Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics in Clinical Cancer Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Methods and Biostatistics in Oncology

  • 1637 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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

References

  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. https://doi.org/10.1183/09059180.00004214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tröhler U. Lind and scurvy: 1747 to 1795. J R Soc Med. 2005;98(11):519–22. PMID 16260808

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms1603756.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 16192409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Djulbegovic B. The paradox of equipoise: the principle that drives and limits therapeutic discoveries in clinical research. Cancer Control. 2009;16:342–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283:2701–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fromer MJ. FDA introduces new phase 0 for clinical trials: some enthusiastic, some skeptical. Oncology Times. 2006;28:18–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Murgo AJ, Kummar S, Rubinstein L, et al. Designing phase 0 cancer clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:3675–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Abdoler E, Taylor H, Wendler D. The ethics of phase 0 oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:3692–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Truong TH, Weeks JC, Cook EF, Joffe S. Altruism among participants in cancer clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2011;8:616–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Arai RJ, Longo ES, Sponton MH, Del Pilar Estevez Diz M. Bringing a humanistic approach to cancer clinical trials. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:738.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 1121–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Decoster G, Stein G, Holdener EE. Responses and toxic deaths in phase I clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 1990;1:175–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jansen LA, Mahadevan D, Appelbaum PS, et al. Dispositional optimism and therapeutic expectations in early-phase oncology trials. Cancer. 2016;122:1238–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Dresser R. First-in-human trial participants: not a vulnerable population, but vulnerable nonetheless. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37:38–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jonas H. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus. 1969;98:219–47.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lipsett MB. On the nature and ethics of phase I clinical trials of cancer chemotherapies. JAMA. 1982;248:941–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wong KM, Capasso A, Eckhardt SG. The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13:106–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature. 2016;536:285–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Forbes SA, Beare D, Boutselakis H, et al. COSMIC: somatic cancer genetics at high-resolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D777–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. de Bono JS, Ashworth A. Translating cancer research into targeted therapeutics. Nature. 2010;467:543–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Mamzer MF, Duchange N, Darquy S, et al. Partnering with patients in translational oncology research: ethical approach. J Transl Med. 2017;15:74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Savage N. Privacy: the myth of anonymity. Nature. 2016;537:S70–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, et al. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science. 2013;339:321–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science. 2013;340:1049–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kronenthal C, Delaney SK, Christman MF. Broadening research consent in the era of genome-informed medicine. Genet Med. 2012;14:432–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:406–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Erlich Y, Narayanan A. Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:409–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Beecher HK. The powerful placebo. J Am Med Assoc. 1955;159:1602–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Turner JA, Deyo RA, Loeser JD, et al. The importance of placebo effects in pain treatment and research. JAMA. 1994;271:1609–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Chvetzoff G, Tannock IF. Placebo effects in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:19–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Chaput de Saintonge DM, Herxheimer A. Harnessing placebo effects in health care. Lancet. 1994;344:995–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Zion D. Ethical considerations of clinical trials to prevent vertical transmission of HIV in developing countries. Nat Med. 1998;4:11–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Emanuel EJ. Reconsidering the Declaration of Helsinki. Lancet. 2013;381:1532–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Chiodo GT, Tolle SW, Bevan L. Placebo-controlled trials: good science or medical neglect? West J Med. 2000;172:271–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Comis RL, Miller JD, Aldige CR, et al. Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:830–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Prasad V, Grady C. The misguided ethics of crossover trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37:167–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Gupta U, Verma M. Placebo in clinical trials. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4:49–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Miranda Vda C, Fede AB, Lera AT, et al. How to consent without understanding? Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2009;55:328–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CLION, CAM Group, Salvador, BA, Brazil

    Rodrigo Santa C. Guindalini M.D., Ph.D.

  2. Department of Radiology and Oncology, State of São Paulo Cancer Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Rodrigo Santa C. Guindalini M.D., Ph.D.

  3. Department of Clinical Oncology, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Rachel P. Riechelmann M.D., Ph.D.

  4. Clinical Research Unit, State of São Paulo Cancer Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Roberto Jun Arai M.Sc., Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Rodrigo Santa C. Guindalini M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel P. Riechelmann M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roberto Jun Arai M.Sc., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital do Câncer de Barretos, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil

    Raphael. L.C Araújo

  2. AC Camargo Cancer Center, Dir - Brazil Gastrointestinal Tumor Grup, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Rachel P. Riechelmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Guindalini, R.S.C., Riechelmann, R.P., Arai, R.J. (2018). Ethics in Clinical Cancer Research. In: Araújo, R., Riechelmann, R. (eds) Methods and Biostatistics in Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71324-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71324-3_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71323-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71324-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation