Advertisement

When Cure Is Not the Goal: Ethical Issues Surrounding Early-Phase Research

  • Bryan SiskEmail author
  • Eric Kodish
Chapter

Abstract

Pediatric cancer was once a uniformly fatal disease. Sidney Farber, a pioneer of pediatric chemotherapy, was initially criticized for tormenting children by administering experimental chemotherapy when it would have been kinder and gentler to “let them die in peace.” [1] Now, almost 70 years later, the 5-year survival rates in pediatric leukemia are greater than 80% [2]. Clinical studies have served as the engine for these successes. Today, approximately 80% of children with cancer are enrolled in clinical trials. However, the benefits of these studies to society must be balanced against the risks to individual participants, and research subjects must be protected from coercion, exploitation, and any undue harm.

Keywords

Ethics Early-phase research Phase clinical trials Phase cancer trials Phase oncology trials Oncology Pediatric cancer Informed consent Children 

References

  1. 1.
    Mukherjee S. The emperor of all maladies: a biography of cancer. 1st Scribner hardcover ed. New York: Scribner; 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berg SL. Ethical challenges in cancer research in children. Oncologist. 2007;12(11):1336–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Nuremberg Code. 1949.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sisk B, Frankel R, Kodish E, Harry Isaacson J. The truth about truth-telling in American medicine: a brief history. Perm J. 2016;20(3):74–7.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ross L. Phase I research and the meaning of direct benefit. J Pediatr. 2006;149(1 Suppl):S20–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller VA, Drotar D, Kodish E. Children’s competence for assent and consent: a review of empirical findings. Ethics Behav. 2004;14(3):255–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zinner SE. The elusive goal of informed consent by adolescents. Theor Med. 1995;16(4):323–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bartholome WG. A new understanding of consent in pediatric practice: consent, parental permission, and child assent. Pediatr Ann. 1989;18(4):262–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ewald LS. Medical decision making for children: an analysis of competing interests. St Louis Univ Law J. 1982;25(4):689–733.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rickham PP. Human experimentation. Code of ethics of the world medical association. Declaration of Helsinkin. Br Med J. 1964;5(5402):177.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Unguru Y, Coppes MJ, Kamani N. Rethinking pediatric assent: from requirement to ideal. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2008;55(1):211–22.. xiiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nelson RM, Beauchamp T, Miller VA, Reynolds W, Ittenbach RF, Luce MF. The concept of voluntary consent. Am J Bioeth. 2011;11(8):6–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sinclair SJ. Involvement of adolescents in decision making for heart transplants. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2009;34(5):276–81; quiz 282–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hickey K. Minors’ rights in medical decision making. JONAS Healthc Law Ethics Regul. 2007;9(3):100–4; quiz 105–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bartholome WG. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995;96(5 Pt 1):981–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Committee on Bioethics, American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):314–7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Research involving children: report and recommendations. Washington, DC: DHEW; Pblication No. (OS) 77-0044. 1977.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 45 CFR 46. Subpart D -- additional protections for children involved as subjects in research. Fed Reg. 1983;48:9818.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levine RJ. Research involving children: an interpretation of the new regulations. IRB. 1983;5(4):1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hein IM, De Vries MC, Troost PW, Meynen G, Van Goudoever JB, Lindauer RJ. Informed consent instead of assent is appropriate in children from the age of twelve: policy implications of new findings on children’s competence to consent to clinical research. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(1):76.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    King NM, Cross AW. Children as decision makers: guidelines for pediatricians. J Pediatr. 1989;115(1):10–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yap TY, Yamokoski AD, Hizlan S, et al. Informed consent for pediatric phase 1 cancer trials: physicians’ perspectives. Cancer. 2010;116(13):3244–50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meade CD, Howser DM. Consent forms: how to determine and improve their readability. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1992;19(10):1523–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ogloff JR, Otto RK. Are research participants truly informed? Readability of informed consent forms used in research. Ethics Behav. 1991;1(4):239–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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):2211–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jubelirer SJ. Level of reading difficulty in educational pamphlets and informed consent documents for cancer patients. W V Med J. 1991;87(12):554–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldstein AO, Frasier P, Curtis P, Reid A, Kreher NE. Consent form readability in university-sponsored research. J Fam Pract. 1996;42(6):606–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cox K. Informed consent and decision-making: patients’ experiences of the process of recruitment to phases I and II anti-cancer drug trials. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;46(1):31–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koyfman SA, Reddy CA, Hizlan S, Leek AC, Kodish AE, Phase IICRT. Informed consent conversations and documents: a quantitative comparison. Cancer. 2016;122(3):464–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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):1062–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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):1772–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Johnson LM, Leek AC, Drotar D, et al. Practical communication guidance to improve phase 1 informed consent conversations and decision-making in pediatric oncology. Cancer. 2015;121(14):2439–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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):1435–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Simon C, Eder M, Kodish E, Siminoff L. Altruistic discourse in the informed consent process for childhood cancer clinical trials. Am J Bioeth. 