Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 9/2010

01-09-2010 | Review Article

Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature from January 2005 to July 2009

Authors: Valerie A. Jenkins, John L. Anderson, Lesley J. Fallowfield

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 9/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective and methods

A review conducted in 2005 identified many of the communication difficulties experienced by patients and doctors when discussing phase 1 (P1) oncology trials. The current paper is an update of the area and focuses on studies that measure patient comprehension of information given during the P1 trial discussion and ways to enhance understanding. A literature search was performed for relevant articles published between January 2005 and July 1st 2009.

Results

Only 12/109 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. One study recorded the actual trial discussion and compared patients’ understanding with what the clinician had communicated. The others used interview techniques and surveys to elicit patients’ understanding of P1 trials, motivations for considering trials and expectations of benefit. Two examined interventions to aid patient understanding.

Conclusion

Explaining potential participation in a P1 trial with a patient with cancer is not an easy task: the doctor must ensure that the patient has an accurate understanding of their condition and that standard treatments have now been exhausted. This must be followed by admission of the probable lack of any therapeutic benefit from the P1 drug together with the possibility that there might be unwanted side effects, many of which are unknown. These are all challenging subjects. New educational initiatives informed through research conducted with patients and health care professionals are currently being developed and clearly much needed.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ho J et al (2006) Barriers in phase I cancer clinical trials referrals and enrollment: five-year experience at the Princess Margaret Hospital. BMC Cancer 6:263CrossRefPubMed Ho J et al (2006) Barriers in phase I cancer clinical trials referrals and enrollment: five-year experience at the Princess Margaret Hospital. BMC Cancer 6:263CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Christakis NA (1999) Death foretold: Prophecy and prognosis in medical care. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, p 328 Christakis NA (1999) Death foretold: Prophecy and prognosis in medical care. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, p 328
3.
go back to reference Cox AC, Fallowfield LJ, Jenkins VA (2006) Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature. Support Care Cancer 14(4):303–309CrossRefPubMed Cox AC, Fallowfield LJ, Jenkins VA (2006) Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature. Support Care Cancer 14(4):303–309CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C (1982) The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry 5(3–4):319–329CrossRefPubMed Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C (1982) The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry 5(3–4):319–329CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Henderson GE et al (2006) Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials. Soc Sci Med 62(1):239–253CrossRefPubMed Henderson GE et al (2006) Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials. Soc Sci Med 62(1):239–253CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Miller FG, Joffe S (2008) Benefit in phase 1 oncology trials: therapeutic misconception or reasonable treatment option? Clin Trials 5(6):617–623CrossRefPubMed Miller FG, Joffe S (2008) Benefit in phase 1 oncology trials: therapeutic misconception or reasonable treatment option? Clin Trials 5(6):617–623CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Arkenau HT et al (2008) Clinical outcome and prognostic factors for patients treated within the context of a phase I study: the Royal Marsden Hospital experience. Br J Cancer 98(6):1029–1033CrossRefPubMed Arkenau HT et al (2008) Clinical outcome and prognostic factors for patients treated within the context of a phase I study: the Royal Marsden Hospital experience. Br J Cancer 98(6):1029–1033CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kass N et al (2008) Purpose and benefits of early phase cancer trials: what do oncologists say? What do patients hear? J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 3(3):57–68CrossRefPubMed Kass N et al (2008) Purpose and benefits of early phase cancer trials: what do oncologists say? What do patients hear? J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 3(3):57–68CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Agrawal M et al (2006) Patients’ decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research. J Clin Oncol 24(27):4479–4484CrossRefPubMed Agrawal M et al (2006) Patients’ decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research. J Clin Oncol 24(27):4479–4484CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Cohen MZ et al (2007) Phase I participants’ views of quality of life and trial participation burdens. Support Care Cancer 15(7):885–890CrossRefPubMed Cohen MZ et al (2007) Phase I participants’ views of quality of life and trial participation burdens. Support Care Cancer 15(7):885–890CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Weinfurt KP et al (2008) Expectations of benefit in early-phase clinical trials: implications for assessing the adequacy of informed consent. Med Decis Making 28(4):575–581CrossRefPubMed Weinfurt KP et al (2008) Expectations of benefit in early-phase clinical trials: implications for assessing the adequacy of informed consent. Med Decis Making 28(4):575–581CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Flynn KE et al (2008) Decisional conflict among patients who accept or decline participation in phase I oncology studies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 3(3):69–77CrossRefPubMed Flynn KE et al (2008) Decisional conflict among patients who accept or decline participation in phase I oncology studies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 3(3):69–77CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Nurgat ZA et al (2005) Patient motivations surrounding participation in phase I and phase II clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 92(6):1001–1005CrossRefPubMed Nurgat ZA et al (2005) Patient motivations surrounding participation in phase I and phase II clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 92(6):1001–1005CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Strevel EL et al (2007) The impact of an educational DVD on cancer patients considering participation in a phase I clinical trial. Support Care Cancer 15(7):829–840CrossRefPubMed Strevel EL et al (2007) The impact of an educational DVD on cancer patients considering participation in a phase I clinical trial. Support Care Cancer 15(7):829–840CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Weinfurt KP et al (2005) Understanding of an aggregate probability statement by patients who are offered participation in Phase I clinical trials. Cancer 103(1):140–147CrossRefPubMed Weinfurt KP et al (2005) Understanding of an aggregate probability statement by patients who are offered participation in Phase I clinical trials. Cancer 103(1):140–147CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Kass NE et al (2009) An intervention to improve cancer patients’ understanding of early-phase clinical trials. Irb 31(3):1–10PubMed Kass NE et al (2009) An intervention to improve cancer patients’ understanding of early-phase clinical trials. Irb 31(3):1–10PubMed
17.
go back to reference Finlay E et al (2009) Do phase 1 patients have greater needs for palliative care compared with other cancer patients? Cancer 115(2):446–453CrossRefPubMed Finlay E et al (2009) Do phase 1 patients have greater needs for palliative care compared with other cancer patients? Cancer 115(2):446–453CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Arkenau HT et al (2009) Clinical benefit of new targeted agents in phase I trials in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Oncology 76(3):151–156CrossRefPubMed Arkenau HT et al (2009) Clinical benefit of new targeted agents in phase I trials in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Oncology 76(3):151–156CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Carlson LE, Bultz BD, Morris DG (2005) Individualized quality of life, standardized quality of life, and distress in patients undergoing a phase I trial of the novel therapeutic Reolysin (reovirus). Health Qual Life Outcomes 3:7CrossRefPubMed Carlson LE, Bultz BD, Morris DG (2005) Individualized quality of life, standardized quality of life, and distress in patients undergoing a phase I trial of the novel therapeutic Reolysin (reovirus). Health Qual Life Outcomes 3:7CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Finlay E, Casarett D (2009) Making difficult discussions easier: using prognosis to facilitate transitions to hospice. CA Cancer J Clin 59(4):250–263CrossRefPubMed Finlay E, Casarett D (2009) Making difficult discussions easier: using prognosis to facilitate transitions to hospice. CA Cancer J Clin 59(4):250–263CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Joffe S, Miller FG (2006) Rethinking risk-benefit assessment for phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 24(19):2987–2990CrossRefPubMed Joffe S, Miller FG (2006) Rethinking risk-benefit assessment for phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 24(19):2987–2990CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Weinfurt KP (2008) Varieties of uncertainty and the validity of informed consent. Clin Trials 5(6):624–625, discussion 630CrossRefPubMed Weinfurt KP (2008) Varieties of uncertainty and the validity of informed consent. Clin Trials 5(6):624–625, discussion 630CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Tomamichel M et al (1995) Informed consent for phase I studies: evaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients. Ann Oncol 6(4):363–369PubMed Tomamichel M et al (1995) Informed consent for phase I studies: evaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients. Ann Oncol 6(4):363–369PubMed
24.
go back to reference Siminoff LA, Fetting JH (1989) Effects of outcome framing on treatment decisions in the real world: impact of framing on adjuvant breast cancer decisions. Med Decis Making 9(4):262–271CrossRefPubMed Siminoff LA, Fetting JH (1989) Effects of outcome framing on treatment decisions in the real world: impact of framing on adjuvant breast cancer decisions. Med Decis Making 9(4):262–271CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Kass NE (2008) Early phase clinical trials: communicating the uncertainties of ‘magnitude of benefit’ and ‘likelihood of benefit’. Clin Trials 5(6):627–629CrossRefPubMed Kass NE (2008) Early phase clinical trials: communicating the uncertainties of ‘magnitude of benefit’ and ‘likelihood of benefit’. Clin Trials 5(6):627–629CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature from January 2005 to July 2009
Authors
Valerie A. Jenkins
John L. Anderson
Lesley J. Fallowfield
Publication date
01-09-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 9/2010
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0836-7

Other articles of this Issue 9/2010

Supportive Care in Cancer 9/2010 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine