A study of motivations and expectations of patients seen in phase 1 oncology clinics

"If only I had", patients' experiences during early oncology trials

PURPOSE

Until today, it is not clear why patients decide to continue with early clinical trial (ECT) participation. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore to which extent the self-determination theory of Ryan and Deci, according to the ECT enrollment phase, corresponds to the motivations of participants during ECT's.

METHODS

This study has a qualitative design. Data were collected using semistructured interviews and were deductively analyzed in Nvivo12 using the thematic analysis approach of Braun and Clarke.

RESULTS

As a result of the deductive analysis performed, six themes and twenty subthemes emerged which matched the three personal needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (n = 11). "Competence" included the following themes: mixed future expectations, treatment expectations, and control of the outcome. "Relatedness" included the theme altruistic motivation. "Autonomy" included the themes; to live and act in harmony as well as mental and physical burden.

CONCLUSION

Participants felt they tried everything and that they were treated to the limit. This not only gives the motivation to continue participating but also a sense of altruism. Despite different burdens, side-effects, and the feeling of being a test subject, the participants will not easily choose to stop participation in order to prevent saying afterwards: "If only I had".

Motivations and experiences of patients with advanced cancer participating in Phase 1 clinical trials: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Persons with advanced cancer may participate in Phase 1 clinical trials - first-in-human trials that are conducted with the main objectives of safety and dosing. The motivations for participation are not well understood and may include hope for cure.

AIM

To explore the perspectives of persons with advanced cancer in order to understand the motivations for participating in Phase 1 clinical trials, experiences while being on trial and views on palliative care provision.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with a constructivist stance, using thematic analysis based upon the grounded theory approach.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

20 persons with advanced cancer who were participating in a Phase 1 clinical trial.

RESULTS

Many participants described how Phase 1 clinical trial participation was their last hope, as they were cognisant of their advanced disease. Information-seeking needs differed - some needed comprehensive information while others relied on the doctor's recommendation. Participants experienced varied negative and positive physical and psycho-emotional concerns, and needed to draw on multiple sources of support such as family, friends and healthcare professionals. Some could list potential benefits of palliative care but felt they did not require it yet. The overarching theme was hope and positive thinking as a way of coping.

CONCLUSIONS

The concepts of hope as a way of coping and the supportive presence of healthcare professionals could be weaved into a future model of palliative care to improve the illness journey for patients considering Phase 1 clinical trial participation and other persons with advanced cancer.

Cancer clinical trial providers' perspectives on communicating goals of care: A key informant study

Objectives

There has been limited research to date exploring provider communication in the context of cancer clinical trials. To elucidate multidisciplinary care providers' experiences, this qualitative study sought to understand their perspectives and communication patterns around goals of care discussions with patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials.

Methods

Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, chaplains, nurses, and administrative staff in a cancer research hospital (N=19). Data were analyzed and interpreted using thematic analysis.

Results

Providers hold varied perspectives on goals of care in cancer clinical trials, highlighting the tension and potential for misalignment between scientific and clinical (patient-centered) goals. Inherent institutional hierarchies may impede some team members from initiating goal discussions. Care transitions (e.g., stopping treatment or initiating hospice) offer critical opportunities for goals of care discussions.

Conclusion

Conflicting perspectives among team members, perceptions of provider roles, and communication patterns could help explain some of the communication challenges previously documented in advanced cancer and clinical trial care.

Innovation

This qualitative study contributes to the literature on healthcare team communication in the clinical trial context and highlights tangible opportunities to better leverage providers' diverse experience and improve patient-centered care.

Characteristics of Early Phase Clinical Trials for Rare Cancers: Insights From Interviews With Stakeholders

Background: Rare cancers occur with an incidence of no more than six cases per 100,000 people according to the definition used by the Surveillance of Rare Cancers in Europe project. For a variety of reasons (low prevalence, cytotoxicity), it is challenging to perform the necessary clinical studies to investigate the safety and efficacy of investigational medicines against such rare malignancies, reformulating even at the earliest stages of the drug development process. This article investigates the differences between phase I rare cancer trials performed in commercial (companies) and non-commercial settings (academic hospitals).

Materials and Methods: The differences were explored through the conduct of semi-structured interviews with three different stakeholder groups: representatives from academia (n = 7), representatives from companies (n = 4) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 4). All the interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed in NVivo using the framework method.