2006;6(5):40–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Truong TH, Weeks JC, Cook EF, Joffe S. Altruism among participants in cancer clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2011;8(5):616–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moore S. A need to try everything: patient participation in phase I trials. J Adv Nurs. 2001;33(6):738–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tomamichel M, Jaime H, Degrate A, et al. Proposing phase I studies: patients’, relatives’, nurses’ and specialists’ perceptions. Ann Oncol. 2000;11(3):289–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Helft PR, Hlubocky F, Wen M, Daugherty CK. Associations among awareness of prognosis, hopefulness, and coping in patients with advanced cancer participating in phase I clinical trials. Support Care Cancer. 2003;11(10):644–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Agrawal M, Grady C, Fairclough DL, Meropol NJ, Maynard K, Emanuel EJ. Patients’ decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(27):4479–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barrera M, D’Agostino N, Gammon J, Spencer L, Baruchel S. Health-related quality of life and enrollment in phase 1 trials in children with incurable cancer. Palliat Support Care. 2005;3(3):191–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Deatrick J. Parents’ views of their children’s participation in phase I oncology clinical trials. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2002;19(4):114–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gordon EJ, Daugherty CK. Referral and decision making among advanced cancer patients participating in Phase I trials at a single institution. J Clin Ethics. 2001;12(1):31–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    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):457–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mack JW, Joffe S. Communicating about prognosis: ethical responsibilities of pediatricians and parents. Pediatrics. 2014;133 Suppl 1:S24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Casarett DJ, Karlawish JH, Henry MI, Hirschman KB. Must patients with advanced cancer choose between a Phase I trial and hospice? Cancer. 2002;95(7):1601–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hast Cent Rep. 1987;17(2):20–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Estlin EJ, Cotterill S, Pratt CB, Pearson AD, Bernstein M. Phase I trials in pediatric oncology: perceptions of pediatricians from the United Kingdom Children’s Cancer study group and the pediatric oncology group. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(9):1900–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Horng S, Grady C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB. 2003;25(1):11–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kamihara J, Nyborn JA, Olcese ME, Nickerson T, Mack JW. Parental hope for children with advanced cancer. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):868–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Crites J, Kodish E. Unrealistic optimism and the ethics of phase I cancer research. J Med Ethics. 2013;39(6):403–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    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(9):895–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lee DP, Skolnik JM, Adamson PC. Pediatric phase I trials in oncology: an analysis of study conduct efficiency. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8431–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shah S, Weitman S, Langevin A-M, Bernstein M, Furman W, Pratt C. Phase I therapy trials in children with cancer. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1998;20(5):431–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Joffe S, Miller FG. Rethinking risk-benefit assessment for phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(19):2987–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Critical role of phase I clinical trials in cancer treatment. American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(2):853–9.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kodish E. Pediatric ethics and early-phase childhood cancer research: conflicted goals and the prospect of benefit. Account Res. 2003;10(1):17–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(10):708–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hartford C, Volchenboum SL, Cohn SL. 3 + 3 not equal to (Rolling) 6. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(2):170–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Skolnik JM, Barrett JS, Jayaraman B, Patel D, Adamson PC. Shortening the timeline of pediatric phase I trials: the rolling six design. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(2):190–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhao L, Lee J, Mody R, Braun TM. The superiority of the time-to-event continual reassessment method to the rolling six design in pediatric oncology Phase I trials. Clin Trials. 2011;8(4):361–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Onar-Thomas A, Xiong Z. A simulation-based comparison of the traditional method, Rolling-6 design and a frequentist version of the continual reassessment method with special attention to trial duration in pediatric Phase I oncology trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010;31(3):259–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Newick K, Moon E, Albelda SM. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for solid tumors. Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2016;3:16006.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Johansson H, Andersson R, Bauden M, Hammes S, Holdenrieder S, Ansari D. Immune checkpoint therapy for pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(43):9457–76.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Calabrese L, Velcheti V. Checkpoint immunotherapy: good for cancer therapy, bad for rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(1):1–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Macy ME, Sawczyn KK, Garrington TP, Graham DK, Gore L. Pediatric developmental therapies: interesting new drugs now in early-stage clinical trials. Curr Oncol Rep. 2008;10(6):477–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Saletta F, Wadham C, Ziegler DS, et al. Molecular profiling of childhood cancer: biomarkers and novel therapies. BBA Clin. 2014;1:59–77.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Jain RK, Lee JJ, Hong D, et al. Phase I oncology studies: evidence that in the era of targeted therapies patients on lower doses do not fare worse. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(4):1289–97.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wong KM, Capasso A, Eckhardt SG. The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(2):106–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mussai FJ, Yap C, Mitchell C, Kearns P. Challenges of clinical trial design for targeted agents against pediatric leukemias. Front Oncol. 2014;4:374.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PediatricsWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Pediatric Hematology Oncology and Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic Main CampusClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Department of Bioethics and Department of Pediatrics, School of MedicineCancer Prevention Control and Population Research Program, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations