Cancer. 2013;119(23):4154–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Beskow LM, Grady C, Iltis AS, Sadler JZ, Wilfond BS. Points to consider: the research ethics consultation service and the IRB. IRB. 2009;31(6):1–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sharp RR, Taylor HA, Brinich MA, et al. Research ethics consultation: ethical and professional practice challenges and recommendations. Acad Med. 2015;90(5):615–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Porter KM, Danis M, Taylor HA, Cho MK, Wilfond BS, Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative Repository Group. The emergence of clinical research ethics consultation: insights from a National Collaborative. Am J Bioeth. 2018;18(1):39–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Hester DM, Ross LF. “Medical benefit” and therapeutic misconception: the ethical conundrum of phase 1 pediatric oncology research. J Pediatr. 2021;238:11–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Daugherty CK. Ethical issues in the development of new agents. Investig New Drugs. 1999;17(2):145–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Miller FG, Joffe S. Benefit in phase 1 oncology trials: therapeutic misconception or reasonable treatment option? Clin Trials. 2008;5(6):617–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Miller VA, Baker JN, Leek AC, Drotar D, Kodish E. Patient involvement in informed consent for pediatric phase I cancer research. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2014;36(8):635–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Graetz DE, Madni A, Gossett J, et al. Role of implicit bias in pediatric cancer clinical trials and enrollment recommendations among pediatric oncology providers. Cancer. 2021;127(2):284–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cousino MK, Zyzanski SJ, Yamokoski AD, et al. Communicating and understanding the purpose of pediatric phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(35):4367–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Crites J, Kodish E. Unrealistic optimism and the ethics of phase I cancer research. J Med Ethics. 2013;39(6):403–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ford JG, Howerton MW, Lai GY, et al. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer. 2008;112(2):228–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hamel LM, Penner LA, Albrecht TL, Heath E, Gwede CK, Eggly S. Barriers to clinical trial Enrollment in racial and ethnic minority patients with cancer. Cancer Control. 2016;23(4):327–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sadler GR, Gonzalez J, Mumman M, et al. Adapting a program to inform African American and Hispanic American women about cancer clinical trials. J Cancer Educ. 2010;25(2):142–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Durant RW, Wenzel JA, Scarinci IC, et al. Perspectives on barriers and facilitators to minority recruitment for clinical trials among cancer center leaders, investigators, research staff, and referring clinicians: enhancing minority participation in clinical trials (EMPaCT). Cancer. 2014;120(Suppl 7):1097–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bell JAH, Kelly MT, Gelmon K, et al. Gatekeeping in cancer clinical trials in Canada: the ethics of recruiting the “ideal” patient. Cancer Med. 2020;9(12):4107–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Sharkey K, Savulescu J, Aranda S, Schofield P. Clinician gate-keeping in clinical research is not ethically defensible: an analysis. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(6):363–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Howerton MW, Gibbons MC, Baffi CR, et al. Provider roles in the recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials. Cancer. 2007;109(3):465–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Lund MJ, Eliason MT, Haight AE, Ward KC, Young JL, Pentz RD. Racial/ethnic diversity in children’s oncology clinical trials: ten years later. Cancer. 2009;115(16):3808–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Aristizabal P, Singer J, Cooper R, et al. Participation in pediatric oncology research protocols: racial/ethnic, language and age-based disparities. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62(8):1337–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Russo C, Stout L, House T, Santana VM. Barriers and facilitators of clinical trial enrollment in a network of community-based pediatric oncology clinics. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020;67(4):e28023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Strahlendorf C, Pole JD, Barber R, et al. Enrolling children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia on a clinical trial improves event-free survival: a population-based study. Br J Cancer. 2018;118(5):744–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Aristizabal P. Diverse populations and enrollment in pediatric cancer clinical trials: challenges and opportunities. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020;67(11):e28296.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Barrett NJ, Rodriguez EM, Iachan R, et al. Factors associated with biomedical research participation within community-based samples across 3 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers. Cancer. 2020;126(5):1077–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Wallington SF, Dash C, Sheppard VB, et al. Enrolling minority and underserved populations in cancer clinical research. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(1):111–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Regnante JM, Richie N, Fashoyin-Aje L, et al. Operational strategies in US cancer centers of excellence that support the successful accrual of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2020;17:100532.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Vose J. Minority enrollment to clinical trials: road to increased access. Oncology. 2021;35(3):107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Clinical Treatment Act, H.R. 913. In: 116th Congress. 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/913/related-bills

  67. Hazen RA, Zyzanski S, Baker JN, Drotar D, Kodish E. Communication about the risks and benefits of phase I pediatric oncology trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;41:139–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Grady C. Institutional review boards: purpose and challenges. Chest. 2015;148(5):1148–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel’s back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(2):152–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Silberman G, Kahn KL. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q. 2011;89(4):599–627.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Wagner TH, Murray C, Goldberg J, Adler JM, Abrams J. Costs and benefits of the national cancer institute central institutional review board. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):662–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group’s report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Check DK, Weinfurt KP, Dombeck CB, Kramer JM, Flynn KE. Use of central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: a review of the literature. Clin Trials. 2013;10(4):560–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. CTEP. 2022. https://ctep.cancer.gov/MajorInitiatives/Central_Institutional_Review_Board_Initiative.htm. Accessed 15 Aug 2022.

  75. Baily MA, Bottrell M, Lynn J, Jennings B. The ethics of using QI methods to improve health care quality and safety. Hastings Cent Rep. 2006;36(4):S1–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Young J, Dahale D, Demmel K, et al. Reducing acute kidney injury in pediatric oncology patients: an improvement project targeting nephrotoxic medications. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020;67(8):e28396.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Roseland J. Improving antibiotic timing in febrile neutropenia for pediatric oncology patients with a central line. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2021;38(3):185–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Elsaid M, Morgan J, Colorado N, et al. Chemotherapy wait times in a network of pediatric oncology clinics. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2020;42(6):e475–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Head BA, Schapmire T, Earnshaw L, et al. Evaluation of an interdisciplinary curriculum teaching team-based palliative care integration in oncology. J Cancer Educ. 2016;31(2):358–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Larsen GY, Brilli R, Macias CG, et al. Development of a quality improvement learning collaborative to improve pediatric sepsis outcomes. Pediatrics. 2021;147(1):202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Taylor MJ, McNicholas C, Nicolay C, Darzi A, Bell D, Reed JE. Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(4):290–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Lynn J, Baily MA, Bottrell M, et al. The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(9):666–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Fiscella K, Tobin JN, Carroll JK, He H, Ogedegbe G. Ethical oversight in quality improvement and quality improvement research: new approaches to promote a learning health care system. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(1):63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Sainsbury P. Development and oversight of ethical health promotion quality assurance and evaluation activities involving human participants. Health Promot J Austr. 2015;26(3):176–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Langley GJ, Moen RD, Nolan KM, Noaln TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Adams D. Quality improvement; part 1: introduction and overview. BJA Educ. 2018;18(3):89–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Xu W, Huang SH, Su J, Gudi S, O’Sullivan B. Statistical fundamentals on cancer research for clinicians: working with your statisticians. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2021;27:75–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan

    Ayesha Arshad Ali & Asim Belgaumi

  2. Resonance, Memphis, TN, USA

    Miriam Hwang

  3. University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

    Scott C. Howard

Authors
  1. Ayesha Arshad Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miriam Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Scott C. Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Asim Belgaumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asim Belgaumi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Kokila Lakhoo

  2. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

    Abdelhafeez H. Abdelhafeez

  3. Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Simone Abib

Section Editor information

  1. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, USA

    Victor Santana

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Arshad Ali, A., Hwang, M., Howard, S.C., Belgaumi, A. (2023). Pediatric Oncology Surgery: Research Methodology. In: Lakhoo, K., Abdelhafeez, A.H., Abib, S. (eds) Pediatric Surgical Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71113-9_54-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71113-9_54-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-71113-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-71113-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation