Communicating and Understanding the Purpose of Pediatric Phase I Cancer Trials

Susan R. Rheingold, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 18.43). 10/2012; 30(35). DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.3004
Source: PubMed


PURPOSEQuality informed consent should provide a clear understanding of the purpose of the research. Given the ethical challenges of pediatric phase I cancer trials, it is important to investigate physician-parent communication during informed consent conferences (ICCs) and parental understanding of the purpose of these studies. METHODS
In the multisite Informed Consent in Pediatric Phase I Cancer Trials study, 85 ICCs for phase I research between June 2008 and May 2011 were directly observed, and 60 parents were subsequently interviewed. The scientific purpose was defined as composite understanding of drug safety, dose finding, and dose escalation. We determined the frequency with which physicians explained these and other phase I-related concepts during the ICC. Parent interviews were analyzed to determine understanding.ResultsThe child was present at 83 of 85 ICCs. Only 32% of parents demonstrated substantial understanding of the scientific purpose of phase I cancer trials; 35% demonstrated little or no understanding. Parents of higher socioeconomic status and racial majority status were more likely to understand the scientific purpose. Factors associated with understanding included physician explanation of the goal of the applicable phase I protocol offered (explained in 85% of ICCs) and explanation of the dose cohorts (explained in 43% of ICCs). Physicians explained drug safety in 23% of ICCs, dose finding in 52% of ICCs, and dose escalation in 53% of ICCs. CONCLUSION
Many parents of children participating in phase I trials do not understand the purpose of these trials. Physician-parent communication about the purpose of phase I research is lacking during ICCs.

Download full-text


Available from: Melissa Cousino, Jan 07, 2016
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One of the most pressing ethical challenges facing phase I cancer research centres is the process of informed consent. Historically, most scholarship has been devoted to redressing therapeutic misconception, that is, the conflation of the nature and goals of research with those of therapy. While therapeutic misconception continues to be a major ethical concern, recent scholarship has begun to recognise that the informed consent process is more complex than merely a transfer of information and therefore cannot be evaluated only according to how well an individual understands such information. Other components of decision-making operate independently of understanding and yet still may compromise the quality of informed consent. Notable among these components is unrealistic optimism, an event-specific belief that one has a better chance of receiving benefit than others similarly situated. In this article, we consider responses to interviews with parents who had recently completed an informed consent conference for enrolling their child in a phase I cancer clinical trial to examine how this influence manifests and how investigators might address it during informed consent.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2012 · Journal of medical ethics
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to examine adolescent patients' perspectives on their understanding and decision making about a pediatric Phase I cancer study. Participants included adolescents ages 14–21 years with cancer (N = 20), all of whom attended a Phase I study consent conference. Participants responded to closed- and open-ended questions on a verbally administered structured interview, which assessed aspects of understanding and decision making about the Phase I study. All participants decided to enroll in the Phase I study. The majority of participants understood that participation was voluntary, entailed risks, and that they could withdraw. Most also believed that participation in the Phase I study would increase the length of their lives. The most frequent reasons for enrolling were positive clinical benefit, needing an option, impact on quality of life, and few side effects or fewer than those of current or past treatments. Eighty-five percent of participants reported that they themselves made the final decision about enrollment in the Phase I study. Most participants hoped or expected that the Phase I study would provide a direct benefit (increased survival time or cure) and reported that they themselves were the final decision-maker about enrollment. Clinicians may underestimate the role of adolescents, especially if they believe that parents typically make such decisions. Future research should assess the actual participation of children and adolescents during the informed consent process and explore the role of hope in their decision making about Phase I studies. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013; 60: 873–878.
    No preview · Article · May 2013 · Pediatric Blood & Cancer
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The practice of pediatric/neonatal interfacility transport continues to expand. Transport teams have evolved into mobile ICUs capable of delivering state-of-the-art critical care during pediatric and neonatal transport. The most recent document regarding the practice of pediatric/neonatal transport is more than a decade old. The following article details changes in the practice of interfacility transport over the past decade and expresses the consensus views of leaders in the field of transport medicine, including the American Academy of Pediatrics' Section on Transport Medicine.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2013 · PEDIATRICS
Show more