Ethics in Clinical Cancer Research

  • Rodrigo Santa C. Guindalini
  • Rachel P. Riechelmann
  • Roberto Jun Arai


Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has proven to be fundamental in the modern era. The clinical data derived from rigorous research protocols to support EBM has moved towards a high level of complexity to achieve the best level of evidence. However, the pursuit to retrieve organized data intersects with routine medical care. To accommodate significant advances in the area of precision medicine and to streamline the drug development process, newer and even more complex clinical trial design approaches have emerged. In this context, medical innovation not only creates new ethical concerns, but also prompts new considerations in long-standing ethics discussions. In this chapter, we will explore some of the major ethical concerns that arise in the course of modern clinical cancer research, as well as proposing recommendations to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of study subjects.


Clinical cancer research Early-phase trial Ethics Informed consent Oncology Precision medicine Therapeutic expectation 


  1. 1.
    Menis J, Hasan B, Besse B. New clinical research strategies in thoracic oncology: clinical trial design, adaptive, basket and umbrella trials, new end-points and new evaluations of response. Eur Respir Rev. 2014;23(133):367–78. PMID 25176973. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tröhler U. Lind and scurvy: 1747 to 1795. J R Soc Med. 2005;98(11):519–22. PMID 16260808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wax PM. Elixirs, diluents, and the passage of the 1938 federal food, drug and cosmetic act. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122(6):456–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones DS, Grady C, Lederer SE. “Ethics and clinical research”–The 50th anniversary of beecher’s bombshell. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(24):2393–8. PMID 27305197. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fischer BA 4th. A summary of important documents in the field of research ethics. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(1):69–80. Epub 2005 Sep 28. PMID 16192409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Djulbegovic B. The paradox of equipoise: the principle that drives and limits therapeutic discoveries in clinical research. Cancer Control. 2009;16:342–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283:2701–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fromer MJ. FDA introduces new phase 0 for clinical trials: some enthusiastic, some skeptical. Oncology Times. 2006;28:18–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murgo AJ, Kummar S, Rubinstein L, et al. Designing phase 0 cancer clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:3675–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kummar S, Kinders R, Rubinstein L, et al. Compressing drug development timelines in oncology using phase ‘0’ trials. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7:131–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abdoler E, Taylor H, Wendler D. The ethics of phase 0 oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:3692–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Truong TH, Weeks JC, Cook EF, Joffe S. Altruism among participants in cancer clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2011;8:616–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arai RJ, Longo ES, Sponton MH, Del Pilar Estevez Diz M. Bringing a humanistic approach to cancer clinical trials. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arai RJ, Hoff PM, de Castro G Jr, Stern A. Ethical responsibility of phase 0 trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:1121. author reply 1121–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weber JS, Levit LA, Adamson PC, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: the critical role of phase I trials in cancer research and treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:278–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horstmann E, McCabe MS, Grochow L, et al. Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:895–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roberts TG Jr, Goulart BH, Squitieri L, et al. Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials. JAMA. 2004;292:2130–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Decoster G, Stein G, Holdener EE. Responses and toxic deaths in phase I clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 1990;1:175–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jansen LA, Mahadevan D, Appelbaum PS, et al. Dispositional optimism and therapeutic expectations in early-phase oncology trials. Cancer. 2016;122:1238–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rinaldi A. To hype, or not to(o) hype. Communication of science is often tarnished by sensationalization, for which both scientists and the media are responsible. EMBO Rep. 2012;13:303–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vater LB, Donohue JM, Arnold R, et al. What are cancer centers advertising to the public?: a content analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:813–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dresser R. First-in-human trial participants: not a vulnerable population, but vulnerable nonetheless. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37:38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Crites J, Kodish E. Unrealistic optimism and the ethics of phase I cancer research. J Med Ethics. 2013;39:403–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Minami H, et al. Study of cohort-specific consent and patient control in phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2305–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Itoh K, Sasaki Y, Fujii H, et al. Patients in phase I trials of anti-cancer agents in Japan: motivation, comprehension and expectations. Br J Cancer. 1997;76:107–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Daugherty C, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, et al. Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1062–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schutta KM, Burnett CB. Factors that influence a patient’s decision to participate in a phase I cancer clinical trial. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2000;27:1435–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hutchison C. Phase I trials in cancer patients: participants’ perceptions. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 1998;7:15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Daugherty CK. Ethical issues in the development of new agents. Investig New Drugs. 1999;17:145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schaeffer MH, Krantz DS, Wichman A, et al. The impact of disease severity on the informed consent process in clinical research. Am J Med. 1996;100:261–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Daugherty CK. Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: a medical oncology perspective. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1601–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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;21:2589–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jonas H. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus. 1969;98:219–47.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lipsett MB. On the nature and ethics of phase I clinical trials of cancer chemotherapies. JAMA. 1982;248:941–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seidenfeld J, Horstmann E, Emanuel EJ, Grady C. Participants in phase 1 oncology research trials: are they vulnerable? Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wong KM, Capasso A, Eckhardt SG. The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13:106–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature. 2016;536:285–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Weinstein JN, Collisson EA, et al. The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer Analysis Project. Nat Genet. 2013;45:1113–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Riley GR, et al. ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D980–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Forbes SA, Beare D, Boutselakis H, et al. COSMIC: somatic cancer genetics at high-resolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D777–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    de Bono JS, Ashworth A. Translating cancer research into targeted therapeutics. Nature. 2010;467:543–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Siu LL, Lawler M, Haussler D, et al. Facilitating a culture of responsible and effective sharing of cancer genome data. Nat Med. 2016;22:464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rance B, Canuel V, Countouris H, et al. Integrating heterogeneous biomedical data for cancer research: the CARPEM infrastructure. Appl Clin Inform. 2016;7:260–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mamzer MF, Duchange N, Darquy S, et al. Partnering with patients in translational oncology research: ethical approach. J Transl Med. 2017;15:74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tabor HK, Stock J, Brazg T, et al. Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A:1310–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2017;19:249–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McGowan ML, Settersten RA Jr, Juengst ET, Fishman JR. Integrating genomics into clinical oncology: ethical and social challenges from proponents of personalized medicine. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:187–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Savage N. Privacy: the myth of anonymity. Nature. 2016;537:S70–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sweeney L, Abu A, Winn J. Identifying participants in the personal genome project by name. Harvard University, Data Privacy Lab 1021-1: 2013.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, et al. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science. 2013;339:321–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15:565–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, et al. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet. 2014;94:818–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wolf SM, Burke W, Koenig BA. Mapping the ethics of translational genomics: situating return of results and navigating the research-clinical divide. J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43:486–501.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science. 2013;340:1049–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ross LF, Rothstein MA, Clayton EW. Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: “incidental findings,” patient autonomy, and shared decision making. JAMA. 2013;310:367–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lolkema MP, Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk CG, Bredenoord AL, et al. Ethical, legal, and counseling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1842–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kronenthal C, Delaney SK, Christman MF. Broadening research consent in the era of genome-informed medicine. Genet Med. 2012;14:432–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Edwards KL, Korngiebel DM, Pfeifer L, et al. Participant views on consent in cancer genetics research: preparing for the precision medicine era. J Community Genet. 2016;7:133–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:406–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Erlich Y, Narayanan A. Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:409–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Beecher HK. The powerful placebo. J Am Med Assoc. 1955;159:1602–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Turner JA, Deyo RA, Loeser JD, et al. The importance of placebo effects in pain treatment and research. JAMA. 1994;271:1609–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chvetzoff G, Tannock IF. Placebo effects in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Baldwin D, Broich K, Fritze J, et al. Placebo-controlled studies in depression: necessary, ethical and feasible. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2003;253:22–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Chaput de Saintonge DM, Herxheimer A. Harnessing placebo effects in health care. Lancet. 1994;344:995–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Oliver RT. Are cytokine responses in renal cell cancer the product of placebo effect of treatment or true biotherapy? What trials are needed now? Br J Cancer. 1998;77:1318–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Burger RA, Brady MF, Bookman MA, et al. Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2473–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zion D. Ethical considerations of clinical trials to prevent vertical transmission of HIV in developing countries. Nat Med. 1998;4:11–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Emanuel EJ. Reconsidering the Declaration of Helsinki. Lancet. 2013;381:1532–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Chiodo GT, Tolle SW, Bevan L. Placebo-controlled trials: good science or medical neglect? West J Med. 2000;172:271–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mills EJ, Seely D, Rachlis B, et al. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Comis RL, Miller JD, Aldige CR, et al. Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:830–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fede AB, Miranda MC, Lera AT et al. Placebo-controlled trials (PCT) in cancer research: patient and oncologist perspectives. In: 2010 ASCO annual meeting. Chicago. J Clin Oncol. 2010;e19626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Miranda MC, Fede AB, Magalhaes N et al. Outcomes from placebo/best supportive care-controlled trials (PBSCT) in the era of molecular targeted therapy: a meta-analysis. In: 2010 ASCO annual meeting. Chicago: J Clin Oncol. 2010;6127.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Emanuel EJ, et al. Ethical, scientific, and regulatory perspectives regarding the use of placebos in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1371–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Prasad V, Grady C. The misguided ethics of crossover trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37:167–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Gupta U, Verma M. Placebo in clinical trials. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4:49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Miranda Vda C, Fede AB, Lera AT, et al. How to consent without understanding? Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2009;55:328–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Santa C. Guindalini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rachel P. Riechelmann
    • 3
  • Roberto Jun Arai
    • 4
  1. 1.CLION, CAM GroupSalvadorBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and OncologyState of São Paulo Cancer Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Clinical OncologyAC Camargo Cancer CenterSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Clinical Research UnitState of São Paulo Cancer Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations