FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 347:2134-2140 December 26, 2002 Number 26 Next

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

ABSTRACT

Background Ethicists have suggested that written consent forms encourage participants in phase 1 cancer trials to expect benefit from the experimental agent and to overlook serious risks.

Methods To evaluate the written description of direct benefit as well as risk, all consent forms for 1999 phase 1 cancer trials were compiled from 80 percent of the National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers and from six of eight large pharmaceutical developers of anticancer drugs. In each case, we evaluated the characteristics of the trial, the descriptions of the purpose and procedures of the research, the promise of benefit, the description of risks, and the description of alternatives.

Results Of 272 forms, 268 explicitly mentioned that the trial was research, and 249 stated that the purpose of the trial was testing for safety. Nearly all forms (269) mentioned the right to withdraw from the trial. Almost all forms (260) referred to the experimental agent as "treatment" or "therapy." Only one consent form promised direct benefit to subjects. Most forms (181) mentioned death as a risk, and very few (14) mentioned cure as even a possible benefit. Most (229) stated that there was unknown risk involved and indicated that severe or permanent harms were possible (224).

Conclusions Consent forms for phase 1 oncology studies almost never promise direct benefit to subjects, rarely mention cure, and usually communicate the seriousness and unpredictability of risk. Although there is room for improvement, the substance of these forms is unlikely to be the primary source of misunderstanding by subjects in phase 1 oncology trials.

Source Information

From the Department of Clinical Bioethics, Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. (S.H., E.J.E., B.W., J.R., C.G.); and the Emmes Corporation, Rockville, Md. (K.M.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Grady at the Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, Bldg. 10, Rm. 1C118, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20892-1156, or at cgrady{at}nih.gov.

Full Text of this Article

Related Letters:

Consent Forms for Oncology Trials
Geyer S. J., Menikoff J., Grady C., Emanuel E. J., Horng S.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1496-1497, Apr 10, 2003. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Weinfurt, K. P., Seils, D. M., Tzeng, J. P., Compton, K. L., Sulmasy, D. P., Astrow, A. B., Solarino, N. A., Schulman, K. A., Meropol, N. J. (2008). Expectations of Benefit in Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Implications for Assessing the Adequacy of Informed Consent. Med Decis Making 28: 575-581 [Abstract]  
• Italiano, A., Massard, C., Bahleda, R., Vataire, A.-L., Deutsch, E., Magne, N., Pignon, J.-P., Vassal, G., Armand, J.-P., Soria, J.-C. (2008). Treatment outcome and survival in participants of phase I oncology trials carried out from 2003 to 2006 at Institut Gustave Roussy. Ann Oncol 19: 787-792 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Agrawal, M., Grady, C., Fairclough, D. L., Meropol, N. J., Maynard, K., Emanuel, E. J. (2006). Patients' Decision-Making Process Regarding Participation in Phase I Oncology Research. JCO 24: 4479-4484 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Markman, M. (2006). "Therapeutic intent" in phase 1 oncology trials: a justifiable objective.. Arch Intern Med 166: 1446-1448 [Full Text]  
• Rosa, D. D., Harris, J., Jayson, G. C. (2006). The Best Guess Approach to Phase I Trial Design. JCO 24: 206-208 [Full Text]  
• Lo, B., Zettler, P., Cedars, M. I., Gates, E., Kriegstein, A. R., Oberman, M., Reijo Pera, R., Wagner, R. M., Wuerth, M. T., Wolf, L. E., Yamamoto, K. R. (2005). A New Era in the Ethics of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Stem Cells 23: 1454-1459 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Rothschild, B. B., King, N. M.P., Muggia, F. M., Sekine, I., Tamura, T., Miller, M. J., Horstmann, E., Emanuel, E. J., Grady, C., Kurzrock, R., Benjamin, R. S. (2005). Phase 1 Clinical Trials in Oncology. NEJM 352: 2451-2453 [Full Text]  
• Kimmelman, J, Palmour, N (2005). Therapeutic optimism in the consent forms of phase 1 gene transfer trials: an empirical analysis. J. Med. Ethics 31: 209-214 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Roberts, T. G. Jr, Goulart, B. H., Squitieri, L., Stallings, S. C., Halpern, E. F., Chabner, B. A., Gazelle, G. S., Finkelstein, S. N., Clark, J. W. (2004). Trends in the Risks and Benefits to Patients With Cancer Participating in Phase 1 Clinical Trials. JAMA 292: 2130-2140 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Weinfurt, K. P. (2004). Discursive Versus Information-Processing Perspectives on a Bioethical Problem: The Case of 'Unrealistic' Patient Expectations. Theory Psychology 14: 191-203 [Abstract]  
• Mazur, D. J (2003). Influence of the law on risk and informed consent. BMJ 327: 731-734 [Full Text]  
• Agrawal, M., Emanuel, E. J. (2003). Ethics of Phase 1 Oncology Studies: Reexamining the Arguments and Data. JAMA 290: 1075-1082 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Geyer, S. J., Menikoff, J., Grady, C., Emanuel, E. J., Horng, S. (2003). Consent Forms for Oncology Trials. NEJM 348: 1496-1497 [Full Text]  
• Byock, I., Miles, S. H. (2003). Hospice Benefits and Phase I Cancer Trials. ANN INTERN MED 138: 335-337 [Abstract] [Full Text]