Research Opportunities and Collaborative Multisite Studies in Psychosocial Hematology/Oncology

Author(s):  
Stan F. Whitsett ◽  
Brad H. Pollock

Over the past several decades, dramatic improvements in outcome have occurred for children treated for cancer. Many of these advances can be attributed to the benefits of multicenter research conducted within the context of a cooperative group clinical trials infrastructure (D’Angio & Vietti, 2001; Pediatric Oncology Group, 1992). Historically, the cooperative groups sponsored by the National Cancer Institute provided pooled expertise, centralized high-quality medical informatics resources, and access to large patient populations. This infrastructure enabled investigators to ask more focused research questions with greater statistical power as well as generalize research findings to the broader population. Although childhood cancer is by no means a rare disease, its incidence in the general population is sufficiently low that few single pediatric oncology treatment centers are likely to treat enough patients, representing an adequately homogeneous sample, to provide a robust evaluation of clinical outcomes. In many respects, multisite research has been necessary to acquire adequate sample sizes to allow appropriate statistical evaluations of treatment outcomes and generalization of these outcomes to the larger pediatric oncology population. Awareness of this fact led first to the development of small consortia of pediatric oncology centers and later to the formation of large multiinstitutional cooperative study groups to conduct controlled clinical therapeutic trials for pediatric cancer patients. Ultimately, the four major childhood cancer study groups (the Children’s Cancer Group, CCG; the Pediatric Oncology Group, POG; the National Wilms Tumor Study Group; and the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group) merged in 2000 to form a single collaborative group: the Children’s Oncology Group (COG). At present, the 238 institutions that comprise the COG provide the research infrastructure for the majority of pediatric oncology clinical trials conducted in North America, Australia, and parts of Europe. Moreover, because the COG member institutions include all major university and teaching hospitals throughout the United States and Canada, the majority of children diagnosed with cancer in North America will be treated at a COG member institution with the opportunity to be enrolled on a COG protocol. An early evaluation of referral patterns to the two largest cooperative groups enumerated the observed cancer cases from the CCG and POG cancer incidence registries.

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 1900-1905 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.J. Estlin ◽  
S. Cotterill ◽  
C.B. Pratt ◽  
A.D. J. Pearson ◽  
M. Bernstein

PURPOSE: To identify areas of concern regarding the conduct of phase I trials, the perceived expectations and motivations of the parents of children entered, the expectations of toxicity and benefit, and the ethical concerns of pediatric hematologists and oncologists in the United Kingdom and North America. METHODS: A survey instrument consisting of 19 open- and closed-ended questions was sent to United Kingdom Children’s Cancer Study Group (UKCCSG)– and Pediatric Oncology Group (POG)–affiliated pediatricians. RESULTS: Fifty-three UKCCSG- and 78 POG-affiliated pediatricians responded. Thirty-two UKCCSG and 51 POG respondents had previously entered at least one child into a phase I study. Overall, respondents believed that parents entered their children for medical benefit, altruism, and hope of cure. Although many respondents believed that children could benefit from medical improvement, feelings of altruism, and maintenance of hope, the chance of cure or complete remission was thought to be small. Similarly, parents were thought to potentially benefit through altruism and maintenance of hope. Whereas 83% of UKCCSG respondents indicated that phase I trials were associated with ethical difficulties, this was a concern for 48% of POG respondents. The main ethical concerns of respondents were risk of toxicity, consent of the child, unrealistic hope, and coercion. CONCLUSION: The respondents in this survey expressed mainly ethical concerns regarding the conduct of phase I trials and had realistic expectations of the potential for toxicity and benefit for those children who participate in these studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document