Advertisement

Informed Consent, The Cancer Patient, And Phase I Clinical Trials

  • Christopher K. Daugherty
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 140)

Abstract

The concept of informed consent, which acknowledges the rights of patients to voluntarily participate in health care, applies both to clinical practice and clinical research.1,2 Informed consent in clinical research is related to, but recognized as being more stringent than, informed consent outside the context of clinical trials.3 This heightened consent standard exists for at least two reasons. First, from an ethical perspective, a patient considering clinical trial participation is always viewed as potentially vulnerable.4 As a result of this potential vulnerability, he or she may have great difficulty in appreciating the differences between the therapeutic and research aspects of a given alternative of care or treatment. Without this distinction, patients cannot make uncoerced and autonomous health care decisions. Thus, the informed consent process, and the ethics of clinical research, require that such a clear distinction be made.5,6 Second, the physician-investigator is seen as having an intrinsic conflict of interest in their role both as a physician for an individual patient and as a scientific investigator attempting to develop improved methods of medical care and treatment.3,4,7 Within the sole context of a therapeutic relationship, the physician places his or her patient’s interests above all else.8 However, within the context of clinical research, an investigator has additional interests which may not be relative to their patients’ interests.9,10,11,12,13 From an ethical perspective, many concerns exist about the ability of clinical investigators to provide the requisite information to patients regarding participation in research in such a way that allows patients to recognize the distinction between research and therapy.6,14,15

