A study of informed consent (IC), age, and cognitive function (CF) among advanced cancer patients (acp) in phase I trials

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6548-6548
Author(s):  
F. J. Hlubocky ◽  
E. Larson ◽  
G. Sachs ◽  
C. K. Daugherty
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Digit Span ◽  
Verbal Learning ◽  
Psychological Status ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Trail Making

6548 Background: Ethical concerns exist about acps’ ability to provide adequate informed consent (IC) for phase I trials. While cognitive impairment (CI) among acp is well-recognized due to multiple factors, e.g., previous effects of chemotherapy, age, psychological status, the prevalence of CI among acp in phase I trials has never been described. Methods: Acp CF was assessed using a neuropsychological battery of instruments: Hopkins Verbal Learning (HVLT); Verbal Fluency; Mini-Cognitive Assessment; Trail-making (Parts A& B); Boston Naming (short); WAIS subtests (Comprehension and Digit Span). Acp underwent semi-structured interviews to evaluate elements of IC, and completed the FACT-COG and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Results: To date, a total of 34 acp enrolling in Phase I trials have been studied. Median age: 63y (range: 38–81y); 77% male; 77% Caucasian; 67% > HS education. Regarding IC understanding: Only 20% of responding acp correctly identified the purpose of Phase I trials; all subjects could recall risks of side effects, correctly stated they could refuse trial participation, and stated they could withdraw at anytime; 53% believed the trial was their only option. Older acp (>age 55y) were less likely to correctly describe the research purpose of the trial (29% v. 71% p=0.02). Older acp had measurable deficits in CF: Boston Naming (14±0.9 v.15±0.3, p=0.09); HVLT Total Recall (14±2 v.26±6, p<0.00) and Discrimination Index (7.5±3 v.11±1, p=0.03); Digit Span-Backwards (4±2 v.7±2, p<0.00); Trail-making B (244±64 v.188±51, p=0.04). While there were no differences in perceived CI (95±18 v.101±19, p=0.5) or impact on quality of life (25±7 v. 27±5, p=0.5), both groups had scores well below prior reported means. Older acp tended to report depressive symptoms more than younger acp (8±2 v.6±1, p=0.07). Conclusions: Our data suggest that CF may play a role in acp understanding of IC for clinical trials, especially among the elderly. Further research is needed, given ethical concerns regarding elderly acp in clinical trials of experimental agents who may have CI. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Investigator Disclosure and Advanced Cancer Patient Understanding of Informed Consent and Prognosis in Phase I Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. e357-e367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fay J. Hlubocky ◽  
Nancy E. Kass ◽  
Debra Roter ◽  
Susan Larson ◽  
Kristen E. Wroblewski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Interaction Analysis ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Medical Benefits

Purpose: Advanced cancer patients (ACPs) who participate in phase I clinical trials often report a less-than-ideal understanding of the required elements of informed consent (IC) and unrealistic expectations for anticancer benefit and prognosis. We examined phase I clinical trial enrollment discussions and their associations with subsequent ACP understanding. Methods: Clinical encounters about enrollment in phase I trials between 101 ACPs and 29 oncologists (principal investigators [PIs] and fellows) at three US academic medical institutions were recorded. The Roter Interaction Analysis System was used for analysis. ACPs completed follow-up questionnaires to assess IC recall. Results: PIs disclosed the following phase I IC elements to ACPs in encounters: trial purpose in 40%; specific physical risks in 60%; potential specific medical benefits gained by trial participation (eg, disease stabilization) in 48.2%; and alternatives to phase I trial participation in 47.1%, with 1.1% of encounters containing palliative and 2.3% hospice information. PIs provided ACP-specific prognoses in 29.0% of encounters but used precise terms of death in only 4.7% and terminal in 1.2%. A significant association existed between PI disclosure of the trial purpose as dosage/toxicity, and ACPs subsequently correctly recalled trial purpose versus PIs who did not disclose it (85% v 13%; P < .05). Conclusion: Many oncologists provide incomplete disclosures about phase I trials to ACPs. When disclosure of certain elements of IC occurs, it seems to be associated with better recall, especially with regard to the research purpose of phase I trials.

scholarly journals Healthy Volunteers’ Perceptions of the Benefits of Their Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 494-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill A. Fisher ◽  
Lisa McManus ◽  
Megan M. Wood ◽  
Marci D. Cottingham ◽  
Julianne M. Kalbaugh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Employment Status ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Financial Compensation ◽  
Trial History

Other than the financial motivations for enrolling in Phase I trials, research on how healthy volunteers perceive the benefits of their trial participation is scant. Using qualitative interviews conducted with 178 U.S. healthy volunteers enrolled in Phase I trials, we investigated how participants described the benefits of their study involvement, including, but not limited to, the financial compensation, and we analyzed how these perceptions varied based on participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and clinical trial history. We found that participants detailed economic, societal, and noneconomic personal benefits. We also found differences in participants’ perceived benefits based on gender, age, ethnicity, educational attainment, employment status, and number of clinical trials completed. Our study indicates that many healthy volunteers believe they gain more than just the financial compensation when they accept the risks of Phase I participation.

A Tale of Three Cultures

2020 ◽  
pp. 75-99
Author(s):  
Jill A. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
West Coast ◽  
East Coast ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Hybrid Culture ◽  
Active Pursuit

Despite similar financial goals among healthy volunteers, there are regional differences in the culture of Phase I participation. Chapter 3 focuses on this theme to further unpack variations in how patterns of imbricated stigma influence healthy volunteers’ perceptions of Phase I trials, particularly with respect to the longevity of their study involvement. Specifically, East Coast participants tend to be well-networked as part of their long-term, active pursuit of clinical trials, but they often also express anti-capitalist critiques of the industry. In comparison, Midwesterners tend to be more passive about their trial participation, thinking of it as a short-term financial opportunity to counterbalance a temporary setback. West Coast participants occupy a hybrid culture between those of the East Coast and Midwest participants, actively seeking out new studies but expressing a distrust in the clinics and wanting to limit their study involvement. These regional cultures act as a prism for healthy volunteers’ perceptions of Phase I trials, shaping whether and how they adopt identities as research participants.

scholarly journals Do Patients With Advanced Cancer Have the Ability to Make Informed Decisions for Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials?

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (24) ◽  
pp. 2483-2491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fay J. Hlubocky ◽  
Greg A. Sachs ◽  
Eric R. Larson ◽  
Halla S. Nimeiri ◽  
David Cella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Executive Function ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Trail Making Test ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Trail Making

Purpose Patients with advanced cancer (ACPs) participating in phase I clinical trials inadequately understand many elements of informed consent (IC); however, the prevalence and impact of cognitive impairment has not been described. Patients and Methods ACPs enrolled onto phase I trials underwent neuropsychological assessment to evaluate cognitive functioning (CF) covering the following domains: memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test), executive functioning (Trail Making Test B), language (Boston Naming Test-Short Version and Controlled Oral Word Association Test), attention (Trail Making Test A and Wechsler Adult Intelligenence Scale-IV Digit Span), comprehension (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV), and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Cognitive Function). Structured interviews evaluated IC and decisional capacity. Psychological measures included distress (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) and depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II). Results One hundred eighteen ACPs on phase I trials were evaluated, with CF ranging from mild impairment to superior performance. Only 45% of ACPs recalled physician disclosure of the phase I trial purpose. The 50% of ACPs who correctly identified the phase I research purpose had greater CF compared with ACPs who did not, as revealed by the mean T scores for memory (37.2 ± 5.6 v 32.5 ± 5.1, respectively; P = .001), attention (29 ± 2.7 v 26.9 ± 2.4, respectively; P < .001), visual attention (35.2 ± 6.6 v 31.5 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .001), and executive function (38.9 ± 7.5 v 34 ± 7.1, respectively; P < .001). Older ACPs (≥ 60 years) were less likely to recall physician disclosure of phase I purpose than younger ACPs (30% v 70%, respectively; P = .02) and had measurable deficits in total memory (34.2 ± 5.0 v 37.3 ± 5.6, respectively; P = .002), attention (24.5 ± 2.6 v 28 ± 2.8, respectively; P < .001), and executive function (32.8 ± 7.3 v 36.4 ± 7.6, respectively; P = .01). Older ACPs, compared with younger ACPs, also had greater depression scores (10.6 ± 9.2 v 8.1 ± 5.2, respectively; P = .03) and lower quality-of-life scores (152 ± 29.6 v 167 ± 20, respectively; P = .03). After adjustment by age, no psychological or neuropsychological variable was further significantly associated with likelihood of purpose identification. Conclusion CF seems to play a role in ACP recall and comprehension of IC for early-phase clinical trials, especially among older ACPs.

A study of physician investigator (PI) disclosure of alternatives of care and prognostic information to advanced cancer patients (ACP) enrolling in phase I trials

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6508-6508
Author(s):  
C. Daugherty ◽  
N. E. Kass ◽  
D. Roter ◽  
S. Larson ◽  
J. Sugarman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Interaction Analysis ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Prognostic Information ◽  
Clinical Encounters ◽  
Analysis System

6508 Background: ACP in phase I trials have been described as having an inadequate understanding of several elements of informed consent. However, actual PI disclosure of alternatives to trial participation and prognostic information, and subsequent ACP understanding of these elements, have not been described. Methods: Clinical encounters between 131 ACP entering phase I trials and 25 oncologists at three institutions (University of Chicago; Johns Hopkins; and Duke University) were audio-taped. ACP completed follow-up questionnaires one week later to assess understanding of informed consent elements. Audiotapes were analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) and specifically coded for terms associated with trial alternatives and patient prognosis. Results: To date, 85 encounters have been analyzed. Average encounters length: 30.4 min (range: 5.7–77.8 min). For ACP: median age 60y (33–83); 55% female; 88% Ca; 55% <college educ; 52% income <$60,000. The PI was recorded as discussing options other than anticancer treatment in 47% of encounters. The terms “palliative” or “hospice” were used in 1% and 2.3% of encounters respectively. In 29% of encounters the PI described the option of “doing nothing”. The PI used the terms “death” or “terminal” in 5.8% encounters. The PI was never recorded using the term “dying”. Within these encounters, no ACP was recorded as using any of the following terms: “palliative,” “hospice,” “terminal,” “death,” “dying.” Within follow-up interviews, 30% reported no alternatives to trial participation were discussed; 1% reported that palliative care/hospice was discussed. Based on coding of qualitative responses, 53% of ACP said that either their prognosis was excellent or they didn't know their prognosis. An association was found between recorded physician statements regarding general prognosis and ACP subsequently reporting having discussion regarding life expectancy (59% v. 33%, p = 0.04). Conclusions: PI communication and subsequent measured understanding regarding alternatives to trial participation and prognosis remain inadequate in the setting of phase I trial enrollment. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Healthy volunteers in US phase I clinical trials: Sociodemographic characteristics and participation over time

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0256994
Author(s):  
Corey A. Kalbaugh ◽  
Julianne M. Kalbaugh ◽  
Lisa McManus ◽  
Jill A. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Sociodemographic Characteristics ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Over Time

Background Increasing the diversity of research participants is an important focus of clinical trials. However, little is known regarding who enrolls as healthy volunteers in Phase I clinical trials, which test the safety and tolerability of investigational new drugs. Despite the risk, healthy volunteers can derive no medical benefit from their participation, and they are financially compensated for enrolling. Objective This study’s purpose is to describe sociodemographic characteristics and clinical trial participation histories of healthy people who enroll in US Phase I trials. Methods The HealthyVOICES Project (HVP) is a longitudinal study of healthy individuals who have enrolled in Phase I trials. We describe self-reported sociodemographic information and Phase I trial history from HVP recruitment (May-December 2013) through the project’s end three years later (December 2016). Trial experiences are presented as medians and quartiles. Results The HVP included 178 participants. Nearly three-fourths of participants were male, and two-thirds were classified as racial and ethnic minorities. We found that some groups of participants were more likely to have completed a greater number of clinical trials over a longer timeframe than others. Those groups included participants who were male, Black, Hispanic, 30-39-years-old, unemployed, had received vocational training in a trade, or had annual household incomes of less than $25,000. Additionally, the greater the number of clinical trials participants had completed, the more likely they were to continue screening for new trials over the course of three years. Participants who pursued clinical trials as a full-time job participated in the greatest number of trials and were the most likely to continuing screening over time. Implications Participation as a healthy volunteer in US Phase I trials is driven by social inequalities. Disadvantaged groups tend to participate in a greater number of clinical trials and participate longer than more privileged groups.

Cognitive function (CF) and prognostic information understanding in advanced cancer patients (ACP)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9516-9516
Author(s):  
F. J. Hlubocky ◽  
E. Larson ◽  
M. J. Ratain ◽  
G. Sachs ◽  
C. K. Daugherty
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Cognitive Function ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Digit Span ◽  
Verbal Learning ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Prognostic Information

9516 Background: The role of advanced cancer patients' (ACP) cognitive function (CF) and its relationship to understanding of a terminal prognosis has never been formally evaluated. Methods: ACP CF was evaluated among a population of terminally-ill patients enrolling in phase I trials at our institution using a neuropsychological battery designed to assess several domains of decisional capacity: Memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning HVLT); Executive Functioning (Verbal Fluency and Trail-making A/B); Language (Boston Naming-short); Attention (Digit Span); Comprehension (Auditory Comprehension & WAIS comprehension). Semi-structured interviews of ACPs also evaluated md-pt communication regarding prognosis, and included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), BDI-II, and the FACT-COG. Results: To date, 110 ACP enrolling in phase I trials have been interviewed: median age 60 (23–83); 66% male; 88% Ca; 62% married; 71% >high school education; 52% GI dx. 59% of ACPs reported having a discussion regarding life expectancy, and 55% stated that the physician gave them a prognostic timeframe regarding the amount of time left to live. ACP who stated the physician did not provide them a timeframe had measurable deficits in CF as indicated by Z scores for HVLT immediate recall (-1.3 ± .84 v -.74 ± 1.1, p=.03); total recall (-1.9 ± 1.2 v -1.2 ±1.5, p=.02); delayed recall (-1.7 ± 1.6 v -1.1 ±1.6, p=.04); language (.26 ± 1.3 v .78 ± .68, p=.03); Trails B (-1.6 ± 2.5 v -.61 ± 2.2, p=.04) and WAIS comprehension ss scores (14 ± 2.9 v 16 ± 3.0, p=.06). These ACP tended to exhibit more depressive symptoms (12 ± 10 v 6 ± 3, p=.04) and had lower scores for perceived cognitive impairment (96 ± 25 v 105 ±16, p=.04); impact on quality of life (26 ± 7 v 28 ± 5, p=.03); and FACT-COG total (152 ± 31 v 164 ± 22, p=.05). Conclusions: ACP enrolling in phase I trials who could not recall specific prognostic information had measurable cognitive impairment as compared to those ACP who could recall such information. Our data indicate that CF may play a role in ACP communication and/or understanding of prognostic information. [Table: see text]

Study of cohort-specific consent and patient control in phase I cancer trials.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 2305-2312 ◽  
Author(s):  
C K Daugherty ◽  
M J Ratain ◽  
H Minami ◽  
D M Banik ◽  
N J Vogelzang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Phase I Trial ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials

PURPOSE To address the challenging ethical dilemmas created from the participation of advanced cancer patients in phase I trials, we assessed the feasibility of a clinical trial design that uses an interactive informed consent process in which patient-subjects can choose to become directly involved in decisions of dose escalation. PATIENTS AND METHODS Subjects were advanced cancer patients in the Hematology/Oncology Clinics at the University of Chicago who were eligible to participate in a phase I trial in which they underwent a three-step informed consent process that used cohort-specific consent and allowed them the option to choose their own doses of the chemotherapeutic agents under study, vinorelbine (NVB) and paclitaxel (TAX), within predetermined limits. NVB and TAX were administered in conventional 21- to 28-day cycles for two cycles while on study. Dose escalation occurred when a patient-subject chose a higher untested dose after they received information on all previously assessable patient-subjects. In addition to the phase I trial itself, a survey that consisted of structured interviews, which sought to evaluate patients' experiences with the interactive subject-choice phase I trial design and consent process, was conducted with participating subjects. The phase I trial itself sought to determine the associated toxicities of the agents under study. The survey results were compared with a similar survey of a matched control population of subjects who participated in other concurrently active conventional phase I trials at our institution. RESULTS Twenty-nine patient-subjects participated in the phase I trial, with 24 who agreed to and completed the survey interviews. Seventy-six percent of patient-subjects opted to choose their dose of the agents under study, and 28% chose the highest available doses. More than half of the patient-subjects (56%) felt some degree of comfort in being asked to choose their dose of chemotherapy, with 53% stating that being asked to choose their dose made them feel in control, fully informed, or content. However, there were no statistically significant improvements in objective measures of the informed consent process, which included surveyed subjects' stated understanding of either provided information about phase I trials and alternatives to trial participation or of the research purpose of phase I trials. By making choices, the group of patients in the interactive subject choice trial changed the size of the dose cohorts and modified the process of dose escalation in this phase I study. CONCLUSION Although complex, our innovative phase I trial design is feasible. In addition to the use of cohort-specific consent, the trial design may reduce the magnitude of many of the commonly recognized ethical dilemmas associated with this form of clinical research, which include difficulties with information provision and the understanding of possible risks and benefits of phase I trial participation, through direct subject involvement in research decision making by otherwise potentially vulnerable cancer patients.

scholarly journals Appraising Harm in Phase I Trials: Healthy Volunteers' Accounts of Adverse Events

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa McManus ◽  
Arlene Davis ◽  
Rebecca L. Forcier ◽  
Jill A. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Trial Participant ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Investigational Drugs ◽  
Motivation To Participate

While risk of harm is an important focus for whether clinical research on humans can and should proceed, there is uncertainty about what constitutes harm to a trial participant. In Phase I trials on healthy volunteers, the purpose of the research is to document and measure safety concerns associated with investigational drugs, and participants are financially compensated for their enrollment in these studies. In this article, we investigate how characterizations of harm are narrated by healthy volunteers in the context of the adverse events (AEs) they experience during clinical trials. Drawing upon qualitative research, we find that participants largely minimize, deny, or re-attribute the cause of these AEs. We illustrate how participants' interpretations of AEs may be shaped both by the clinical trial environment and their economic motivation to participate. While these narratives are emblematic of the larger ambiguity surrounding harm in the context of clinical trial participation, we argue that these interpretations also problematically maintain the narrative of the safety of clinical trials, the ethics of testing investigational drugs on healthy people, and the rigor of data collected in the specter of such ambiguity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document