Ethical challenges in cancer research in children

Oncologist

Volumn 12, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 1336-1343

  Berg, Stacey L ^a,b  

^a BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b TEXAS CHILDREN S CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Clinical trials; Ethics; Pediatrics

Indexed keywords

CYTOTOXIC AGENT; IMATINIB; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY;

CANCER GROWTH; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER RISK; CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; CLINICAL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

CHILD; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; ETHICS, MEDICAL; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; RISK; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 36849018343     PISSN: 10837159     EISSN: 1549490X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.12-11-1336     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Incidence and Survival Among Children and Adolescents: United States SEER Program 1975-1995. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1999:1-182.
2. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92 (1915).
3. Salgo v. Leland Stanford etc. Bd. Trustees, 154 Cal. App. 2d 560. (1957).
4. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, 181-182. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/references/nurcode. htm Accessed October 30, 2007.
5. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/ guidance/belmont.htm Accessed October 30, 2007.
6. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD et al. Quality of informed consent:Anew measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:139-147.
7. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. JAMA 2004;292:1593-1601.
8. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S et al. Improving the readability and processability of a pediatric informed consent document: Effects on parents' understanding. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:347-352.
9. Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: So why are they lengthening? J Clin Oncol 2007;25:e13-e14.
10. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S. Do they understand? (part I): Parental consent for children participating in clinical anesthesia and surgery research. Anesthesiology 2003;98:603-608.
11. Daugherty CK. Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: A medical oncology perspective. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1601-1617.
12. U.S. Federal Government. Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46: Health and Welfare, Protection of Human Subjects. Washington: U.S. Federal Government, October 10, 1999.
13. Field MJ, Behrman RE, eds. Ethical conduct of clinical research involving children. Washington: National Academies Press, 2004:146-211.
14. Kodish ED, Pentz RD, Noll RB et al. Informed consent in the Children's Cancer Group: Results of preliminary research. Cancer 1998;82:2467-2481.
15. Levi RB, Marsick R, Drotar D et al. Diagnosis, disclosure, and informed consent: Learning from parents of children with cancer. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2000;22:3-12.
16. Sloper P. Needs and responses of parents following the diagnosis of childhood cancer. Child Care Health Dev 1996;22:187-202.
17. American Academy of Pediatrics. Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Studies to Evaluate Drugs in Pediatric Populations. Pediatrics 1995;95:286-294.
18. Kimberly MB, Hoehn KS, Feudtner C et al. Variation in standards of research compensation and child assent practices: A comparison of 69 institutional review board-approved informed permission and assent forms for 3 multicenter pediatric clinical trials. Pediatrics 2006;117:1706-1711.
19. Mammel KA, Kaplan DW. Research consent by adolescent minors and institutional review boards. J Adolesc Health 1995;17:323-330.
20. Whittle A, Shah S, Wilfond B et al. Institutional review board practices regarding assent in pediatric research. Pediatrics 2004;113:1747-1752.
21. U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Assessing risks and potential benefits and evaluating vulnerability. In: Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2000:69-85.
22. Weijer C. The ethical analysis of risk. J Law Med Ethics 2000;28:344-361.
23. Estey EH, Thall PF. New designs for phase 2 clinical trials. Blood 2003;102:442-448.
24. Gehan EA. The determination of the number of patients required in a preliminary and a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. J Chronic Dis 1961;13:346-353.
25. Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky RL et al. Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1637-1643.
26. Simon R. How large should a phase II trial of a new drug be? Cancer Treat Rep 1987;71:1079-1085.
27. Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:1-10.
28. Marshall E. The power of the front page of The New York Times. Science 1998;280:996-997.
29. Abelson R. Silicon Investor. May 9, 1998. Available at http://www.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/reply-4396827. Accessed October 30, 2007.
30. Pentz RD, Flamm AL, Sugarman J et al. 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 2002;20:3785-3791.
31. Ryan DP, Penson RT, Ahmed S et al. Reality testing in cancer treatment: The phase I trial of endostatin. The Oncologist 1999;4:501-508.
32. Mello MM, Brennan TA. The controversy over high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant for breast cancer. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001;20:101-117.
33. Sordillo P, Shaffner K. The last patient in a drug trial. Hastings Cent Rep 1981;11:21-23.
34. Cox K, Avis M. Ethical and practical problems of early anti-cancer drug trials: A review of the literature. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 1996;5:90-95.
35. Daugherty CK. Ethical issues in the development of new agents. Invest New Drugs 1999;17:145-153.
36. Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Minami H et al. Study of cohort-specific consent and patient control in phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2305-2312.
37. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C. The therapeutic misconception: Informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry 1982;5:319-329.
38. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW et al. False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 1987;17:20-24.
39. Horng S, Grady C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: Distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB 2003;25:11-16.
40. Glannon W. Phase I oncology trials: Why the therapeutic misconception will not go away. J Med Ethics 2006;32:252-255.
41. Henderson GE, Easter MM, Zimmer C et al. Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials. Soc Sci Med 2006;62:239-253.
42. Oberman M, Frader J. Dying children and medical research: Access to clinical trials as benefit and burden. Am J Law Med 2003;29:301-317.
43. Ross L. Phase I research and the meaning of direct benefit. J Pediatr 2006;149(1 suppl):S20-S24.
44. Estey E, Hoth D, Simon R et al. Therapeutic response in phase I trials of antineoplastic agents. Cancer Treat Rep 1986;70:1105-1115.
45. Shah S, Weitman S, Langevin AM et al. Phase I therapy trials in children with cancer. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1998;20:431-438.
46. Von Hoff DD, Turner J. Response rates, duration of response, and dose response effects in phase I studies of antineoplastics. Invest New Drugs 1991;9:115-122.
47. Druker BJ, Talpaz M, Resta DJ et al. Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1031-1037.
48. Smith M, Bernstein M, Bleyer WA et al. Conduct of phase I trials in children with cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:966-978.
49. T.D. et al. v. New York State Office of Mental Health et al. December 22, 1997. 91 N.Y. 2d 860, 690 N.E. 2d 1259, 668 N.SY.S. 2d 153 [T.D. v. N.Y. State of Mental Health, 228 A.D. 2d 95 (Court 1996)].
50. Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. 366 Md 29, 782 A2d 807 (2001), reconsideration denied (October 11, 2001).
51. Kopelman LM. Children as research subjects: Moral disputes, regulatory guidance, and recent court decisions. Mt Sinai J Med 2006;73:596-604.
52. Anderson BD, Adamson PC, Weiner SL et al. Tissue collection for correlative studies in childhood cancer clinical trials: Ethical considerations and special imperatives. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4846-4850.