Results: According to the interviewees, the academic and commercial stakeholders collaborate in the majority of phase I rare cancer trials. In general, the commercial partner finances the trial, whereas academia is responsible for the execution of the study procedures. The average cost of undertaking these trials is difficult to estimate because it depends on what is specifically requested during the trial. The 3 + 3 study design remains the most widely used design and the use of expansion cohorts is controversial. With regard to the regulatory aspects of phase I rare cancer trials, it was expressed that a good regulatory framework facilitates the conduct of these studies, but that increased regulation and oversight also has drawbacks, e.g., differences in standards between different ethics committees, over interpretation of the rules, insufficient availability of qualified personnel and higher workloads. The patient organization representatives claimed that patients experience no differences in terms of accommodation, compensation and paperwork between the academic and commercial settings or the degree of follow-up. They also believed that the direct input of patients can bring added value to such studies not only with regard to the recruitment process and the feasibility of the study but also the legibility of the informed consent forms.

Conclusion: The growing need for first-in-man trials in rare malignancies needs to be highlighted, as difficult as they are to undertake and to co-develop, not only because rare cancer patients deserve an appropriate treatment, but also because these medicines represent the future of cancer therapy in the precision medicine era. Cooperation of commercial and academic sites are needed. Patient organizations need to be educated to take part in this process.

Development and Evaluation of a Decision Aid to Support Patients' Participatory Decision-Making for Tumor-Specific and Palliative Therapy for Advanced Cancer: Protocol for a Pre-Post Study

Background

To support advanced cancer patients and their oncologists in therapeutic decisions, we aim to develop a decision aid (DA) in a multiphased, bicentric study. The DA aims to help patients to better understand risks and benefits of the available treatment options including the options of standard palliative care or cancer-specific treatment (ie, off-label drug use within an individual treatment plan).

Objective

This study protocol outlines the development and testing of the DA in a pre-post study targeting a heterogeneous population of advanced cancer patients.

Methods

In the first step, we will assess patients’ information and decisional needs as well as the views of the health care providers regarding the content and implementation of the DA. Through a scoping review, we aim to analyze specific characteristics of the decision-making process and to specify the treatment options, outcomes, and probabilities. An interdisciplinary research group of experts will develop and review the DA. In the second step, testing of the DA (design and field testing) with patients and oncologists will be conducted. As a last step, we will run a pre-post design study with 70 doctor-patient encounters to assess improvements on the primary study outcome: patients’ level of decisional conflict. In addition, the user acceptance of all involved parties will be tested.

Results

Interviews with cancer patients, oncologists, and health care providers (ie, nurses, nutritionists) as well as a literature review from phase I have been completed. The field testing is scheduled for April 2021 to August 2021, with the final revision scheduled for September 2021. The pre-post study of the DA and acceptance testing are scheduled to start in October 2021 and shall be finished in September 2022.

Conclusions

A unique feature of this study is the development of a DA for patients with different types of advanced cancer, which covers a wide range of topics relevant for patients near the end of life such as forgoing cancer-specific therapy and switching to best supportive care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04606238; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04606238.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/24954

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of enhanced informed consent compared to standard informed consent to improve patient understanding of early phase oncology clinical trials (CONSENT)

INTRODUCTION

Early phase cancer clinical trials have become increasingly complicated in terms of patient selection and trial procedures-this is reflected in the increasing length of participant information sheets (PIS). Informed consent for early phase clinical trials has been contentious due to the potential ethical issues associated with performing experimental research on a terminally ill population which has exhausted standard treatment options. Empirical studies have demonstrated significant gaps in patient understanding regarding the nature and intent of these trials. This study aims to test whether enhanced informed consent for patient education can improve patient scores on a validated questionnaire testing clinical trial comprehension.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a randomised controlled trial that will allocate patients who are eligible to participate in one of four investigator-initiated clinical trials at the Royal Marsden Drug Development Unit to either a standard arm or an experimental arm, stratified by age and educational level. The standard arm will involve the full length trial PIS, followed by electronic or paper administration of the Quality of Informed Consent Questionnaire Parts A and B (QuIC-A and QuIC-B). The experimental arm will involve the full length trial PIS, exposure to a two-page study aid and 10 online educational videos, followed by administration of the QuIC-A and QuIC-B. The primary endpoint will be the difference (using a one-sided two-sample t-test) in the QuIC-A score, which measures objective understanding, between the standard and experimental arm. Accrual target is at least 17 patients per arm to detect an 8 point difference (80% power, alpha 0.05).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was granted by the National Health Service Health Research Authority on 15 June 2020-IRAS Project ID 277065, Protocol Number CCR5165, REC Reference 20/EE/0155. Results will be disseminated via publication in a relevant journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04407676; Pre-results.

Drug discovery oncology in a mouse: concepts, models and limitations

The utilization of suitable mouse models is a critical step in the drug discovery oncology workflow as their generation and use are important for target identification and validation as well as toxicity and efficacy assessments. Current murine models have been instrumental in furthering insights into the mode of action of drugs before transitioning into the clinic. Recent advancements in genome editing with the development of the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the possibility of applying such technology directly in vivo have expanded the toolkit of preclinical models available. In this review, a brief presentation of the current models used in drug discovery will be provided with a particular emphasis on the novel CRISPR/Cas9 models.

Anxiety Shapes Expectations of Therapeutic Benefit in Phase I Trials for Patients With Advanced Cancer and Spousal Caregivers

PURPOSE

Advanced cancer patients (ACP) hope to receive significant therapeutic benefit from phase I trials despite terminal disease and presumed symptom burdens. We examined associations between symptom burdens and expectations of therapeutic benefit for ACP and spousal caregivers (SC) during phase I trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort of ACP-SC enrolled in phase I trials was assessed at baseline and one month using symptom burden measures evaluating depression, state-trait anxiety, quality of life, global health, post-traumatic coping, and marital adjustment. Interviews evaluated expectations of benefit.

RESULTS

Fifty-two phase I ACP and 52 SC (N = 104) were separately assessed and interviewed at baseline and one month. Total population demographics included the following: median age 61 years (28-78), 50% male, 100% married, 90% White, and 46% ≥ college education. At T1, ACP reported symptoms of mild state anxiety, mild trait anxiety, poor global health, and quality of life. SC reported moderate state and mild trait anxiety and good global health with little disability at baseline. State anxiety was a significant predictor of ACP expectations for phase I producing the following therapeutic benefits: stabilization (P = .01), shrinkage (P < .01), and remission (P = .04). Regression analyses also revealed negative associations between SC expectation for stabilization and SC anxiety: state (P = .01) and trait (P = .02). ACP quality of life was also negatively associated with SC expectations for stabilization (P = .02) and shrinkage (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Anxiety, both state and trait, impacts couples' beliefs regarding the likelihood of therapeutic benefit from phase I trial participation.

How patients being treated for non-small cell lung cancer value treatment benefit despite side effects

PURPOSE

To describe symptoms and side effects experienced by patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), assess how patients allocate sensations (i.e. symptoms or side effects) to either the disease or its treatment, and evaluate how patients balance side effects with treatment benefits.

METHODS

Qualitative sub-studies were conducted as part of two clinical trials in patients treated for advanced NSCLC (AURA [NCT01802632]; ARCTIC [NCT02352948]).

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 23 patients and 19 patients in the AURA and ARCTIC sub-studies, respectively. The most commonly experienced symptoms/side effects were respiratory (81% of patients), digestive (76%), pain and discomfort (76%), energy-related (71%), and sensory (62%). Patients identified a sensation as a treatment side effect if they had not experienced it before, if there was a temporal link between the sensation and receipt of treatment, and/or if their doctors consistently told or asked them about it in relation to side effects. Themes that emerged when patients talked about their cancer treatment and its side effects related to the serious nature of their advanced disease and their treatment expectations. Patients focused on treatment benefits, wanting a better quality of life, being hopeful, not really having a choice, and not thinking about side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In these two qualitative sub-studies, patients with advanced NSCLC valued the benefits of their treatment regardless of side effects that they experienced. Patients weighed their options against the seriousness of their disease and expressed their willingness to tolerate their side effects in return for receiving continued treatment benefits.

Hematologists' barriers and enablers to screening and recruiting patients to a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy trial: a theory-informed interview study

BACKGROUND

Novel therapies often fail to reach the bedside due to low trial recruitment rates. Prior to conducting one of the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy trials in Canada, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework, a novel tool for identifying barriers and enablers to behavior change, to identify physician-related barriers and enablers to screening and recruiting patients for an early phase immunotherapy trial.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with hematologists across Canada and used a directed content analysis to identify relevant domains reflecting the key factors that may affect screening and recruitment.

RESULTS

In total, we interviewed 15 hematologists. Physicians expressed "cautious hope"; while expressing safety, feasibility, and screening criteria concerns, 14 out of 15 hematologists intended to screen for the trial (domains: knowledge, goals, beliefs about consequences, intentions). Physicians underscored the "challenging contexts," identifying resources, workload, forgetting, and patient wait times to receive CAR T cells as key practical barriers to screening (domains: environmental context and resources, memory, attention and decision-making, behavioral regulation). They also highlighted "variability in roles and procedures" that may lead to missed trial candidates (domain: social and professional role). Left unaddressed, these barriers may undermine trial recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is among the first to use the Theoretical Domains Framework from the physician perspective to identify recruitment challenges to early phase trials and demonstrates the value of this approach for identifying barriers to screening and recruitment that may not otherwise have been elicited. This approach can optimize trial procedures and may serve to inform future promising early phase cancer therapy trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03765177 . Registered on December 5, 2018.

Navigating choice in the face of uncertainty: using a theory informed qualitative approach to identifying potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy trial

OBJECTIVES

Bench to bedside translation of groundbreaking treatments like chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy depends on patient participation in early phase trials. Unfortunately, many novel therapies fail to be adequately evaluated due to low recruitment rates, which slows patient access to emerging treatments. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), we sought to identify potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial.

DESIGN

We used qualitative semistructured interviews to identify potential barriers and enablers to patients' hypothetical participation in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial. We used the TDF and directed content analysis to identify relevant domains based on frequency, relevance and the presence of conflicting beliefs.

PARTICIPANTS

Canadian adult patients diagnosed with haematological malignancies.

RESULTS

In total, we interviewed 13 participants (8 women, 5 men). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 73 (median=56) and had been living with haematological cancer from a few months to several years. We found participants were unfamiliar with CAR-T cell therapy but wished to know more about treatment safety, efficacy and trial logistics (domains: knowledge, beliefs about consequences). They were motivated by altruistic considerations, though many prioritised personal health benefits despite recognising the goals (ie, establishing safety) of early phase clinical trials (domains: goals, intentions). Every participant valued receiving medical advice from their haematologists and oncologists, though some preferred impartial medical experts to inform their decision making (domain: social influences). Finally, participants indicated that improving access to financial and social supports would improve their trial participation experience (domain: environmental context and resources).

CONCLUSION

Using the TDF allowed us to identify factors that might undermine participation to a CAR-T cell therapy trial and to optimise recruitment processes by considering patient perspectives to taking part in early phase trials.Trial regestration: NCT03765177; Pre-results.

Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent

BACKGROUND

Clinical cancer research trials may offer little or no direct clinical benefit to participants where a cure is no longer possible. As such, the decision-making and consent process for patient participation is often challenging.

AIM

To gain understanding of how patients make decisions regarding clinical trial participation, from the perspective of both the patient and healthcare professionals involved.

METHODS

In-depth, face to face interviews using a grounded theory approach. This study was conducted in a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Of the 36 interviews, 16 were conducted with patients with cancer that had non-curative intent and 18 with healthcare professionals involved in the consent process.

RESULTS

'Nothing to lose' was identified as the core category that underpinned all other data within the study. This highlighted the desperation articulated by participants, who asserted trial participation was the 'only hope in the room'. The decision regarding participation was taken within a 'trusting relationship' that was important to both patients and professionals. Both were united in their 'fight against cancer'. These two categories are critical in understanding the decision-making/consent process and are supported by other themes presented in the theoretical model.

CONCLUSION

This study presents an important insight into the complex and ethically contentious situation of consent in clinical trials that have non-curative intent. It confirms that patients with limited options trust their doctor and frequently hold unrealistic hopes for personal benefit. It highlights a need for further research to develop a more robust and context appropriate consent process.

Reprioritizing Risk and Benefit: The Future of Study Design in Early-Phase Cancer Research

The scientific purpose of phase I trials is to determine the maximum tolerated dose and/or optimal biological dose of experimental agents. Yet most participants in phase I oncology trials enroll hoping for direct medical benefit. The most common phase I trial designs use low starting doses and escalate cautiously in a "risk-escalation" model focused on minimizing risk for each participant. This approach ensures that a proportion of subjects will likely not receive any benefit, even if the intervention proves to be successful at appropriate doses. In this article, we propose that trial designs should employ dosing strategies that increase chances of providing benefit if the investigational agent should prove to be successful while limiting risk to reasonable levels. We then describe how adaptive trial designs can facilitate refined dose optimization based on both therapeutic benefit and toxicity, which can simultaneously decrease the risk of harm while increasing the chances of benefit.

Who Needs What? Perceptions of Patients and Caregivers in Oncology Phase 1 Trials

Background:

The study design and nature of oncology phase 1 clinical trials create a uniquely vulnerable patient population yet little research has been conducted to identify the added burden these trials create for both cancer patients and their caregiver(s).

Objective:

Examining the perceptions and needs of patients and their caregivers participating in phase 1 oncology clinical trials, the investigators tested the hypothesis that the caregiver will exhibit a higher level of burden and/or distress than the patient.

Method:

A mixed-methods exploratory process utilizing patient and caregiver interviews and quality-of-life questionnaires was used to assess the psychosocial burdens associated with oncology clinical trial participation. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the responses were 8 performed.

Result:

Both patients and caregivers reported similar themes identifying the burdens and benefits related to phase 1 clinical trial participation. However, the caregivers’ expressed burden exceeded that of the patients’ validating the study’s hypothesis.

Conclusion:

The need for ongoing additional support services for not only the patient but also the caregiver was identified.

Before Consent: Qualitative Analysis of Deliberations of Patients With Advanced Cancer About Early-Phase Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced cancer and oncologists deliberate about early-phase (EP) trials as they consider whether to pursue EP trial enrollment. We have limited information about those deliberations and how they may facilitate or impede trial initiation. This study describes these deliberations and their relationship to trial initiation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We collected longitudinal, ethnographic data on deliberations of patients with advanced cancer at two academic medical centers. We used constant comparative and framework analyses to characterize the deliberative process and its relationship to trial initiation.

RESULTS

Of 96 patients with advanced cancer, 26% initiated EP enrollment and 19% joined a trial. Constant comparative analysis revealed two foci of deliberation. Setting the stage focused on patient and physician support for EP trial involvement, including patients' interest in research and oncologists' awareness of trials and assessment of patient fit. Securing a seat focused on eligibility for and entrance to a specific trial and involved trial availability, treatment history, disease progression, and enrollment timing. Patients enrolled in a trial only when both stages could be successfully navigated.

CONCLUSION

Ethnographic data revealed two foci of deliberation about EP trial enrollment among patients with advanced cancer. Physician support played a consequential role in both stages, but enrollment also reflected factors beyond the control of any specific individual. Insights from this study, combined with other recent studies of trial enrollment, advance our understanding of the complex process of EP trial accrual and may help identify strategies to improve rates of participation.

Phase I trials as valid therapeutic options for patients with cancer

For many years, oncology phase I trials have been referred to as 'toxicity trials' and have been believed to have low clinical utility other than that of establishing the adverse event profile of novel therapeutic agents. The traditional distinction of clinical trials into three phases has been challenged in the past few years by the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapies into the routine management of patients with cancer. This transformation has especially affected early phase trials, leading to the current situation in which response rates are increasingly reported from phase I trials. In this Perspectives, we highlight key elements of phase I trials and discuss how each one of them contributes to a new paradigm whereby preliminary measurements of the clinical benefit from a novel treatment can be obtained in current phase I trials, which can therefore be considered to have a therapeutic intent.

Patient-Centered Cancer Drug Development: Clinical Trials, Regulatory Approval, and Value Assessment

Historically, patient experience, including symptomatic toxicities, physical function, and disease-related symptoms during treatment or their perspectives on clinical trials, has played a secondary role in cancer drug development. Regulatory criteria for drug approval require that drugs are safe and effective, and almost all drug approvals have been based only on efficacy endpoints rather than on quality-of-life (QoL) assessments. In contrast to Europe, information regarding the impact of drugs on patients' QoL is rarely included in oncology drug labeling in the United States. Until recently, patient input and preferences have not been incorporated into the design and conduct of clinical trials. In recent years, a more in-depth understanding of cancer biology, as well as regulatory changes focused on expediting cancer drug development and approval, has allowed earlier access to novel therapeutic agents. Understanding the implications of these expedited programs is important for oncologists and patients, given the rapid expansion of these programs. In this article, we provide an overview of the role of QoL in the regulatory drug-approval process, key issues regarding trial participation from the patient perspective, and the implications of key expedited approval programs that are increasingly being used by regulatory bodies for cancer care.

Ethical issues in the care of adolescent and young adult oncology patients

The diagnosis and treatment of cancer leads to short-term and long-term challenges for every patient. This is especially true for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer who strive to gain independence, autonomy, confidence, and social status while developing into adulthood. In this article, we review prominent ethical issues in AYA oncology that are related to autonomy, shared decision-making, care refusal or abandonment, end-of-life care, truth telling, and fertility preservation. Clinicians should recognize that AYA patients develop at their own pace; the onus lies with clinicians to determine the patient's interests, values, maturity, and desire to participate in decision-making.

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

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.

Informed Consent and Decision Making Among Participants in Novel-Design Phase I Oncology Trials

BACKGROUND

Although phase I clinical trials are the gateway to progress in cancer therapies, this setting poses ethical challenges to ensure that patients provide consent free from misunderstandings of therapeutic intent or unrealistic expectations of benefit. The design of phase I oncology trials has evolved rapidly over time and today includes more targeted agents and combinations of experimental drugs with standard drugs, which may further complicate how patients understand phase I research participation.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews regarding motivations, decision making, and understanding of trial purpose nested within a phase I clinical trial of a novel PI3kinase inhibitor combined with a standard oral chemotherapy in 18 participants.

RESULTS

Fewer than half of patients correctly identified the safety and dosing objectives. The inclusion of a targeted agent was attractive to participants and was perceived as an indicator of less toxic or more efficacious therapy, with less appreciation for added risks. The significance of a cellular drug target, without a known predictive biomarker of response, was unclear to patients. The inclusion of a standard drug in the regimen attracted patients with more treatment options than traditional first-in-human participants. Patients frequently expressed a realistic understanding of prognosis and uncertainty of benefit, but simultaneous hopes for extraordinary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Novel phase I oncology trial designs may attract patients with less constrained treatment options, but the inclusion of targeted drugs and combinations including standard chemotherapies is likely to complicate understanding of safety and dosing objectives and likelihood of personal benefit for purposes of informed consent.

Healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives on consent to clinical genetic testing: moving towards a more relational approach

BACKGROUND

This paper proposes a refocusing of consent for clinical genetic testing, moving away from an emphasis on autonomy and information provision, towards an emphasis on the virtues of healthcare professionals seeking consent, and the relationships they construct with their patients.

METHODS

We draw on focus groups with UK healthcare professionals working in the field of clinical genetics, as well as in-depth interviews with patients who have sought genetic testing in the UK's National Health Service (data collected 2013-2015). We explore two aspects of consent: first, how healthcare professionals consider the act of 'consenting' patients; and second how these professional accounts, along with the accounts of patients, deepen our understanding of the consent process.

RESULTS

Our findings suggest that while healthcare professionals working in genetic medicine put much effort into ensuring patients' understanding about their impending genetic test, they acknowledge, and we show, that patients can still leave genetic consultations relatively uninformed. Moreover, we show how placing emphasis on the informational aspect of genetic testing is not always reflective of, or valuable to, patients' decision-making. Rather, decision-making is socially contextualised - also based on factors outside of information provision.

CONCLUSIONS

A more collaborative on-going consent process, grounded in virtue ethics and values of honesty, openness and trustworthiness, is proposed.

Understanding how coping strategies and quality of life maintain hope in patients deliberating phase I trial participation

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand how hope and motivation of patients considering phase I trial participation are affected by psychological factors such as coping strategies and locus of control (LoC) and general well-being as measured by the quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

An exploratory cross-sectional study was performed in patients with incurable cancer (N = 135) referred to our phase I unit for the first time. Patients were potentially eligible for phase I trial participation and participated in our study while deliberating phase I trial participation. We used questionnaires on hope, motivation to participate, coping, LoC, and QoL. To investigate the nature and magnitude of the relationships between the scales, a structural equation modeling (SEM) was fitted to the data.

RESULTS

Hope significantly predicted the motivation to participate in phase I trials. Predictors of hope were a combination of flexible and tenacious goal pursuit (both P < .01), internal LoC (P < .01), and QoL (P < .01). The SEM showed an exact fit to the data, using a null hypothesis significance test: chi-square (8) = 9.30, P = .32.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients considering phase I trial participation seem to use a pact of tenacious and flexible coping and control to stay hopeful. Furthermore, hope and QoL positively affected each other. The psychological pact may promote an adaptation enabling them to adjust to difficult circumstances by unconsciously ignoring information, called dissonance reduction. This mechanism may impair their ability to provide a valid informed consent. We suggest including a systematic exploration of patients' social context and values before proposing a phase I trial.