Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 7/2007

01-07-2007 | Original Article

Phase I participants’ views of quality of life and trial participation burdens

Authors: Marlene Zichi Cohen, Jacquelyn Slomka, Rebecca D. Pentz, Anne L. Flamm, David Gold, Roy S. Herbst, James L. Abbruzzese

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 7/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Participants’ perception of quality of life (QOL) and respondent burden have significant implications for investigators’ ethical responsibilities to their subjects in phase I cancer trials. To address these responsibilities, analysis was conducted on participants’ views of their experiences of a phase I trial, including the associated burdens and what constitutes QOL.

Patients and methods

One hundred potential participants of the endostatin trial were surveyed. Sixteen of the 18 trial participants were interviewed extensively about their experiences on the trial.

Results

Participants described ‘normality’ as a baseline ability to function, be productive, and be free from symptoms of disease and side effects of treatment. Reflecting the relative nontoxicity of the study drug, participants contrasted their current QOL with their negative experience of previous cancer treatments and viewed their QOL as fairly good. However, participants emphasized that indirect and procedural burdens of trial participation had a significant impact on their current QOL.

Conclusions

Candid descriptions of a trial’s practical demands, in addition to potential physical complications in a trial, could improve the quality of informed consent.
Literature
1.
Agrawal M, Emanuel EJ (2003) Ethics of phase I oncology studies. Reexamining the arguments and data. JAMA 290:1075–1082PubMedCrossRef
2.
Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS (2002) The therapeutic misconception. Problems and solutions. Med Care 40(9):V55–V63 (Supplement)PubMedCrossRef
3.
Horng S, Grady C (2003) Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB 25(1):11–16PubMedCrossRef
4.
Cohen L, de Moor C, Amato R (2001) The association between treatment-specific optimism and depressive symptomatology in patients enrolled in a phase I cancer clinical trial. Cancer 91:1949–1955PubMedCrossRef
5.
Campbell S, Whyte F (1999) The quality of life of cancer patients participating in phase I clinical trials using SEIQoL-DW. J Adv Nurs 30:335–343PubMedCrossRef
6.
Cohen L, de Moor C, Parker PA, Amato RJ (2002) Quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma participating in a phase I trial of an autologous tumor-derived vaccine. Semin Urol Oncol 7:119–124
7.
Melink TJ, Clark GM, Von Hoff DD (1992) The impact of phase I clinical trials on the quality of life of patients with cancer. Anti-cancer Drugs 3:572–576CrossRef
8.
Moore S (2001) A need to try everything: patient participation in phase I trials. J Adv Nurs 33:738–747PubMedCrossRef
9.
Cox K (2000) Enhancing cancer clinical trial management: recommendations from a qualitative study of trial participants’ experiences. Psycho-oncol 9:314–322CrossRef
10.
Daugherty C, Ratain M, Grochowski E, Stocking C, Kodish E, Mick R, Siegler M (1995) Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 13:1062–1072PubMed
11.
Hutchinson C (1998) Phase I trials in cancer patients: participants’ perceptions. Eur J Cancer Care 7:15–22CrossRef
12.
Nurgat ZA, Craig W, Campbell NC, Bissett JD, Cassidy J, Nicolson MC (2005) Patient motivations surrounding participation in phase I and phase II clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 92:1001–1005PubMedCrossRef
13.
Ulrich C, Wallen G, Feister A, Grady C (2005) Respondent burden in clinical research: When are we asking too much of subjects? IRB 27(4):17–20PubMedCrossRef
14.
Pentz RD, Flamm AL, Sugarman J, Cohen MZ, Ayers GD, Herbst RS et al (2002) A study of the media’s potential influence on prospective research participants’ understanding of and motivations for participation in a high-profile phase I trial. J Clin Oncol 20:3785–3791PubMedCrossRef
15.
Cohen MZ, Kahn D, Steeves R (2000) Hermeneutic phenomenological research: a practical guide for nurse researchers. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
16.
Dowling M (2004). Hermeneutics: an exploration. Nurse Res 11(4):30–39PubMed
17.
Barritt L, Beekman T, Bleeker H, Mulderij K (1984). Analyzing phenomenological descriptions. Phenomenol + Pedagogy 2(1):1–17
Metadata
Title
Phase I participants’ views of quality of life and trial participation burdens
Authors
Marlene Zichi Cohen
Jacquelyn Slomka
Rebecca D. Pentz
Anne L. Flamm
David Gold
Roy S. Herbst
James L. Abbruzzese
Publication date
01-07-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 7/2007
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-007-0216-0

Other articles of this Issue 7/2007

Supportive Care in Cancer 7/2007 Go to the issue

Review Article

Reluctance to disclose difficult diagnoses: a narrative review comparing communication by psychiatrists and oncologists

Editorial

Childhood cancer—are there predictors of parental well-being?

Original Article

Elective removal of cuffed central venous catheters in children

Original Article

Pegfilgrastim as hematopoietic support for dose-dense chemoimmunotherapy with R-CHOP-14 as first-line therapy in elderly patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma

Supportive Care International

The current status of palliative care teams in Japanese University Hospitals: a nationwide questionnaire survey

Original Article

Assessment of clinical relevant fatigue level in cancer
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

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
Image Credits