Evaluating the risks and benefits of phase II and III cancer clinical trials: A look at institutional review board members in the Netherlands

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 13-18

  Van Luijn, H E M ^a   Musschenga, A W ^a   Keus, R B ^b   Aaronson, N K ^c  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b Arnhems Radiotherapeutisch Instituut   (Netherlands)

^c ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEOPLASM; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 33846828817     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. The Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO). International Publication Series Health, Welfare and Sports, The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, 2000, 2.
2. Cox K. Informed consent and decision-making: Patient's experiences of the process of recruitment to phase I and II anti-cancer drug trials. Patient Education and Counseling 2002;46(1):31-38;
3. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD et al. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: A cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2001;358(9295): 1771-1777;
4. Dresser R. The ubiquity and utility of the therapeutic misconception. Social Philosophy & Policy 2002;19(2):271-294;
5. Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Grisso T. Therapeutic misconception in clinical research: Frequency and risk factors. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2004;26(2): 1-8.
6. King NMP, Henderson CE, Churchill I.R et al. Consent forms and the therapeutic misconception: The example of Gene Transfer Research. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2004;27(1):1-8.
7. Meslin EM. Ethical issues in the substantive and procedural aspects of research ethics review. Health Law in Canada 1993a;13(3):179-191;
8. Meslin EM. Philosophical considerations about risks and risks assessment in medical research. In: Koren G, ed. Textbook of Ethics in Pediatric Research. Malabar: Krieger Publishing, 1993b, p. 37-55.
9. See ref. 3, Meslin 1993a,b; Meslin EM. Protecting human subjects from harm in medical research. A proposal for improving risk judgements by Institutional Review Boards. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington DC, 1989;
10. Meslin EM, Lavery JV, Sutherland HJ et al. Judging the ethical merit of clinical trials: What criteria do research ethics board members use? IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1994:16 (4):6-10;
11. Berghmans RLP, Ter Meulen RHJ, de MAM Wachter. Medisch-ethische toetsing van geneesmiddelenonderzoek in Nederland. [Medical ethical review of research in pharmaceuticals in The Netherlands]. Maastricht: The Institute of Health Ethics, 1997.
12. van Luijn HEM. Evaluation of oncological phase II clinical studies by Institutional Review Board members in The Netherlands. In: World Medical Association. Proceedings of the 13th World Congress on Medical Law, vol. 2; 2000 Aug 6-10; Helsinki; Finland. Helsinki: National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, 2000:1171-81;
13. van Luijn HEM, Musschenga AW, Keus RB et al. Assessment of the risk/benefit ratio of Phase II cancer clinical trials by Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. Annals of Oncology 2002;13 (8):1307-1313.
14. van Luijn HEM, Aaronson NK, Keus RB et al. The evaluation of risk and benefit of phase II cancer clinical trials by Institutional Review Board (IRB) members: A case study. Journal of Medical Ethics2006;32:170-176.
15. Phase II and III cancer clinical trials both study questions of therapeutic effect. Phase II trials, typically involving a limited number of patients, address the question of whether a new therapeutic agent or treatment has an antitumor effect. Phase III clinical trials are typically larger in size and randomize patients between a standard and an experimental treatment.
16. See ref. 5, Meslin 1993a,b, Meslin 1989, Meslin et al., 1994, Levine RJ, 1986: Martin et al., 1995.
17. See ref. 2, Meslin 1989;
18. See ret. 2, Meslin et al. 1994;
19. Churchill LR, Nelson DK, Henderson GE et al. Assessing benefits in clinical research: Why diversity in benefit assessment can be risky. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 2003,25;(3):1-8.
20. Martin DK, Meslin EM, Kohut N et al. The incommensurability of research risks and benefits: Practical help for research ethics committees. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1995;17(2):8-10.
21. See ref. 5, Martin et al., 1995.
22. Ackerman TF. The ethics of Phase I pediatric oncology trials. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1995;17(1):1-5.
23. Till JH, Surherland HJ & Meslin EM. Is there a role for preference assessment in research on quality of life? Quality of Life Research 1992;1 (1):31-40.
24. Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ et al. Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public.BMJ 1990;300 (6737):1458-1460.
25. Daugherty CK, Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: A medical oncology perspective. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1999;17(5): 1601-1617;
26. Cox K. Informed consent and decision-making: Patient's experiences of the process of recruitment to phase I and II anticancer drug trials. Patient Education and Counseling 2002;46(1):31-38;
27. Cox K. Assessing the quality of life of patients in phase I and II anti-cancer drug trials: Interview versus questionnaires. Social Science & Medicine 2003;56(5):921-934;
28. Joffe S, Cook FE, Cleary PD et al. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: A cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2001;358(9295):1771- 1777.