Keywords

Dose Escalation Consent Process Atomic Energy Commission Informed Consent Process Advanced Cancer Patient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, King NMP. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press; New York, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Applebaum PS, Lindz CN, Meisel A. Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice. Oxford University Press; New York,1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levine RJ. Ethics and regulation of clinical research. 2nd Edition. Vurland and Schwarzenburg; Baltimore, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Belmont Report; ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Publication number (05) 78-0012. USGPO, Washington, DC, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freedman B, Fuks A, Weijer C. Demarcating Research in Treatment: a systematic approach for the analysis of the ethics of clinical research. Clin Res 40:655–660, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bok S. Shading the truth in informed consent for clinical research. J Kennedy Inst Ethics 1995; 5:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pelligrino ED. Beneficence, scientific autonomy, and self-interest: Ethical dilemmas in clinical research. Camb Q Health Ethics 1992; 1:361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ. Clinical ethics. 3rd edition, p146–149. McGraw-Hill; New York, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schaffner KF. Ethical problems in clinical trials. J Med Philos 1986; 11:297–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Markman M. The objective clinical scientist versus the advocate: A complex ethical and political dilemma facing cancer investigators and the public. Cancer Invest 1995; 13:324–326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elks ML. Conflict of interest and the physician-researcher. J Lab Clin Med 1995; 126:19–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hammerschmidt DE. When commitments and interests conflict. J Lab Clin Med 1995; 126:5–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levine RJ. Clinical trials and physicians as double agents. Yale J Biol Med 1992; 65:65–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katz J. Experimentation with human beings. Russell Sage Foundation. New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Annas GJ: The changing landscape of human experimentation: Nuremberg, Helsinki, and beyond. J Law-Med 1992; 2:119–140.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Implementing human research regulations: The adequacy and uniformity of federal rules and their implementation. USGPO, publication number 040-000-00471-8, Washington, DC, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Epstein LC, Lasagna L. Obtaining informed consent, form or substance. Arch Intern Med 1969; 123:682–688.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gray BH, Cooke RA, Tannebaum AS. Research involving human subjects. The performance of institutional review boards is assessed in this empirical study. Science 1978; 201:1094–1101.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hammerschmidt DE, Keanse MA. Institutional review board review lacks impact on the readability of consent forms for research. Am J Med Sci 1992; 304:341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Edgar H, Rothman DJ. The institutional review board and beyond: future challenges to the ethics of human experimentation. J Milb Q 1995; 73:489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Redshaw ME, Harris A, Baum JD. Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees. J Med Ethics 1996; 22:78–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goldman J, Katz MD. Inconsistency and institutional review boards. JAMA 1982; 248:197–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Siegler M. Ethical issues in the clinical research of cancer, in Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. Devita VT Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds). J.P. Lippincott, Philadelphia PA. 5th ed., 1997; pp 534–542.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kent G. Shared understandings for informed consent: the relevance of psychological research on the provision of information. Soc Sci Med 1996; 43:1517–1524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Verheggen FWSM, van Wijmen FCB. Informed consent in clinical trials. Health Policy 1996; 36:131–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Katz J. Human Experimentation and Human Rights. St. Louis Univ Law Jour 1993; 38:7–54Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Engelhardt HT. The Foundations of Bioethics. 2nd edition; pp 330–335. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jonas H. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. In Paul A. Freund, ed.,Experimentation with Human Subjects. George Brazilier; New York,1969.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    The final report of the president’s advisory committee. The Human Radiation Experiments. Oxford University Press; New York,1996 (ACHRE).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lederer SE. Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America Before the Second World War. Johns Hopkins University Press; Baltimore, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Howard-Jones N. Human Experimentation in Historical and Ethical Perspectives. Soc Sci Med 1982; 16:1429–1448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Salgo V. Leland Stanford Jr., the University Board of Trustees, 317 P. 2nd 170,1957.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Katz J. The Silent World of Doctor and Patient. The Free Press; New York, 1984.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Obituary: PG Gebhard, 69, developer of the term “informed consent”. New York Times, August 26, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    ACHRE, p. 46-53.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    ACHRE, p. 53-67.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Beecher HK: Ethics in clinical research. N Engl J Med 1966; 274:1354–1360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rothman DJ: Ethics and human experimentation: Henry Beecher revisited. N Engl J Med 1987; 317:1195–1199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jones JH. Bad Blood. 2nd edition. Free press; New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    ACHRE, p. 98-99.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky R, Siegler M: Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85:1637–1643.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vanderpool HY. The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subject: Facing the 21st Century. p 306: University Publishing Group, Frederick, Maryland, 1996.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Simon RM: Clinical Trials in Cancer in Devita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds): Principles and Practice of Oncology (ed 5). Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott, pp 513–528, 1997.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gordon NH, Williams JKV: Using toxicity grades and analysis of cancer phase I clinical trials. Stat Med 1992; 11:2063–2075.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Collins JM, Greishaber CK, Chabner BA: Pharmacologically guided phase I clinical trials based upon preclinical drug development. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82:1321–1326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Graham MA, Workman P: The impact of pharmacokinetically guided dose escalation strategies in phase I clinical trials: Critical evaluation and recommendations for future studies. Ann Oncol 1992; 3:339–347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Von Hoff DD, Turner J: Response rates, duration of response, and dose response effect in phase I studies in antineoplastics. Invest New Drugs 1991; 9:115–122.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Decoster G, Stein G, Holdener EE: Responses and toxic deaths in phase I clinical trials. Ann Oncol 1990; 2:175–781.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Estey E, Hoth D, Wittes R, et al: Therapeutic responses in phase I trials of antineoplastic agents. Cancer Treat Rep 1986; 70:1105–1115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Smith TL, Lee JJ, Kantarjian HM, et al: Design and results of phase I cancer clinical trials: 3 year experience at MD Anderson Cancer Center. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:287–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    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; 20:457–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Willem Y, Sessa C: Informing patients about phase I trials-How should it be done? Aeta Oncol 1989; 28:106–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, Stocking C, Kodish E, Mick R, Siegler M: Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13:1062–1072.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Daugherty CK, Lyman K, Mick R, Siegler M, Ratain MJ: Differences in perceptions of goals, expectations, and level of informed consent in phase I clinical trials. Proc Amer Soc Clin Oncol 1996; 15:A352.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Daugherty CK, Kialbasa TA, Siegler M, Ratain MJ: Informed consent in clinical research: a study of cancer patient understanding of consent forms and alternatives of care in phase I clinical trials. Proc Amer Soc Clin Oncol 1997; 16:A188.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tomamichiel M, Sessa C, Herzig S, de-Jong J, Pagani O, Willems Y, Cavalli F: Informed consent for phase I studies: Evaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients. Ann Oncol 1995; 6:321–323.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yoder LH, O’Rourke TJ, Ethyre A, Spears DT: Expectations and experiences of patients with cancer participating in phase I clinical trials. Oncol Nurs Forum 1997; 24:891–896.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Itoh K, Sasaki Y, Fuji H, Ohtsu T, Wakita H, Igarashi T, Abe K: Patients in phase I trials of anti-cancer agents in Japan: Motivation, comprehension and expectations. Br J Cancer 1997; 76:107–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Freedman B: Cohort-specific consent: An honest approach to phase I cancer studies. IRB Rev Human Subjects Res 1990; 12:5–7.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Minami H, Banik DM, Vogelzang NJ, Stadler NJ, Siegler M: Study of cohort-specific consent and patient control in phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:2305–2312.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher K. Daugherty

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations