Ethics and the Underreporting of Research Biopsy Findings in Clinical Trials

Decision making for invasive and non-invasive optional procedures within an acute HIV research cohort in Bangkok

Clinical research regularly includes required, nontherapeutic procedures to answer research questions. Optional procedures usually offer minimal or no personal benefit and may involve harms and burdens. Members from the Bangkok SEARCH010/RV254 HIV research cohort of individuals acutely HIV-infected are recruited to six optional procedures varying in invasiveness: leukapheresis, genital secretions collection, lumbar puncture, brain MRI/MRS/DTI, colon biopsy, and lymph node biopsy. We surveyed cohort members about their first recruitment for each procedure to examine factors associated with decision making and attitudes about compensation. 406 members (68%) completed the survey. Reported procedure participation ranged from 71% (MRI) to 27% (lymph node biopsy). Respondents underwent 0-6 procedure types (median 3). Ordinal regression indicated that lower perceived HIV impact and HIV remission trial participation were associated with more procedures completed. Reports of decision difficulty varied, and feeling pressured by research staff was low overall. Notably, those who declined procedures and those who underwent more invasive procedures reported greater decision difficulty and perceived pressure. Most respondents felt compensation amounts were appropriate, although opinions differed by procedure, and for some procedures, between people who agreed and declined. There is limited literature regarding consent to and attitudes about optional research procedures. Researchers must consider how to best support voluntary decisions for procedures with little personal benefit, particularly in lower-income or marginalized populations. In this longitudinal research cohort, perceived pressure to participate may be a concern, although our finding of variation in participation rates corresponding to invasiveness is reassuring. Data from different research contexts would provide important comparators.

An analysis of research biopsy core variability from over 5000 prospectively collected core samples

Factors correlated with biopsy tissue adequacy and the prevalence of within-biopsy variability were evaluated. Totally, 1149 research biopsies were performed on 686 patients from which 5090 cores were assessed. Biopsy cores were reviewed for malignant percentage (estimated percentage of cells in the core that were malignant) and malignant area (estimated area occupied by malignant cells). Linear mixed models and generalized linear mixed models were used for the analysis. A total of 641 (55.8%) biopsies contained a core with <10% malignant percentage (inadequate core). The chance of an inadequate core was not influenced by core order, though the malignant area decreased with each consecutive core (p < 0.001). Younger age, bone biopsy location, appendiceal tumor pathology, and responding/stable disease prior to biopsy increased the odds of a biopsy containing zero adequate cores. Within-biopsy variability in core adequacy is prevalent and suggests the need for histological tumor quality assessment of each core in order to optimize translational analyses.

Umbrella and basket trials in oncology: ethical challenges

BACKGROUND

Novel precision oncology trial designs, such as basket and umbrella trials, are designed to test new anticancer agents in more effective and affordable ways. However, they present some ethical concerns referred to scientific validity, risk-benefit balance and informed consent. Our aim is to discuss these issues in basket and umbrella trials, giving examples of two ongoing cancer trials: NCI-MATCH (National Cancer Institute - Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) and Lung-MAP (Lung Cancer Master Protocol) study.

MAIN BODY

We discuss three ethical requirements for clinical trials which may be challenged in basket and umbrella trial designs. Firstly, we consider scientific validity. Thanks to the new trial designs, patients with rare malignancies have the opportunity to be enrolled and benefit from the trial, but due to insufficient accrual, the trial may generate clinically insignificant findings. Inadequate sample size in study arms and the use of surrogate endpoints may result in a drug approval without confirmed efficacy. Moreover, complexity, limited quality and availability of tumor samples may not only introduce bias and result in unreliable and unrepresentative findings, but also can potentially harm patients and assign them to an inappropriate therapy arm. Secondly, we refer to benefits and risks. Novel clinical trials can gain important knowledge on the variety of tumors, which can be used in future trials to develop effective therapies. However, they offer limited direct benefits to patients. All potential participants must wait about 2 weeks for the results of the genetic screening, which may be stressful and produce anxiety. The enrollment of patients whose tumors harbor multiple mutations in treatments matching a single mutation may be controversial. As to informed consent - the third requirement we discuss, the excessive use of phrases like "personalized medicine", "tailored therapy" or "precision oncology" might be misleading and cause personal convictions that the study protocol is designed to fulfill the individual health-related needs of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that further approaches should be implemented to enhance scientific validity, reduce misunderstandings and risks, thus maximizing the benefits to society and to trial participants.